Derelict Building Policy

I wanted to start this post with a preamble that probably applies to most comments I make about public policy. Policy should be made based on some sort of Cost-Benefit analysis. While this doesn’t have to be dollars and cents equations, some idea of the pluses and minuses of a project should be considered before a policy is made.  Put simply, just because a policy may have good results doesn’t mean its the best course of action. 

I bring this up because I think that a more aggressive policy on removal or revitalization of derelict buildings is a good thing.  However, with budget constraints in the City, we may not be able to afford every “good thing.”

Right now council is considering its building inspection budget (CBC, TJ articles) while also considering the overall City budget.  I agree that derelict buildings are risky (with fire hazards and presence of ne’er-do-wells being associated with such buildings).

Here are a few examples of new policies in other cities that might be informative to anyone contemplating the issue:

• Winnipeg has a policy that charges owners increasing fees when they do not comply with vacant building standards as well as escalating fees for leaving a building boarded up.
• Hamilton is also considering increasing the regulatory strength the City has in dealing with vacant buildings – looking at a system of fines (as much as $10,000 for first offence according to thespec.com)
• South of the border Hazelton, PA has stepped up enforcement and is placing liens on properties that are violating municipal standards.  The City is also now able to collect fines is the property value does not cover demolition costs if a property is seized by the municipality.

I wish our council and City staff luck in determining the best course of action for Saint John.  Good luck balancing all of worthwhile projects and fitting them in a tight budget.