Why hasn't city warned of 'dangerous' property?

One man’s dispute is another’s politics.

The last time that I recall stepping onto a property in the 600 block of South East Street in Hillsboro – that either is or isn’t at the center of a dispute, depending upon one’s definition – it was a low-budget grocery store. I think it was called “Lowes” or something close to that. A lot of people tell me it used to be Steen’s IGA, but I disagree. I think Steen’s was across from Rotary Forms Press on South High Street.

I’ve been around, you know?

Regardless, my last visit to the aforementioned property was either in the late 1960s or early ‘70s. Shortly thereafter, the grocery store closed. To the best of my knowledge, it has remained mostly vacant for the ensuing four decades.

The relatively new owner of the property, Highland County resident Letcher Langston, says he is in the midst of a dispute with the city administration.

The city safety and service director, Todd Wilkin, says he is not aware of any dispute.

He might be the only one.

As we reported last week (http://highlandcountypress.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=20&ArticleID=24895&TM=63806.65), the owner of a long-vacated property in the 600 block of South East Street – 617 S. East St., to be more precise for the SSD – is upset (in dispute) with the city of Hillsboro administration.

Mr. Langston recently purchased the property and has made considerable improvements on the mostly vacant land. A walled structure that, decades ago, housed a grocery store is the point of contention between the city and the land owner.

(For full disclosure and given the city’s present disposition and 24/7 social media infatuation, Mr. Langston and I are not relatives, friends, business associates or political allies. In fact, a couple of decades ago, he ran a political campaign against my favorite Hillsboro city auditor in the past 200 years. How do you like them apples, Daddy-O?)

In a letter dated Oct. 3, 2014, the city of Hillsboro which, once again, for the record, is not aware of any property dispute, advised Mr. Langston as follows:

“After receiving a complaint on the property located at 617 S. East Street, a walk-by inspection was conducted. It was found that your property is in violation of Section 150.05 City Ordinance of Hillsboro, the residence (sic) is dangerous to the safety of visitors, the public or to juvenile trespassers and is otherwise unsafe and poses a general health and safety hazard to the residents of Hillsboro. If no objections are filed with the Housing Inspector within 14 days, the Housing Inspector may do any of the following:

1) Enter the premises with the assistance of the Police Department and make a closer inspection of the premises;

2) Abate any serious nuisance posing an immediate threat to public safety;

3) Ban entry into the building and post notices of the same on the building, under penalty of arrest for trespassing;

4) Solicit bids for the demolition of the building and removal of the debris;

5) Summon interested parties to a hearing before the Housing Inspector to acquire further facts.

That sounds like a dispute to me. And trust me, I’ve been in some disputes over the years.

Webster’s defines a dispute as a “disagreement, argument, or debate.”

Yep. This is a dispute. The city needs to find a clue. Maybe there’s some grant money for that, too?

Moreover, while the city states that the property in question is a residence, Mr. Langston objects, saying it is not a residence. The city also did not state who made the alleged complaint or why, after so many decades, the property has become an issue?

If, indeed, this property is a danger to society, why, pray tell, haven’t the city, county and state of Ohio advised us of such dangers?

In the last quarter of a century of news reporting, I cannot recall any sheriff, chief of police, state patrolman (patrolperson?), fire chief, or emergency management director issuing a public advisory to stay clear of this supposedly hazardous property. In the past three years of the current city administration, the only locally owned newspaper in Highland County has not received a single news release or advisory on this property or the alleged dangers it presents to the general welfare of Hillsboro residents, taxpayers and passersby.

Why not?

In a letter to the city of Hillsboro, dated Oct. 13, 2014, Mr. Langston replies:

“Your letter stated that my property could pose a danger to people that have trespassed onto my property. Anyone breaking the law of trespassing onto anyone's private property has no rights to safety. Their act is criminal, and they need to be arrested for that act, plus they need to be prosecuted in accordance to the law.”

I drive by Mr. Langston’s property at least twice a day, seven days a week. I can attest to this fact: It is in far better condition today than it was prior to his ownership. Furthermore, the walled structure in question is well removed from the street and Route 247 right of way and any pedestrian traffic along said routes.

According to Mr. Langston, he and the city had a closed-door meeting on Oct. 24. Following that meeting, Mr. Langston said he sent a followup letter to the city. In part, it states:

“I’m requesting all police and fire reports showing how many persons have been hurt or killed on the property in the last 30 years. This would help in the best placements to where I need barricades (or) caution tape. I go to the property at least twice a day to check it. I have yet to see the hoards (hordes) of pedestrians or cars traveling through or near the wall.”

Mr. Langston also references other properties within the city that he claims were discussed with the safety and service director on Oct. 24. In addition, Mr. Langston pointed out property owned by city official(s) that could be in similar condition.

In a meeting at The Highland County Press on Oct. 27, Mr. Langston said much of the city’s thought-process on local property is subjective. He also said it is detrimental to local real estate values.

He has a point.

So, too, does the city. Unfortunately, the city has not done a very good job of presenting its case. Or of keeping its own house in order.

Many years ago when Bill Fawley became Highland County auditor, he was faced with making adjustments (i.e., increases) to some of the local tax valuations. Bill and I have talked about this more than once over the years. He said the first thing he did prior to raising any other property owner’s taxes, was to be absolutely certain that his family’s taxes were up to date.

With that in mind, perhaps it would be wise for the city administration to be absolutely certain that all properties owned by the city administrators are up to the new building codes before enforcing the new codes on anyone else.

In addition, the city ought to disclose all local, state and federal tax dollars that city employees and elected or appointed officials have received with respect to their own properties. By my records, those dollars exceed half a million. And they keep coming in, don’t they?

It’s pretty easy to order others to make improvements at their own expense, while their tax dollars help improve your property, isn’t it?

“I still believe that this a government for the people, by the people,” Mr. Langston told the city. “It should not be left to a few select persons that have their own personal gains in mind; but strive to do what is best for all, equally. There are many issues at hand here and I believe that all citizens and building owners need to have a good old-fashioned town meeting with our city. Let we, the people, know when you would like us to meet to discuss these concerns.”

Indeed.

Rory Ryan is publisher and owner of The Highland County Press.