The Problem of Vacant Knowledge

There are significant problems with the proposed Vacant Building Ordinance. This stems from the “cut and paste” efforts of writing an ordinance that has been recommended by an out-of-town consulting organization.  It does NOT address the needs to define the provisions that are much more specific to the City-County of Butte-Silver Bow.

How the ordinance will be enforced consistently, evenly applied and fairly administered is the first big issue. And every resident of this county should be concerned.  BSB constantly complains that it does not have enough staff to deal with public issues. Most enforcement takes place with complaints from feuding neighbors then on a political level of targeted punishment. Certain citizens will and have been be targeted (and yes I speak from experience. Many violations I am happy to make public).  Citizens especially are targeted when they speak up in this community about a difference of opinion from BSB’s.

Despite this, it is ever more important for people need to speak up. For example, the initial drafts of this ordinance included clear violation of the 4^th Amendment of the US Constitution – regarding unwarranted search of property. Pointing this out loudly and publicly has had it removed from the revised document.

 Now we get to the 14^th amendment “due-process,” clause where there is a severe lack of any form of appeal. (You have no way to fight this violation). Violations go straight to the court system immediately with a citation ticket.

There is always the talk of “that is not our intent – we work with people.” If that was the case there would be a Citizen Appeal Board that you could discuss your circumstances with, not talking to an enforcement officer with an attitude.

Who enforces the ordinance is absolutely not defined WHATSOEVER. Per the ordinance definition, enforcement can be anyone designated by the Chief Executive – looks like the librarian, fire-department, clerks, etc, can be out posting notices.  So you think this is absurd ? I am trying to make a point.

Current enforcement of Community Enrichment Violation is all over the board and not consolidated into a clean flowchart process as it should be. Violations are issued using out dated forms, are referenced to various departments and procedures. It is simply not clear.  Any citizen sent a notice by Community Enrichment will have to allocate a considerable amount of time to clear up issues with various departments, personnel and the courts. How is this FAIR for every single citizen of this county? It is not.

The qualifications of who is evaluating a condition of property (the most IMPORTANT part) are not clearly defined. It is clear that “posting” of a dangerous building is by the BSB Building Inspector but then it is tossed to any other department, primarily Community Enrichment. 

Now, this ordinance is apparently giving even more power to Community Enrichment, a department that is growing into a proverbial monster. Add the Health Department to this and the court system and things become confused. A clear flow chart of this issuance of notices, by whom and what applies is not stated in the ordnance. Again there is a total lack of any appeal process!

Let’s take some time and clearly define requirements and enforcement of the real intent of this ordinance and get the horse in the correct position before the cart. Out of the mouths of Commissioners (3 running for Chief Exec) it has been stated that most of Uptown is owned by out-of-towners/staters, and that this is the problematic vacant building area. It was a challenge by the Council of Commissioners to confirm this by going to the web and clicking on Montana Cadastral Mapping – you can do this yourself – it is not 50% of property in the uptown!

So BSB has one of the most advanced computer mapping systems (GIS) and it’s high time to make the ownership map first before making such untrue public statements. Are the out of town “ownership” properties the ones causing the problems? – Enter those in the computer – then those become colors on the map. If it is so difficult to find the persons that own problem property that clear path of contact needs to time and time again that most of Uptown is owned by out-of-towners - 50% of all uptown properties are owned by out of state/town persons be established - should this not the first priority in finding these contacts prior to passing an ordinance that is applied to our ALL local citizens?  Seems kind of like a county-wide punishment.The map and data base need to be produced first, the facts collected so the problem can be defined and then the solution formulated a solution that is specific to the realities of Butte Montana.

Let us give BSB citizens some assistance, instead of violation notices. Understand that many homeowners are working on their properties with limited funds and time. Take some time to define the real problem and design solutions that are specific to Butte Montana and not some out of town consultants.

And I hope you can now understand WHY and HOW this ordinance targets Uptown, despite encompassing the entire county.