According to today’s Newton Tab, the Board of Aldermen is considering implementing a new public nuisance ordinance targeted at residents who have too much junk outside their home.
If you knew much about my own home you might think I’d be an avid supporter of this new ordinance. Our house abuts a pair of side-by-side houses that are THE problem properties in Upper Falls. Everyone in the neighborhood has a different name for these properties and none of the names are very flattering. For as long as we’ve lived here, the buildings have been a mess, the yards have been full of crap, and a few of the tenants have been problems. Worse yet, because its Upper Falls, the plots are quite a bit smaller than most of the city and so the trash filled back yards are about six feet from our back door. So you might think if anyone in this city should be applauding this new ordinance it would be us.
While I certainly appreciate the problem the ordinance is aimed at and I sympathize with the intent of the new rule, as currently written I think it’s bad law. I’ve got two big concerns.
According to the Tab “The ordinance says the city can declare these properties a public nuisance if they cause adverse affects on the health of neighbors, diminish use and enjoyment of neighboring properties, or produce hazardous or harmful conditions”. That highlighted phrase rings my alarm bells. Health and safety concerns I have no problems with but defining a violation of a law in terms neighbor’s perceptions is a formula for all sorts of problems.
Likewise, in the details of the ordinance there are similar problems. You are in violation of the ordinance if you have a substantial amount of “junk and debris” on the property. A “substantial amount” is defined as 375 cubic feet. That’s fine, it’s an objective measurable quantity.
The other trigger for the law is “a condition of overgrown vegetation” and that’s defined as “Any weeds, grass, bushes, or other shrubbery which are so untrimmed or unkempt that they present a reasonable expectation of harboring or attracting rats and vermin, or concealing pools of stagnant water.” Once again my alarm bells ring. It’s clear that this phrasing is trying to somehow turn an aesthetic problem (overgrown vegetation) into a fictional public health problem (attracting rats and vermin). Now if the real problem with overgrown weeds or bushes was that they attracted vermin than all of our park lands would be rat infested hell holes.
According to the Tab, Alderman Dick Blazar told the committee “that the ordinance would be used rarely” and Alderman Danberg said “this change would impact fewer than a dozen properties in the city”. I’m sure that’s their intent, but I don’t see how a law written with this kind of language can be limited to just those properties that they have in mind.
If there is to be a new Public Nuisance Ordinance enacted it should be written with clear, unambiguous, objective language, otherwise it will inevitably be used as a legal tool in all sorts of unintended disputes between neighbors.
One comment by Alderman Blazar stood out – “these people, I think, in some senses are, hoarders who are outside instead of inside.” I think he’s absolutely right. This new new law is intended for these “outside hoarders” who have mental health issues. An overly broad Public Nuisance Ordinance will not have much effect on their problems but is likely to create lots of other unintended problems.
I think this ordinance is absurd (Disclaimer: I haven’t read the ordinance, I am trusting that the TAB article is correct). I understand the health concerns but this sounds like it is written to be almost entirely subjective. Anybody can say that his neighbor’s property diminishes the enjoyment of his own property. And 375 cubic feet? Alderman Yates’ valid comment aside (“How would [Inspectional Services] Commissioner [John] Lojek and his minions be able to determine that a substantial amount of junk or debris occupies more than 375 cubic feet?”), 375 cubic feet is not very much space. It could be a large swing set that is falling apart and a neighbor is tired of looking at it, but the property owners can’t afford to cart it away.
But even that is beside the point. Do Aldermen Blazar and Danberg not understand that ordinances have shelf lives that will extend beyond their tenure? Why would they think that it only applies to a few houses or that it wouldn’t be applied to borderline cases? It’s a subjective ordinance that could apply to any number of yards in the future.
I wonder why Aldermen Hess-Mahan and Johnson abstained.
The Newton Fire Dept. pointed out last night on Twitter that MGL Chap. 148 gives the Fire Dept jurisdiction to force homeowners to clean up if the yard debris is judged to be a “fire menace” – here’s the link to the MGL: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter148/Section5
And here’s NFD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NewtonFireDept
So there seems to already be something in place to deal with situations that are true threats to health and safety – why isn’t this pursued in cases like your neighborhood, Jerry?
Gail, I abstained because I am new to the committee and this is the first time it has been discussed this term, and I had not participated in the previous discussions as a member of the committee. My understanding is there is a very small number of residential properties that have been the subject of repeated complaints concerning piles of junk and debris in the yard as well as long grass and overgrown brush.
