Ordinances 1262 and 1265

Vacant Properties Registration and Fines

Sharon Smith, Cambridge Association of Neighborhoods

City Council is undertaking a program to determine the number of vacant properties within the corporate limits through Ordinance 1262 – Vacant Commercial Properties and Ordinance 1265 – Vacant Residential Properties and return them to productive use. The two ordinances share common language, so they are addressed in this one communique.

The intent of Council is clear and laudable, get people living and working in Cambridge.  However, there are already sufficient municipal powers within Code Enforcement and Land Bank to address the issue of vacant and poorly maintained residential properties.  The proposed ordinance defines a cumbersome new bureaucratic process that will burden all concerned and require considerable effort by City employees. In addition to creating a new registry probably containing information that is in, or should be in Code Enforcement files, new forms and signs created, multiple notifications to owners by the city may be required along with lien filings and potentially multiple $500 and $1000 fines for residential violations that can be imposed arbitrarily without owner notification or delay. Fines for commercial violations are $250 and $500. There is no stated delay between levying fines, so owners can be fined each and every day, as the ordinance currently reads “Every day that a violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense and shall be subject to a separate fine without further action required by the city. Any owner of a vacant storefront who shall fail to register the same as required by this article shall be liable for said fine without notice.”

Nowhere in these ordinances does it clearly state that properties that are not returned to use are subject to fines after one year. Only re-registration is clearly required. And no action, except for registration and sign posting, is clearly required within the first year that these ordinances are enacted. Code enforcement can be a much faster remedy.

Also, the owner must post a sign on the property and re-register the property annually or within 15 days (the time limit is not specified for storefronts) if registration information changes.  The proposed ordinance also does not appear to exempt registering weekend residential properties, many which are lovingly restored by part-time owners. Rental properties are also not exempt and already have a registration requirement. Even vacant properties exempted in the ordinance are required to register.

The ordinances name lists of documents that can be used to prove either “vacancy” or “occupancy.”  However, who gets to choose which one(s) apply? I own a property on High Street for which I pay water and sewage, gas, and electric: is it “occupied” or “vacant?”

The city is clearly using the stick versus the carrot to cause compliance to these ordinances. Some carrots might also encourage positive results, such as one year of city real estate tax forbearance after properties are improved.

Should Council choose to pass both ordinances, some bureaucratic bumble is not clearly defined. For example, does an owner of a vacant storefront with vacant apartments above have to register and report on both residential and commercial registries?

Three conditions may allow a property to be exempt, including “structures under active construction or renovation, with valid permits issued by the City “. The city does not currently require owners of occupied properties to obtain permits for cosmetic or minor improvements, so this would create a disparity between how vacant properties’ and occupied properties’ improvements are handled and a huge burden on the permitting and inspection process. There are a multitude of improvements that a property owner can undertake that do not and should not require city permits. For example, painting the interior and exterior, installing new carpeting/flooring, swapping out appliances, making minor repairs, installing exterior shutters, landscaping, etc.  A lone property owner, working part-time, on his/her own could certainly require more than a year to effect these improvements. Again, this is a bureaucratic burden on the city and the owner.

Under these ordinances all vacant property owners are required to register, but given that some/many may live outside of the area, and the city is not required to initially notify property owners about these new ordinances, how will they know? The ordinances further state “if the city… determines that an unregistered vacant residential/commercial property exists, they shall issue a notice directing the owner to register.” This creates an uneven situation where some owners are notified, and some are not. If these ordinances are modified to require the City to notify the vacant property owners, 500 – 1,000 property’s titles will have to be researched.

Again, this proposed legislation imposes a burden on all concerned. The only net benefit for expending all these resources is that the City will have a list that it does not currently have.

Given the amount of bureaucracy created, the cost to property owners, the existing municipal powers to cite and fine, it is questionable that the residential registry is even needed. At the very least, CAN suggests tabling proposed Ordinance 1265 for one year. This will allow the city to use its resources to implement and adjust the process with the commercial ordinance and learn from that experience. Meanwhile the effectiveness of code enforcement needs to improve and the land bank needs to begin functioning.

Thank you for considering our comments about this important legislation.

Respectfully,

Sharon Smith

CAN Board of Directors