Fairmont has right to pressure owner

Gary Andersen, Lee Smith, Christine Rupp
One can imagine a situation in which a poor person lets his or her house fall into a dilapidated state, thus making it a hazard and eyesore in a community. Should the city that person lives in then take action to have the house condemned? We suspect it is more likely a city would try to get the homeowner some help, perhaps through a housing rehabilitation grant. Or through the assistance of civic groups.

We believe, however, there is a distinction between the imagined scenario above and the one now facing the city of Fairmont. The city is dealing with an absentee property owner who has two (empty) houses that are crumbling. If the owner doesn’t do something to address the hazards — rotting roofs, crumbling foundations, rotting walls, etc. — the city plans to demolish the houses and charge the owner for the expense. This seems reasonable.

The city represents all of its residents, who have an interest in the dangers posed by these crumbling structures, which may become attractive to neighborhood children, vandals or vermin. This is kind of the ultimate example of a property owner who piles up junk in his yard. In this case, the junk is the house.

The city has notified the property owner of his options. He has 120 days to comply with the order to fix the problems or raze the sites. We encourage the city to remain steadfast in this effort.