Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Property Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges action on dilapidated house; commissioners and staff outline limited remedies
Summary
A resident raised long-running problems with a dilapidated house and repeated arrests at the property. County staff and commissioners outlined enforcement limits — environmental court, liens, and the absence of county condemnation authority — and pledged to revisit enforcement steps; no formal vote was taken.
A member of the public told the Bradley County Commission about repeated problems at a local property that he said has been a public-safety and nuisance concern for years and asked whether the county could condemn or tear the house down.
The resident gave the meeting his address and described a long history of fire, arrests and repeated reoccupation of a burned or dilapidated structure, and asked whether the county could board up, condemn or demolish the building. He said he would like the structure torn down and described ongoing arrests of people living at the site.
County staff and several commissioners described the limits of county enforcement. Staff said the county cannot condemn property under current county practice and that enforcement must go through environmental court; the county has previously used that process and placed a lien after cleaning the property. A county official estimated the previous cleanup cost the county roughly $11,000 (the official said the figure could be $11,000–$12,000). The official explained that if the county performs a cleanup it places a lien on the property; the lien grows and may exceed the property's value, complicating recovery through a tax-sale process if the owner does not pay.
Commissioners repeatedly noted that environmental-court orders and show-cause hearings have been pursued in this case in the past, that multiple orders have been ignored, and that available legal remedies are constrained without different county powers. One staff speaker explained that the county has not adopted a minimum-standard-housing regime under the County Powers Act — an action that would permit building-official condemnation procedures like those used in cities. The staff comment was: "We have never adopted any kind of minimum standard housing..." which the speaker identified as a separate policy that the commission could consider adopting in the future.
No formal motion or vote was taken on the public complaint during the meeting, but commissioners asked staff to revisit enforcement options and indicated they would pursue the matter again through the available court process. Commissioner Mason said county staff and commissioners who have worked the case would "do it again and see how far we can go here."
