8:30 p.m., Monday, May 7, 2007

Tonight -- at 8:30 p.m., Monday, May 7, about 90 minutes into the City Council meeting -- Mayor Bill Bell made a very vocal and strong argument that code enforcement policies promulgated by the City were intended, through stepped-up code enforcement and rental inspections and through teardowns where needed, to improve the housing stock.

Bell made these comments in response to concerns raised by the Hesters in their comments on CDBG grants that the city's goal was aggressive code enforcement that would put elderly people out of their houses and not support neighborhoods. The Hesters, naturally, wanted $1.5 million devoted from code enforcement and administration and put towards the Fayetteville Street streetscape plan they've so forcefully advocated for. In Bell's words, as I captured them:

So, I don't want anyone to leave with the impression or perception that this council is using code enforcement as a penalty process against anyone. In fact, in some cases, what we hopefully will do will help those persons who live in those houses. And I'm not talking about homeowners, I'm talking here about rental properties, that were it not for someone to come in and say, 'This is not up to code, you need to do something, people would still be stuck in those positions. But this community has undergone a transition in housing. And that transition is that people have choices, they have better choices about where they want to live, and where they can live, and they've made those choices. And as a result, we've found a lot of housing stock that's not being occupied, or is not being taken care of, because some people that are there just aren't taking care of it.

At the exact same time as Bell was making these comments -- at 8:30 p.m., Monday, May 7, about 90 minutes into the City Council meeting -- a teenager was shot and killed at 3005 Angier Avenue in Durham. According to WRAL's news story, the house in question was abandoned. (UPDATE: As Gary pointed out in the comments, this house had actually been vacant for only two weeks, since the previous tenant moved out.)

I've written extensively and forcefully that improved code enforcement and rental inspections are needed to improve neighborhoods and to prevent abandoned houses from sitting around, attracting drug dealers and criminals and vagrants. Like many, I think the city needs better tools and needs to stop properties from falling into disrepair before they reach the point that they're abandoned, so that there can be fewer teardowns.

But in the end analysis, whatever tools are used -- the City needs to take action against substandard housing stock, and to spend dollars on it. Bill Bell is 100% right in the spirit of the end goal here, and provided the mix of tools is a proper one (to keep properties from reaching the edge of demolition in the first place), we need to spend the dollars to support this goal.

Too bad Bell's comments had to be commingled with so much dark, tragic irony tonight.

Comments

[GK]

Kevin

I wasn't at the meeting to hear these comments, but it strikes me that this kind of juxtaposition by WRAL is what leads to the wrong tools being used - after all, we have to do something, right? We're justifiably angry about a murder, or drug-dealing, or a rape, and a solution is necessary, now. And demolition of the place where the event occurred gives such satisfaction when we're angry, as we can focus our energy on watching the venue being crushed into oblivion.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this does anything to reduce crime in a neighborhood. It may or may not reduce crime at that spot, but some basic analyses I've done suggests that it simply displaces crime a few blocks over. Because demolition lowers surrounding property values, it increases deferred maintenance, which increases abandonment. Thus we simply create more abandoned property, which we can then demolish, etc. It's all been done before.

I'm all for taking action, but not action that is at best, ineffective, and at worst, harmful. Tearing down houses will not prevent the murderer from shooting someone else, and doesn't improve the economic situation of the neighborhood that allows both crime and vacant housing to fester.

GK

[Bull City Rising]

I should clarify -- the juxtaposition was mine, not WRAL's.

The point I'm trying to make is a bit broader than demolition. My point is that neighborhoods allowed to deteriorate become havens for drugs, crime, and violence. I agree that a knee-jerk reaction of "tear the houses down" is not the answer. What I'm saying, however, is that we need to address the blight and deterioration where it appears.

Bell actually had an interesting point in last night's meeting -- namely, that some of the unoccupied properties are that way because better housing options, like Hope VI and other newer rental living, are available now to Durhamites who choose to move out of the status quo. I'm curious if there are data to back this up, but it's an interesting thought.

The question then becomes, what do we do with the properties left behind? I don't want to see wholesale demolition, either, but I want to see a thoughtful strategy that addresses the overall health and welfare of these troubled neighborhoods.

To the question of how we prevent crime from just shifting locations: this is one of the very toughest questions we have to answer. It ranges from what we do with repeat (and repeat, and repeat...) felons, to the strength of our education system, to (most importantly) the strength of families and good parenting. Sadly, I don't think there's any good model for guaranteed success.

[GK]

Kevin

I think Bell is right about better options - I don't know about Durham-specific data, but Section 8, HOPE VI, and other options for better housing have definitely changed the dynamic on the national level. At least anecdotally, counsel for one well-known local slumlord has confirmed this point to me on the local level.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to work hard on prevention strategies - I think code enforcement/proactive rental inspections are good tools for addressing the becoming-problematic property in the otherwise fair-to-okay neighborhood. It's the idea that 'eliminating blight' - the ultimate expression of which is demolition - actually improves neighborhood conditions. Do we encourage neighborhood investment (with penalties if necessary) versus 'clean up' through destruction. Coming from the natural sciences, the lack of empirical research supporting major public policy bothers me on a much broader level. But I think what evidence is out there supports neighborhood investment as a catalyst for positive change, and I have yet to find any study that supports a demolition policy as a tool for positive neighborhood change.

I know you are talking about a more comprehensive suite of tools, and I hope that we can get there. The reactive pathway does not seem to help foster creative thinking, though - pressure comes to bear on NIS to 'clean up' the neighborhood, and there is only one tool that they utilize.

GK

[GK]

Kevin

The N&O states today that 3005 Angier Ave. had been empty for two weeks, after a woman and her daughter moved out. While the lines between temporarily empty, vacant, and abandoned are not well demarcated, I don't think this house would qualify as abandoned.

GK

[Bull City Rising]

Gary: Thank you for the correction. I've noted this in the post.

Yeah, I don't think there's any difference in where you and I want to see neighborhoods end up. Interesting datapoint from the slumlord counsel (does that make him a slumlawyer? :) And of course, the Hesters' calls of concern for what will happen to the elderly as neighborhoods get code-enforced does have a kernel of fair concern for elderly Durhamites who've lived in these areas for decades. At the same time, I'm sure these same residents aren't happy with the status quo where they live.

I also agree that a hasty reaction is not the answer. For whatever its raison d'etre, the temporary stop on demolitions is providing an opportunity to re-examine what we do with these houses. I wouldn't want to see events like this become catalysts for calls for renewing liberal demolition, either.