Charissa Graves
From the Graves
You could say that code enforcement practices have been at the forefront of my mind this week.
Between this Monday’s discussion surrounding a South Hutchinson City councilmember’s vehicle, and Hutchinson City Council’s discussion to move forward with the demolition of the Bernard’s Restaurant and Catering building, there’s been a decent amount of discussion in the office concerning the topic as a whole.
Now, I haven’t lived here during the whole back-and-forth surrounding Bernard’s, I admit I learned most of what I know through researching my article in the past couple of weeks and through various conversations since I’ve started working here. However, every route I’ve taken in learning about the matter leads to the conclusion of: “It’s complicated.”
All in all, it’s just a very sad situation, even if no one was necessarily in the wrong.
It does leave a bad taste in my mouth for a historical building to be demolished that was built on land bought and developed despite the extremely discriminatory practices of the time, especially considering the extremely personal nature of the design and material reclamation and the public personal loss that the current owner has endured over the last several years.
That taste becomes more bitter when looking at two parents who are at risk of being penalized for keeping a registered and insured vehicle tucked away in their own driveway because the project that they were supposed to take on with their son was paused due to his cancer diagnosis and treatment process.
I understand that policies and procedures exist for a reason, but I’ve never understood how they came to be more important than the people that they’re meant to protect.
Zero-tolerance policies, to me, seem to be the easy way out for organizations to avoid prolonging certain issues by allowing them to avoid using their own judgement and thus having to publicly defend it. I’m not saying that’s the right or only way to look at it, but that is how it has come across to me personally.
In both examples, the affected parties were asking for two things from the powers that be: time and grace. I’ll admit, with the one case lasting as long as it has, I can see how that could have run out, even if I don’t think I could’ve brought myself to make that decision myself. But, in the case of the vehicle, there was some mention of it not being a personal attack and that it was “just following procedure,” but making an exception in that circumstance should be extremely easy to defend to anyone with a modicum of sense.
The cul-de-sac where I lived for over a decade is home to multiple mechanics, and my parents’ house is smack dab in the middle of all of them. In the time that I lived there, I don’t think the street was ever entirely clear of some kind of automotive or home improvement project, and it never occurred to me to be bothered by it (other than one specific neighbor who had a very loud vehicle that would run for long periods of time). If anything, every project was a conversation starter.
Even if someone’s property was showing obvious signs of neglect or disrepair, it was a sign to check in, not to be annoyed and get the local government involved.
There is a definite blight problem in the county, and an assumed responsibility when one owns property, but I firmly believe that if more neighbors just took care of neighbors, there would be a lot less need for code enforcement practices, and cities would be able to shift their focus to more significant infrastructure issues.
Buhler did an excellent job addressing this very point last month when they held a housing forum. At this forum, they discussed ways to set the wheels in motion for community engagement programs, such as ones that would allow citizens to volunteer for projects that would assist elderly homeowners.
There should be more discussions on how to actually fix these issues, not just remove them from sight. Anything else is just overreach and a misuse of city officials’ time.