Blight tackled head-on

Most disturbingly, the Record chose to print, on its front page no less, photos of the structure as it currently appears. It is not uncommon for an unscrupulous landlord to gussy up his or her structure after a declaration of taking is filed in an effort to impress the county-appointed board of view, which subsequently tours the property and determines its value. It is utterly irresponsible for the Record to not publish photos of 243-245 as it appeared at or around April 13, 2005, the date upon which the declaration of taking was filed. Amongst other defects, relevant photos show a large tree perilously lodged into the side of the building, posing an imminent public safety hazard. The Record chose not to request or publish the relevant photographs. Out of concern for the neighborhood and anyone walking its streets, the city arranged for and paid for the removal of the hazardous tree, but was never reimbursed by the owner.

Also surprising was the end of the article, which mentioned a city property that the previous owner of 243-245 owned on South Queen Street. Not only have the city planning commission, redevelopment authority, and vacant property review committee, which consists of representatives from city council and other city entities, determined that the vacant structure at 142 South Queen is blighted, but it was slated for sale at the York County judicial foreclosure sale to be held on May 24. In other words, not only is it blighted, but the owner had not paid property taxes on 142 South Queen for over two years. The article does not emphasize these key facts.

Neither the city, nor the redevelopment authority, nor the city planning commission, not the vacant property review committee focuses on owners. We target blighted, vacant structures throughout the city no matter whom owns them, and, true to the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, all such owners are given ample notice and opportunity to be heard throughout and after the blight certification process. By providing due process, such owners also are given opportunity to rectify the blighted conditions, an opportunity that the owner of 243-245 failed to utilize. By sensationally focusing on one individual, the article failed to fairly report the city's fair, owner-blind policy.

If the Record is intent on creating a victim for a front-page story, it should have interviewed the real victims, nearby property owners who properly maintain their properties and pay taxes. Why were neighbors not given a voice? Why were representatives from the southwest neighborhood association not interviewed?

Finally, the previous owner's claim that "they are taking away my income and retirement" is specious, given the fact the properties that had been certified as blighted were vacant and blighted for years and given the fact that the owner, as in all condemnations, will receive just compensation for his properties. Instead of “No ease after victory,” the headline should have read, “Owner of Blighted, Vacant Property Justly Compensated.” Such a headline would not have been as erroneously titillating as the published version, but it would have been accurate and responsible.

Vacant, blighted properties damage and denigrate city neighborhoods and diminish the quality of life of the residents who live nearby. Dutifully following the requirements of the Constitution and state urban redevelopment law, the city's consistent goal has been to transform long-standing blighted, vacant properties into neighborhood assets that improve our community’s quality of life, increase the values of nearby properties, and generate tax revenues for all three taxing entities.

If the city and its redevelopment authority would not address vacant, blighted structures head-on throughout our neighborhoods, we would not being our job and we would not be doing right by our residents.

Matthew Jackson
Economic Development Director
Redevelopment Authority Coordinator