Greensboro council adopts stricter commercial property code, raises penalties for blight

The Greensboro City Council voted unanimously on March 17 to adopt a revised nonresidential building code and updates to the city's nuisance chapter aimed at addressing vacant and deteriorating commercial properties.

Brent Ducharme of the city attorney's office summarized the amendments as a reorganization and expansion of existing maintenance standards, the creation of a registration requirement for vacant properties that are in violation of maintenance standards, and a tiered penalty structure for repeat offenders. "These amendments would bump those amounts up," Ducharme said during his presentation, describing an initial civil penalty increase and stepped daily penalties for continuing violations.

Why it matters: Council members and community advocates said the ordinance fills enforcement gaps that have allowed blighted properties to persist for years in neighborhoods and commercial corridors, hurting public safety, property values and local commerce. Public speakers representing neighborhood coalitions praised the measure as a tool to compel owners to repair or redevelop neglected sites: "This ordinance matters because it refuses that neglect," said a community speaker during public comment.

Key provisions and process details described to council: - Registered vacant properties: owners of vacant nonresidential properties that are in violation of the code must register contact information with the city; failure to register after notification becomes a violation. - Enforcement timeline: inspectors issue complaints and administrative hearings are held (30 days); inspectors may order repair, vacation, or—if repair costs exceed a demolition threshold—demolition. Inspectors may give up to 90 days to comply; the chief of code compliance may grant additional extensions when substantial progress is shown. - Penalties: the ordinance raises civil penalties with a tiered structure (presentation noted a proposed initial amount of $500 and higher penalties for repeat violations and increased daily fees). The nuisance chapter was also amended to increase administrative abatement cost recovery fees on a tiered basis for repeat abatements.

Public comment and council response: The council heard several speakers in support from neighborhood groups and community leaders who described chronic neglect of commercial properties and called for stronger enforcement. One property owner, Philip Marsh, urged further outreach to property owners and asked that the council pause the vote to allow more input, calling some penalties "draconian." Council members responded that many stakeholder meetings had already taken place and that the ordinance could be amended later if implementation revealed issues.

Council action and next steps: After an on‑the‑floor amendment clarifying the inspector/extension language, the council moved to adopt the ordinance and voted 9–0 in favor. Councilmembers and staff said the ordinance will be an operational tool for code compliance and that additional technical tweaks could be considered after implementation.

The measure takes effect as part of the city code once administrative steps are completed; city staff said they will continue outreach to affected business and property owners and monitor implementation.