The City Council of the City of Henderson finds and determines that blighted areas, as specifically defined in General Statutes 160-456, exist in the City of Henderson, and that the redevelopment of such areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, and/or welfare of the residents of the City of Henderson.
You can’t argue with that statement, but it might surprise you to know this resolution was made by the Henderson City Council in 1972 when the city set up a redevelopment commission with the North Carolina Secretary of State.
So, how far has the city come in protecting the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents? Thirty-five years after this resolution was enacted, Mike Satterwhite argued that the city had failed for the last 30 years to enforce housing standards. But even after complaining about that fact, he and his clients worked passionately to derail a planned system for improving the quality of the 4,000 to 4,500 rental dwelling units in the city and the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). That planned system of enforcement was known as the Certificate of Occupancy which the present council overturned.
All you have to do is look at the pictures posted on HiH last week and you will have first-hand evidence of how far the city has come in protecting the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents.
So where does this now leave those of us who may live in neighborhoods that have rental property? For one thing, slumlords have become masters at camouflaging problems that might be a red flag for a minimum housing inspection. They cover rotten, inoperable windows with siding, and they put siding right down to the ground to hide decaying, moldering foundations. In essence, they “pretty up” the outside to avoid triggering an inspection on the inside.
But even if there are a multitude of obvious problems at a property, the city is extremely slack in doing proper inspections and enforcing our codes. Here are actual events and replies from the city about complaints on just one house that has been, and is, a plague on a Henderson neighborhood–a neighborhood that is struggling every day to maintain standards of decency and livability:
October 6, 2006
On a city council ride-around with management, a minimum housing inspection was requested by the city council on this property.
December 6, 2006
After three requests for the status on the inspection, it was reported by the city that a minimum housing inspection had not been done because….”Our policy have (sic) been in the past that we inspect when a compliant (sic) has been made from the tenant and when we have five signature (sic) from citizens….I have been in contact with the landlord which they stated to me that no housing complaints have been made….”
(Remember, the City Council had asked that this be done because of the problems they saw)
December 18, 2006
During another city council ride-around, the council again requested that the city do a minimum housing inspection for the same property.
February 26, 2007
On a subsequent city council ride-around, the update from the city on the minimum housing inspection request was “Tenant requested not to have inspected (sic) any further than living room area.”
(The city had the authority to inspect the entire house.)
So, this house today still has occupants that come and go, and still has had no minimum housing inspection as far as I know. This property continues to bring down the neighborhood and the other homes around it have suffered and depreciated because this sore has been allowed to fester.
And why? There are obvious violations here, but for some reason the city does not want to approach this owner and make him or her comply with an inspection. Is it because they are afraid the house will meet the definition of a dilapidated house and have to be torn down? Is it because the house has been divided into apartments illegally? Or is the city afraid that they may be pressured to inspect all this owner’s properties if this house is in terrible shape? If there are no violations, the photographs will prove it, and if there are violations, which cannot be seen past the living room, then it is way past time for them to be acknowledged and corrected.
This property belongs to one of Mike Satterwhite’s clients. In a memo of October 4, 2007, Satterwhite said to the city government that his clients “do not object to a minimum housing inspection of their Rental Dwelling Units…and they still take the position, that the best course of action to reach our shared goal of raising the housing stock in the City and the ETJ was and is the aggressive (sic) enforcement of Chapter 21.
I say to Mike Satterwhite and all his clients that when the city finally stops making excuses for being understaffed and under-budgeted and gets around to protecting citizens in Henderson by inspecting this property and other properties that are deplorable and reprehensible, you will not object and you will encourage an aggressive enforcement. I challenge the city to resolve to inspect this year every rental property that has been occupied in Henderson during the past year that is over 50 years old. That would be a good beginning and would be fair to everyone.
We will stay tuned.