Property owner John Finley urges council to reject tenant-housing ordinance; council stresses blight enforcement

John Finley, who identified himself at the June 1 Pine Bluff City Council meeting as a local property owner, told the council he opposes Ordinance No. 1, a proposed amendment to the city code that would establish minimum housing standards and protect tenants from hazardous conditions. "I bought them in really bad condition at the tax auctions," Finley said, describing properties some occupants have lived in without paying rent for extended periods. He told council members the ordinance would “force my hand and put at least four people on the streets” because he cannot afford repairs while renters are not paying.

Council members pressed Finley on his purchasing practices and the condition of the properties. Council Member Frazier said buyers who acquire dilapidated buildings have a responsibility to bring them up to code and noted the city cannot put people into buildings that could harm them. Council Member Mayes and others questioned why Finley bought multiple properties without completing renovations and pointed to public-safety risks in run-down housing.

Finley offered specific context for his actions, saying he bought 70 properties at a recent tax auction and paid $21,000 for the lot of them, and described instances where evicted occupants broke back into houses. "I let them stay because what I see is every piece of truly abandoned property here gets totally torn up," he said, adding that letting someone occupy a building can deter theft or wiring stripping while he plans renovations.

Council members emphasized the city’s code-enforcement authority and housing resources. One council member noted the city operates an "opportunity house" and urged owners with affordability barriers to contact code enforcement to arrange help rather than placing residents at risk. Remarks from council members repeatedly framed the issue as balancing property owners’ decisions with public-safety standards and municipal codes.

The proposed ordinance was on the council calendar for a second reading; members did not take a final vote on the ordinance during the public-comment exchange. The exchange closed with the council restating that the city will enforce codes and pursue remedies for properties that pose health or safety hazards.

Next steps: Ordinance No. 1 remained on the council calendar for its scheduled second reading and further consideration by the full council.