Bright Defile

13 June, 2011

Senator McKissick and Representative Wilkins,

Allow me to preface my comments by stating:

1. I am a vocal proponent of strong property rights.
2. I have no personal or professional interest in the property located at 1205 North Mangum. My personal interest is in following the process in use by employees of the City of Durham (herein referred to as “the City”) in the performance of duties assigned to them by the City's elected representatives through legislation such as the City's Housing Code.
3. A signed copy of this letter is being sent by Certified Mail to you at your Legislative Mailing Addresses, above. However, because I am not sure the mail will be delivered before House Bill 554 (H554) or Senate Bill 683 (S683) are acted on in committee, I am forwarding an unsigned copy of this letter to your respective email addresses.
4. As a courtesy, I am also forwarding an unsigned copy of this letter to Representatives Stephen A. LaRoque and Tim Moore, the Chairmen of the House Standing Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House, Senator Neal Hunt, the primary sponsor of S683, and Constance Stancil, Director, NIS, at their respective email addresses.

I have been following the process in use by Neighborhood Improvement Services (NIS) Department staff in the performance of duties assigned to them by the City's elected representatives through the City's Housing Code. Specifically, I have been following the process described by Chapter 10 (“Buildings and Building Regulations”), Article VI (“Housing Code”) (herein referred to as the “Housing Code”) of the City Code of Ordinances (herein referred to as the “Code of Ordinances”) as that process is used by NIS to take action against the owner of the property located at 1205 North Mangum.

Section 10‑231 (“Legislative findings.”) of the Housing Code states:

I do not dispute the fact that the property owner has not maintained the property located at 1205 North Mangum and that a “public necessity exists to exercise the police powers of the city ... to cause the repair and rehabilitation, closing or demolishing” of the property. In fact, action by the City is long overdue. However, my perspective is that the current process in use by NIS to identify properties in violation of the Housing Code is broken.

1. NIS receives complaints to identify properties in violation of the Housing Code. I describe this process as “complaint-driven”. These complaints may be anonymous, and they may be baseless. As a result, the process is easily abused.
2. NIS stated it does not act in the absence of complaints. As a result, complaints focus the City's attention.
3. NIS does not identify at-risk properties. Identification of properties in violation of the Housing Code is not based on an evidence-based assessment of the condition of property or its location, but on the number and frequency of complaints received.
4. NIS has not established a program of routine or regular inspection, although not prohibited by current law from establishing such a program. In discussions with NIS over the past approximately six months, NIS has stated, repeatedly, that NIS does not have the the inspector-hours to have an active program, that is, to have a routine or regular schedule of inspection of properties meeting specified criteria, or proactive program, that is, to search the city for properties which do not meet the requirements of the Housing Code.
5. The lack of active or proactive inspection undermines the collection of information necessary to establish perspective about the condition of properties across the City.

As a result of these deficiencies, the process in use by NIS is arbitrary, capricious, and selective. Ostensibly, the purpose of the Housing Code is to identify housing that is “unsafe or unsanitary or dangerous or detrimental to the health or safety or otherwise inimical to the welfare of the residents of the city”. However, properties with the same or similar violations within a one- or two-block radius of 1205 North Mangum were not cited because NIS received no complaints about those properties.

It is not difficult for a persistent citizen or group of citizens to create a history of enforcement actions through their complaints which mis-represents the true condition of the property receiving complaints in comparison with other properties in the area which have the same or similar violations.

As a specific example, the interest the property located at 1205 North Mangum has received from its neighbors mis-represents the true condition of the property in comparison with other properties in the area which have the same or similar violations. 1205 North Mangum has been isolated by complaints, creating the illusion that the condition of the property is significantly worse than other properties in the area. Due to the fact that NIS does not have a program of routine or regular inspection and lack of proactive inspection by the City's inspectors, 1205 North Mangum stands out as a recipient of Code Enforcement actions.

I consider this to be the most significant weakness in the process in use by NIS.

I therefore support, and urge you to support, H554 and S683, both entitled: “AN ACT REQUIRING COUNTIES AND CITIES TO HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE BEFORE INSPECTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES.” for the following reasons:

1. A plain reading of the proposed legislation indicates that it codifies the complaint-driven process NIS has stated, repeatedly, is currently in use.
2. It establishes limits on the ability of local government to act in an arbitrary, capricious, and selective manner.
3. It requires local government to establish cause before taking action against a property owner.

In short, because of the arbitrary, capricious, and selective implementation of the Housing Code by the City, I want freedom from government.

However, no matter what you ultimately decide, please consider carefully my recent experience with NIS, which is discussed in more detail as the narrative continues, below. Before making a decision, please ask NIS to explain, in detail, how the proposed legislation would in any way impact their current process before making your decision.

cc: Representative Stephen A. LaRoque (Stephen.LaRoque@ncleg.net)
Representative Tim Moore (Tim.Moore@ncleg.net)
Senator Neal Hunt (Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net)
Constance Stancil, Director, NIS (Constance.Stancil@durhamnc.gov)