That said, I have a number of reservations about this particular ordinance. Among other things, enforcement could be a problem. At the meeting, Mr. Lojek made clear that without permission he cannot go on someone’s property to determine whether there is more than 375 cubic feet of junk and debris, and would have to “eyeball” the situation. He also suggested that, unlike other types of zoning violations, this kind of complaint could get personal, requiring that inspectors exercise their discretion very carefully.
I am also concerned that the “excessive vegetation” provision is both vague and subjective and would be even more difficult to enforce. The ordinance as drafted refers to the presence of vermin and stagnant water (where mosquitoes can breed) which could be concealed by overgrown grass and bushes. Rats and standing water would seem to me to be a Health Department issue, as opposed to Inspectional Services. ISD already has more than enough work to do enforcing against all of the zoning violations that end up on the Village 14 Blog.
Ald. Sangiolo, who voted against it, also raised another issue which concerns me. This ordinance applies only to residential properties, yet there are a number of business properties around the city I can think of that store junk, debris, abandoned vehicles, etc. on their property for which there would be no similar restriction. That seems unfair. The fact that the ordinance would not apply to the city, which until recently was storing sludge containing chromium which was dredged from the City Hall pond at the Elliot Street DPW site, also seems unfair to me.
I believe the docketers have good intentions and are trying to address serious though isolated issues with particular property owners. Nevertheless, I must confess that, during the discussion, I couldn’t help thinking about the Neighborhood Watch Alliance scene in the movie “Hot Fuzz.” I am not sure whether there is a better alternative, but unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I plan to vote against it when it comes before the full board.
@Tricia – In our particular case, the property is not posing any clear threat to public health, safety, or a fire threat, its just a mess. While peeling paint, a yard full of crap and somewhat antisocial tenants are not pleasant, they aren’t illegal.
I think you can legislate certain property problems but you can’t legislate good neighbors. In our case, we think there may be light at the end of the tunnel since we’ve heard rumors that the property is being sold … and there’s no where to go but up.
BTW – the city has something called the Newton Hoarding Task Force. As I understand it, it’s part of the Health and Human Services Dept and the idea is to coordinate social services, police, fire dept, animal control, etc resources to try to deal with the very real mental health problem of hoarders. This sounds like a much more practical approach to a complicated problem then enacting new ordinances and fines which can then create all sorts of unintended consequences.
Thanks Ted.
I trust what Ald Hess Mahan has expressed here, and would support any similart opinion. There are some really out of place examples of uncared weeds/lawn, materials in yard, and parking on front lawns that should be a concern to a municipality like Newton. (“Like Newton” means a municipality that attracts investors that invest mostly because of the brand value here). If the neighbor kept pigs in your neighborhood it is your concern, no freedom concern. Keeping the yard as if abandoned is not acceptable.
@Ted – a clarification …
No, the wording doesn’t refer to the presence of vermin and stagnant water. It refers to an “expectation of harboring vermin .. and stagnant water”.
As far as I can see, there is no ordinance against having stagnant water on your property but this ordinance would prohibit vegetation that might harbor stagnant water.
It all seems a bit garbled and misguided
@Jerry, you are correct, it is an “expectation of harboring vermin.” We all wanted to know what that would look like. I was likewise unable to envision how vegetation that could harbor stagnant water might appear, unless of course it concealed a tire filled with water. Perhaps it should read “an expectoration … of stagnant water.”
I once had a neighbor (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) who placed an old toilet on the front lawn filled with a bouquet of flowers. Not my kind of art, or vase, but I would defend what was in the eye of that beholder as a reasonable and protected expression of her aesthetic choice.
The fire hazard and vermin arguments seem too far a stretch, considering that there are ordinances covering fire and health hazards on the books already. On the other hand, if a person is a “hoarder”, and in need of mental health counseling, then counseling is the correct avenue to pursue. Not this ordinance. As to living next door to toilet art, we have to play the hands we are dealt. Any other slope is mighty slippery.
According to today’s Tab, this “Junk Ordinance” came before the full board this week. Various concerns were raised and the board voted to delay further discussion of the item until the next meeting.
… and on a personal note. The two problem houses mentioned above, just outside our back door, have indeed been sold. The new owner is in the middle of gutting them both and refurbishing them. So there’s light at the end of our “nuisance house” tunnel.