Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses Princeton council over alleged lax enforcement of nuisance property rules
Summary
At the Princeton City Council meeting, resident Kent Parish accused the city of failing to enforce nuisance-property orders for nearby addresses, questioned why the city abated a $973 utility bill and urged the council to pursue fines and remediation.
Kent Parish, a Princeton resident, told the City Council that a neighboring property at 512 South Church has remained in unsafe, substandard condition despite a demand letter and a 07/26/2025 deadline to correct violations.
Parish read portions of the demand letter and cited a transcribed reference to a State of Illinois statute (rendered in the record as “5 11 31 1”). He said the ordinance levies a $100-per-day fine after two weeks of noncompliance and calculated that, by that measure, the owner "owes the city $34,600." Parish also contrasted enforcement at 526 North Chestnut — which he said received multiple police letters, administrative notices and fines totaling about $7,850 — with what he described as a lack of action on 512 South Church.
The substance of Parish’s complaint included several specific allegations: that the property sustained overgrowth and unsanitary conditions, that the city purchased a nuisance property for $34,636.92 (documented in parish’s FOIA review), and that the city paid a $973 water bill after a leak. "We paid the utility bill," Parish said, arguing taxpayers covered cleanup costs he believes the owner should have borne.
Council members asked Parish to provide a one-page summary listing the actions he wants the city to take so staff can follow up. Councilors and staff reported that the yard at 05:12 South Church had been mowed that day and that Dickinson Lawn Care was contracted to maintain the yard for the remainder of the season. Council also offered Parish the option to tour 526 North Chestnut with a signed waiver so members and staff could inspect conditions firsthand.
Parish asked why, if a demand letter was issued, no ordinance violations had been recorded and why the city would abate the utility charge; council members did not provide an immediate policy decision during public comment, but they requested details so staff could investigate. The mayor and other councilors noted that public-comment time is not the moment for extended back-and-forth and encouraged Parish to submit the one-page request or an email to start a formal follow-up.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: Parish said he would prepare further material for the council and the council directed staff to review the documentation and the recent maintenance activity. No formal motion or vote on enforcement action was taken during the meeting.
