Code Attorney

I’m recently back from the Region III conference in Brooklyn Park, MN put on by AMBO.  This year I stayed an extra night courtesy of Mother Nature (my Southwest flight was cancelled due to the snow storm in Chicago) but it gave me a chance to visit with a great group of people.  One of the things that really impressed me is the difference between laws in a state like Minnesota versus those in my home state, Illinois.  Inspectors in Minnesota have more tools at their disposal in dealing with the foreclosure crisis because of their ability to clean a property up and collect the costs on the property’s tax bill.  In theory, Illinois inspectors can do the same thing but the way the 2005 law is written makes it so convoluted that I don’t know anyone who has been successful in collecting any money this way.  Putting a lien on property isn’t sufficient.  Years may pass before the property sells or the lien may be wiped out by foreclosure proceedings depending on local law.  What is the difference between states?  I believe Illinois is in the grip of special interests that defeat bills that would make it easier to get property cleaned up and help local jurisdictions recoup their costs.  Being able to collect municipal expenses on next year’s tax bill for a problem property with a process that is simple and direct is a terrific tool that I wish I could use in my practice. It would eliminate the helplessness inspectors experience during the gap period, from the time the homeowner walks away from a property and the time the lender takes title.   I envy my Minnesota colleagues.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Foreclosure, Politics, Politics and building codes, property maintenance Tag(s):

One of the things I love about living in the Chicago area is the entertaining misdeeds in which city workers get involved.  Here’s a story from the Chicago Sun-Times about an inspector who catches other people working without a permit.  He is alleged to have installed a flood control system without permits and was caught when he busted a water pipe.  It gets better. He called the city emergency number after the mishap and then asked the responding personnel to give him city-owned parts so he could fix the problem.  Apparently, this was a long standing tradition.  Unfortunately for him, the inspector who responded was a whistleblower on a separate corruption case.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1654513,CST-NWS-leak07.article

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Politics and building codes Tag(s):

Too often political considerations interfere with the ability of building code officials to do their jobs in an appropriate manner. Most of the time this type of behavior goes unpunished. It often consists of not enforcing the code against “protected” person or companies or harshly enforcing the code against opponents. Sometimes, however, an aggrieved party files a lawsuit against the offenders. This happened in Dorr v. City of Ecorse, 2008 WL 5397760(C.A. 6 (Mich.))(2008) when a property owner sued the city and its mayor for the denial of a certificate of occupancy under the Civil Rights Acts. The plaintiff and the mayor were neighbors with a contentious history. The plaintiff passed all the necessary inspections and was entitled to a certificate of occupancy for a garage extension. He was trying to sell his house but couldn’t with the certificate. The city repeatedly refused to issue it and the plaintiff was unable to close on a house because of this inaction. The federal court of appeals agreed with the plaintiff that he had been denied substantive due process and upheld the award of $22,000 in damages, $55,000 in punitive damages against the mayor and $27,975.00 in attorney’s fees. (Punitive damages would come out of the mayor’s pocket). This case serves as a cautionary tale for those who would use the building code as a weapon.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Politics and building codes Tag(s):

My first position after law school was as an assistant state’s attorney where my entire training revolved around criminal law enforcement.  When I left the State’s Attorney’s office, I  began prosecuting municipal ordinances which included building codes.  At first I just saw them as minor cases to process but after awhile I began to see the connection between enforcing building codes and keeping crime rates low, especially in apartment complexes.  Fixing lights in a parking lot reduced drug dealing on a premises better than a team of police officers.  Forcing landlords to spend money on repairs made them more motivated to crack down on tenants who were trashing a building.  Over the years I’ve noticed a strong correlation between vigorous code enforcement and a reduction in police calls.  Just getting junk vehicles towed from a parking lot makes the tenants happier with their surroundings.   Unfortunately, sometimes those in leadership in law enforcement fail to see the connection and are reluctant to spend resources assisting building code departments.  This is shortsighted.  The code enforcement department can be a great resource for the police department and vice versa.  Police personnel get into residences all of the time on police calls and can be the eyes of the code department.  Code enforcement inspectors who are properly trained may see things inside a building that may be beneficial for the police department.  The local jurisdictions that recognize this relationship are the ones most successful in reducing crime in a neighborhood.  Now there is even scientific evidence for the “broken windows” theory, conducted by a university in the Netherlands.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27825380/from/ET/#storyContinued Blighted conditions have an effect on the behavior of the people in those communities.   Code enforcement is an integral component of any effort to control and contain crime.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Code Enforcement, Politics and building codes Tag(s):