Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Blight Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to standardize demolition process, pursue liens and explore grant options for blighted properties
Summary
After a lengthy discussion about dilapidated and substandard buildings, council instructed staff to align practice with code, formalize a voluntary demolition repayment agreement with lien authority, and explore federal revitalization grants while continuing prioritized demolitions using the existing $50,000 fund.
Mount Pleasant city staff and council discussed procedures for addressing substandard structures and demolitions and agreed to standardize the city’s approach to match state law and the municipal code while continuing targeted demolitions.
City Manager Greg and code staff explained that the city has used a range of informal practices in recent years—sometimes ordering demolitions and at other times removing structures when owners asked the city to do so. Historically, staff said, the city placed liens on properties where it incurred maintenance costs, and earlier neighborhood revitalization efforts that included demolition led to lots coming back onto the tax roll. Councilmember Debbie (speaking from long experience) described a 1990s program in which the city removed many blighted structures and later saw new construction in those neighborhoods.
City staff recommended two parallel actions: (1) follow the formal municipal code and state statutes for condemning and demolishing substandard structures (including required notices and hearings before council), and (2) draft a voluntary‑demolition applicant agreement that makes clear owners requesting city‑assisted demolition accept a repayment obligation or lien placement so the city may recoup costs. Staff also suggested pursuing structured grant programs—such as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)‑style revitalization funds—where whole‑neighborhood interventions are appropriate.
Council members directed staff to proceed with code‑consistent demolition actions, meet with the city attorney to draft voluntary‑demolition repayment language and continue using the existing $50,000 demolition budget to remove prioritized structures. Council emphasized that while liens may not always be collectible, a clear process and lien authority should be in place; they also asked staff to bring back any recommendations during budget deliberations about increasing the demolition fund if needed.
No formal ordinance change was adopted at the meeting; council provided direction to staff to formalize the voluntary demolition process and to continue prioritized demolition work under the existing budget.
