Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns city-owned house at 526 North Chestnut is a long-running blight; questions raised about enforcement and waived charges
Summary
At the June 1 Princeton City Council meeting, resident Kent Parish and later Kent Stewart detailed years of ordinance notices, fines and an unsafe-building order for 526 North Chestnut, said the city recently purchased the property and criticized a waived $973.20 water bill; council noted the purchase and said the city intends to sell the lot.
At its June 1 meeting, the Princeton City Council heard extended public comment about a long-troubled house at 526 North Chestnut after residents said the city purchased the parcel.
"I'm Kent Parish. I live in Princeton," said Kent Parish, who described records he obtained showing multiple enforcement actions dating back to 2019: "six police department letters over a period of about three and a half years and three months," 14 administrative ordinance hearing notices, three final failure-to-pay notices and, he said, 18 fines totaling about $7,500. Parish said the property received a notice to repair or demolish and that a petition for demolition is on file.
Parish told the council he found a recent Illinois real estate transfer declaration dated March 9 and a March 11 case management conference order, and said the city purchased the property for "approximately $34,200." When he asked city staff whether that purchase was accurate, a city official replied, "That's correct." Parish said the house had severe water damage and estimated — based on a utility bill he reviewed — that roughly 145,560 gallons of water flowed into the structure and that a water-and-sewer charge of $973.20 was waived by the city.
"The taxpayers paid almost a thousand dollars," Parish said, and he argued the waiver could remove an incentive for an owner to maintain a property. He called the house "abhorrent" and said it posed a fire hazard to nearby homes.
Later in the public-comment period, another resident, Kent Stewart, repeated complaints about the same Chestnut property and said he had waited 16 days for a city response to an email. Stewart also urged the council to follow through on enforcement steps, asking whether the city would issue an unsafe-building notice or pursue a demolition petition.
City officials acknowledged the purchase and said the city's goal is to sell the lot. Council members and staff said volunteers and staff have begun cleanup efforts; the mayor noted that local students and staff had participated in a cleanup and that one more day of work was planned.
Some council members and staff suggested the property's owner's health had been cited as a reason for delays in enforcement. Parish and Stewart disputed that explanation as insufficient to justify the extent of neglect they described.
The council did not take a formal enforcement vote during the meeting. Parish urged the council to revisit the item at a future session; Stewart asked for clearer, faster communication to neighbors. The city did not provide a timetable for demolition or final disposition during the meeting.
The council adjourned after routine business; residents seeking further action were told they could return for the next meeting on June 15, 2026.
