More on the slow collection cycle for landlords -- and a general City-school malaise?

Yesterday's news that the City is about $1.2 million in arrears in collecting from landlords for code violations and condemned property demolition costs was greeted, not unexpectedly, by readers here at BCR as an affront to good financial sense.

Many in Durham's activist communities have decried the way in which the Bull City deals with problematic landlords and tenants, whose actions have a ripple impact on keeping neighborhoods healthy and intact. To compound frustrations over controversial demolitions and sometimes-slow code enforcement with the fact that these hot-button areas are falling seven-figures into delinquency is just the butane-canister cherry on top of the fire.

One BCR reader pointed out an item in the original H-S story that didn't make Wednesday's fishwrap recap here: the fact that this item came up in reference to a discussion over cooperation between Durham Public Schools and the City in general.

To wit: Parks & Rec and DPS have never managed to entirely get on the same page with the use of school athletic facilities for organized P&R activities after hours. A connection which seems to make sense: after all, if both the city and school system are cash-strapped, why have both compete to build ball-fields, gyms, and so forth?

Even when the two departments have tried to work together, it's not always well-aligned, it seems. Witness this little snippet from a staff memo on park construction station from a January 20 City Council work session:

Northern Athletic Park: the City received 117 acres off of Snow Hill Rd. in a three-way property exchange in 2006 among the City, the Triangle Land Conservancy, and a local developer. DPR requested funding for site planning and design in the 2008-09 CIP to allow design for a park to proceed in tandem with design for a new middle school being built on an adjacent parcel.... DPR staff is currently requesting that $695,000.00 of this project’s funding be moved to allow its use for construction of a new athletic field at Rock Quarry Park for several reasons: 1) planning for the middle school has moved on (with a site plan now in submittal), 2) the school’s plans do include four fields to be built on City property, and 3) the funding is not adequate for a full planning/design process.

We don't know the full history here, but it sure sounds like what would have been a park design that would "proceed in tandem for a new middle school" has been bypassed because the school planning effort has "moved on" without Parks & Rec. Well, at least the ball fields will be built on city lands. Maybe we can use them. Press reports have suggested that the park will still be built eventually -- but there doesn't seem to be anything too surprising about not getting plans in sync.

In any event, the latest discussion over DPR-DPS collaboration -- heck, they're only one consonant apart -- came during fretting over the desire of the schools to charge the City for the use of their ball fields and other facilities.

Now, if those facilities could be used after school hours for organized activities, it would cut back on the amount of funding the City would have to find independently for new fields and recreational facilities. But the cost question stands in the way.

And that's the context of this discussion over the $1.2 million in fees that stand in arrears. Perhaps if the city put a little more effort into collecting those fees, DPS would be more willing to collaborate on the use of parks.

Folks, this is why you don't want to see how the sausage gets made.

One point in the City's defense, such as it is: the collection of old landlord fees for demolition and code violations hasn't been a priority, but that's partly because so many other penalties -- like solid waste and fire inspections fees -- had been.

Yes, the Bull City has fallen behind in lots of fund collections a few years ago, and the accounts that flowed straight to the City's coffers got attention first and foremost, it seems.

.....

A second tale to reach our ears here at BCR yesterday suggests that, the latest discussion over ball fields and DPS-DPR cooperation aside, the fact that schools (and not the City budget) would receive some types of fines was a demotivating factor in other discussions.

One reader noted that they'd been involved in discussions with the City's Neighborhood Improvement Services (NIS) department over a perennial neighborhood complaint: the tendency of some to park their cars on front yards.

It's a nuisance. It's an eyesore. And it breaks utility lines sometimes, creating costly repairs for the City.

NIS wasn't a fan of the idea of going after renters who were breaking the law by parking on yards, noting that magistrates wouldn't be fond of the idea of evicting tenants because of how they parked.

Well then, the conversation went, why not just ticket the cars, something that would create a financial incentive, and which would stop short of being a lever for eviction?

The NIS response, according to this report: "Because the money would go to the schools."

Apparently, therefore, not a priority. Why enforce something if you don't get the dollars that go with it?

"They could totally have solved the parking on yards issue in a couple of minutes if they were interested in solving the problems," our reader says about NIS -- never a department to be at the front of the line of favorites in many's eyes.

All of which is by way of saying, this schools thing isn't a new issue. Here's hoping that Tom Bonfield can help to make this groaner of a history a thing of the past.

Comments

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

Wait a minute. I've parked in my yard before (to advertise a truck I was selling) and I got a warning letter and threat of fine in the mail from the planning dept., not a ticket on the vehicle.

I would imagine the same motiviation would encourage landlords to tighten their tenants' parking compliance.

[MikeRuffinsBulldog]

My question is why haven't the county commissioners gone after the city for this stuff?

[SteveG]

It's this whole "what's in it for me" attitude that is the slow rot that has been eating away at this city. I'm hoping that Mr. Bonfield can whip the city back into a finely oiled machine that it can be, needs to be, in order for Duham to become the shining star of the Carolinas.

I'm seeing some hopeful glimmers that this change has begun. More please, and faster!

[Bass]

@ Steve G

I agree with you 100%. I think Bonfield brings a new attitude to city hall lets just hope its contagious.

To know that DPS has this potential funding that is not being collected is very unsettling. I really don't think that the majority of the citizens of Durham are aware of this issue. Like I previously stated the light needs to be shed on this issue on a larger scale. Maybe we can get the one of the news stations to carry this story.

[Rick Hester]

"They could totally have solved the parking on yards issue in a couple of minutes if they were interested in solving the problems," our reader says about NIS -- never a department to be at the front of the line of favorites in many's eyes.

The information in this paragraph is not true. NIS is not the department that handles front yard parking, zoning handles this issue.

[barry]

From my experience, Planning isn't all that excited about enforcing the no-parking in front yard deal, either.

Just drive up Avondale Drive sometime.

By the way - KDD, you may want to take a look Section 66-180 of the Durham City Code:
No person shall stand or park a vehicle upon any roadway for the principal purpose of displaying such vehicle for sale.

Theoretically, you could get hit with two different citations for parking on your lawn for the purposes of selling your vehicle.

there are also, or there should be anyway, stormwater runoff considerations about creating even more impervious surface by turning your yard into a parking lot. However, if you pave over your yard to park on it, you're no longer in violation.

[Rob]

Let me zip up my asbestos jumpsuit......

Why doesn't the city just turn over the debts to a collection agency if they aren't going to personally profit from the debt? Collection agencies will settle debts under the agreement that they get to keep X% (typically around 40 or 50, I believe). Now, a lot of collection agencies get in trouble over trying to collect expired or non-existent debt, but if the city hires a reputable agency, then the problem is solved. The city doesn't waste time or money collecting the fine; schools get some additional money; and the threat of a *real* fine keeps property owners in check.

[Visconti]

Do we really need more sports fields? I see the tennis courts in Northgate Park half empty most of the time. I rarely see anyone in the baseball field(s) near the County Stadium. The County Stadium itself is empty most of the year except when the are football games, which last only a few weeks. On the other hand, I see the bike trails full of cyclists, runners, skaters, and pedestrians. There needs to be an assessment of what priorities we have. Also, what ever happened to parks being parks? That is, places with trees and other plants, not a collection of sports fields. A place where you can sit on a bench and relax.

[Michael Bacon]

Visconti,

The two biggest outdoor athletic needs are decent basketball courts (preferably ones with some amount of staff there for monitoring) and soccer fields. Any that exist in the city are generally overused to the point that the grass on the soccer fields gets worn away and the basketball rims go through nets like you wouldn't believe.