Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Sometimes the, uh, letter of the law is not enough

By HOWARD TROXLER
Published October 10, 2006

Here is a parable for our times. It involves a house in Tarpon Springs, located at 139 E Spruce St.

I quote from a description of the house written by St. Petersburg Times reporter Robin Stein earlier this month:

The gray clapboard eyesore stands empty now, nearly eclipsed by the tangle of brush covering the front lawn and veil of vines creeping down from the roof. Between the holes pock-marking the screened-in porch and gaps eating away the walls, the house itself seems to be moldering into the earth.

A house like that will be cited, and rightly so. It is a health and safety hazard.

In 2002, the city's Code Enforcement Board began imposing a $50-a-day fine for the unkempt grounds. In 2003, the house also was cited for structural and electrical problems and slapped with a $75-a-day fine.

The fines have been building since. So far they total about $140,000.

The city has sent at least 10 letters to the property owner over the past four years. None was answered. Finally, the Code Enforcement Board unanimously recommended that the city foreclose.

The matter of 139 E Spruce St. first went before the Tarpon Springs City Commission in July.

One of the commissioners, Peter Nehr, raised a question. He was worried that the property owner never answered any of the city's letters.

"Do we have an obligation, a moral obligation to do a better search for the owners of this property or their heirs?" Nehr asked.

The city's staff replied that every avenue had been exhausted. "Short of hiring a private investigator," a lawyer opined, "I don't know what else we can do."

The matter was delayed and delayed again, while the staff produced evidence that 10 letters were sent, some by certified mail. The city also sent letters to a second address where the owner was getting her county tax bill.

Still, when the commission took up the case for the third time Sept. 19, Nehr was unsatisfied. Was it enough just to send letter after letter? "Can we not just go to this person's house," he asked, "and knock on the door?"

This inspired Stein, the Times reporter, whose account of the case I have been summarizing here.

She searched high. She searched low. She searched relentlessly, day and night.

Well, okay, she didn't.

She just went to the address listed on the property tax bill and knocked on the door.

And found the property owner.

Actually the owner's brother-in-law came to the door. Yes, his sister-in-law and her two children live there, he confirmed. She's been ill for a while, unable to work. The brother-in-law has been trying to take care of things, but it's a struggle, he said.

He even paid some of her back taxes, he said. But he said he didn't know anything about the foreclosure or $140,000 in city fines.

He said he was surprised to hear it. His sister-in-law pays the city $35 for water every month, he said: "They never say nothing!"

By the way, they live about five blocks from City Hall.

* * *

I am not criticizing or making fun of Tarpon Springs, because this could be anywhere. Besides, even if the owner was sick and had a caretaker, that doesn't get her off the hook, or make life any better for the neighbors of the rundown house.

Mayor Beverley Billiris told me the city's first preference is not to take people's houses or rack up fines; the best result would be to just get the house into compliance. The city can reduce or waive fines, but there has to be improvement. The case is pending.

Still, I keep thinking about Nehr's question. Here the bureaucracy was perfectly willing to move ahead on the basis of unanswered letters. When is there a higher obligation?

It seems like a useful question for our public affairs, applicable in circumstances far, far beyond municipal code violations.

[Last modified October 10, 2006, 01:13:03]