Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owners contest demolition notices and costs as council delays several fixes
Summary
Residents addressed the council about demolition notices and costs for properties including 559 Hickory Street and 505 Chin Street; some cost fixes were delayed or tabled while the council requested more information and follow-up with property owners.
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During public hearings Nov. 18, residents spoke about city actions declaring structures public nuisances and fixing demolition costs for multiple addresses. Valerie Brown, speaking for 559 Hickory Street, said she received notice too close to the hearing date and felt unable to prepare; the council agreed to hold the matter over while staff and the resident discuss next steps.
Sandra Bryant Mosley, who identified herself as the owner of 505 Chin Street, said a notice mailed Oct. 15 indicated a city demolition and a fine, but she had arranged and paid for demolition herself and the city had later removed debris. Mosley asked for additional time to pay the assessed fee and clarified that "the city did not demolish that property. I paid that myself." Council directed staff to connect Mosley with the appropriate staff member and to provide a path for timing and payment discussions.
Other demolition-cost items were moved, tabled, or delayed: the council announced holding over fixes for certain addresses, delaying 559 Hickory Street for one week, and laying over the cost for 753 Doctor Thomas Avenue for 30 days. Several nuisance/declared-structure items were also placed on the consent calendar for further processing.
Council members asked staff about differences between full demolition pricing and debris removal costs and said more clarity and notice to affected property owners is needed. One council member suggested exploring whether some salvageable properties could be re-claimed for housing revival efforts if addressed earlier in the code-enforcement process.
The council did not adopt new policy at the hearing but used the public testimony to order follow-up and delays to allow for additional review and conversation with property owners.

