Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident accuses city of ‘discrimination’ over condemned building; council says courts ordered prior teardown
Summary
During public comment Misty Meister angrily challenged Vinton City over handling of a condemned property (the ‘‘eSchool’’), saying enforcement was unfair; council members and staff said the courts ordered the other teardown and that the city is addressing the current eSchool owner's compliance.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the May 28 Vinton City Council meeting Misty Meister used her public‑comment time to press the council over enforcement actions connected with a condemned property referred to in the meeting as the "eSchool." She repeatedly called the situation "discrimination," said she had been fined, and questioned why the eSchool remained standing while her own building was torn down after court action.
"The eSchool is still standing... It's discrimination," Meister said, accusing the city of uneven enforcement and asking who was being fined. She also said she had been assessed daily fines and described the personal and financial strain of complying with demolition orders.
Council members and staff responded that previous teardowns were ordered by the courts and that the city is pursuing the current eSchool owner's compliance. A council member said the city is "dealing with" the eSchool and that ownership changes and enforcement steps are underway. The mayor repeated that the city itself had not ordered the other demolition; staff said the courts had issued the order.
The exchange grew tense at one point as Meister interrupted the chair and repeated accusations; the mayor and staff limited her remarks when her three minutes expired. Council did not take formal action during the meeting on enforcement beyond stating staff would follow up.
The council set a June 11 work session and staff follow‑up steps on code‑enforcement matters were discussed informally; the record shows the city intends to continue communicating with property owners and the courts as needed.

