Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to Blight Ordinance Incites Passion

Residents of Enfield shared their thoughts and debated positions on an issue that cuts to the heart of one of the pillars of the American political structure, private property. The Town Council hosted a public hearing on proposed changes to the blight ordinance in advance of its regular meeting Monday evening.

As with most issues facing town governments, the weakness of the economy and its effect on residents was of paramount importance to the discussion. Foreclosure issues have led to many more abandoned properties and difficulties establishing responsibility for property maintenance. In addition, residents were concerned that financial hardships might be the reason for the neglect of some properties.

“The economy is bad, the taxpayer is broke,” said Neal Narkon. “These people are not always going to be available to fix up their house. A little compassion for these people wouldn't hurt.”

Several others echoed the need for outreach to property owners before citations and fines are issued.

Many in the audience as well as several members of the Council spoke against the exemption of the town from the proposed ordinance. Citing fairness and giving as examples the Higgins and Brainard schools as well as other town owned properties, residents felt that in order to assure compliance from property owners, Enfield must set the example.

Coucilwoman Cindy Mangini said, “No government in my opinion should be exempt. Who are we, the Town of Enfield to go against our own policy?”

Doug Hamilton, a Windsor Locks resident, attending the meeting because he has been engaged in writing a blight ordinance for his municipality warned against eliminating the town exclusion. He explained that towns often acquire blighted properties through tax liens or otherwise unwanted means, and to be required to repair them within the 30 day time frame could prove costly and unwieldy.

Though the proposed ordinance provides greater defining of what would be considered blight, the issue of the discretion of the Property Maintenance Inspector and the hearing officials was raised by the public. The idea was proposed for a three person panel rather than a single official determining whether an offense truly constituted blight.

The issue of public nuisance versus private nuisance and what constituted each was also raised. Councilman Ken Nelson was particularly adamant that any blight must be visible to the public, and that the town should not be peering over fences into private yards in search of junk or other blight.

While most agreed that disputes between neighbors should not be the driving factor in enforcement, the reality is that most identified cases of blight arise from complaints.

The Property Maintenance Inspector, Kassie Huhtenan is a part-time employee and spends much of her time researching absent property owners and public records regarding abandoned properties. She defended herself from the charge of being too aggressive in enforcement.

“To insinuate that I am heavy handed is simply not true, I have spent countless hours doing outreach,” she said.

The public hearing drew some thirty residents, many with personal grievances about past enforcement and property owners who lived adjacent to blighted properties concerned about the effect on the value of their homes.

Mayor Scott Kaupin framed the issue, “the town needs to decide if it wants more teeth or less,” when in comes to the identification and enforcement of blight issues. “We are far away from even adopting this,” he said calling for more information and discussion on the issue.

The ordinance gives authority to fine property owners a stiff $75 per day fine after 30 days of initial citation. Definitions of blight include boarded up windows, moss on buildings, junk piles, and rotting trees.

The changes to the current ordinance can be accessed on the town website