Parent Pages
Sibling Pages
Child Pages
1508 Avondale Avenue
Richmond, Virginia 23227
March 14, 1999BY FACSIMILE: 780-7736
W.R. "Bill" Johnson, Jr.
Member
City Council
900 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219RE: 1603 Claremont, et al.
Dear Bill:
It was a pleasure to see you Saturday. It always is good to find our favorite Councilman in Bellevue.
You raised the question of enforcement tools for building code violations. At the risk of boring you with lawyer talk, I want to set down a few basic principles.
Perhaps I should start with the normal tool, enforcement under the City Ordinances. These are misdemeanor (criminal) prosecutions in General District Court. In many cases they are the appropriate tool. In some cases they fail.
At 1410 Avondale, for instance, the property was in an estate and the lawyer administering the estate had nothing to fear from a prosecution of the (long dead) owner. At 1603 Claremont the owner is out of state and there is a capias in Richmond Circuit Court authorizing his arrest, so we do not expect to see him soon. That owner also is not threatened by a misdemeanor prosecution.
Even so, the Building Commissioner had an order at 1603 Claremont (before he abandoned it and started over with a new citation) that authorized him to paint the house, repair the roof and gutters, and get his money back from the owner. If the Ordinance is properly drafted under Va. Code § 15.2-1115, the City gets a tax lien for the cost. It can wait for a sale or force one and get its attorney’s fee for the trouble. If the Ordinance is not properly drawn (I don’t have the City Code, but I am sure Mr. Rupp can tell you about this), the Building Commissioner can get the same result from a civil action in Circuit Court under the same statute. In the alternative the City could use a civil action under Va. Code § 15.2-900 and, if necessary, a receiver to clean up the property and sell it to pay the cost.
That would provide a complete solution at 1603 Claremont: The property is worth much more than the mortgage (the property was assessed at $101,000 in 1998; the mortgage was $30,000 in 1997, according to the bankruptcy papers).
There are other remedies that may be appropriate in particular cases. No remedy can work, however, if the Building Commissioner is not willing to invoke it.
For example, Mr. Cooper says the City cannot afford to fix up 1603 Claremont, even though it had an order to do so. That is a bald lie: Mr. Cooper has a $1,000,000 budget, according to the Times-Dispatch; he can lay our ten or twenty thousand dollars that he will get back. Indeed, I should think he would be anxious to deal with a problem property that can finance its own cleanup.
Mr. Cooper’s other excuse, advanced at the Near West Teams meeting on February 25, is even more illuminating. He complained that the (General District) judges will not support his efforts, and he cited his problems at 500 W. Brookland Park Blvd. As he told it, the judge would not listen to his inspector, talked to the owner, and declined to give him the conviction he wanted.
This tale of woe is more interesting for what Mr. Cooper failed to say. He did not tell us that:
He used the legal tool that fit the problem,
He had a good case that was well-prepared, or
He went in with an inspector whom the judge knew to be truthful and level-headed.
From this little jeremiad we cannot conclude that judge is a problem. We are compelled to conclude, however, that Mr. Cooper is a problem: He does not think it important to tell us that he went in with a good case and a believable inspector seeking a remedy appropriate to solve the problem. The only thing he thinks important is that the judge did not give him what he wanted.1
This cautionary tale teaches us Mr. Cooper’s reaction to adversity: When he does not get what he wants, he does not say "Hmm, what can I do to get results here?" He simply gives up, and blames the system. Of course, we already knew as much from his abiding failure at the Murphy Hotel Annex. Just as he did nothing there until Council got on his case, he will do nothing at 1603 Claremont until he is told to get results or seek other employment.
Dr. Jamison and, ultimately, Council have a complete remedy for Mr. Cooper’s lethargy. I want to encourage you apply that remedy.
I remain grateful for your generous help and abounding support of our neighborhood.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
John Butcher
cc: Chuck Epes
Holly Anna Jones
Jean T. Reid (780-6653)1Your General Assembly is familiar with that kind of bureaucratic arrogance. It is the principal reason that all the legal tools to resolve blighted properties are difficult to apply and require that the bureaucrat’s proposal be reviewed by the political authorities or by a judge.
Last updated 02/24/02
Please send questions or comments to John Butcher