By Jeremy D. Wells
Carter County Times
People sometimes get the idea, Grayson Mayor George Steele said, that they can do whatever they want with their property, with no obligation to anyone else around them. However, he said, that isn’t the case.
“You do have an obligation to everyone around you,” Steele said. “You have an obligation to your neighbors.”
This, he explained, is why the city has ordinances about maintaining your property, and why the city must enforce them.
While it isn’t pleasant to come point out to someone that their property is a mess, or to make them clean it up, it is sometimes necessary – even if it sometimes can take time to get the issue resolved. Such is the case with a number of properties along Little Sandy Lane that have been cited for failing to meet city ordinances related to clutter, trash, and property upkeep. While the city has been gently prodding property owners to clean up for some time, they cannot put off taking action on the issue any longer, Steele said.
“The bottom line is, those issues have got to be resolved,” he said.
Some of those property owners have taken significant steps to begin addressing those issues already, but others have made no progress at all. Because of that, Steele said, while the city may suspend fines for some, they may be forced to act and impose the fines on others who have taken no action.
These issues have been ongoing, since before the tenure of current code enforcement officer Joe Hammer, but Hammer said he has been in contact with at least one of the property owners, and they have attempted to take care of some of the issues pointed out to them. While he said he had not yet been in direct contact with a second property owner, Hammer said he had sent letters to them, and while they still owed fines and were not fully in compliance with the city’s ordinances, they were also working to clean up their property.
A third property – this one with absentee owners – has had no work done on it and has several hefty, unpaid fines levied against it.
Residents along the road who do maintain their properties voiced their concerns and frustrations with the state of their neighbors’ properties as well.
One resident, who identified himself as Mr. Mershon, said he had been to city hall four times over the last couple of years to get the properties taken care of. He said because of the state of the neighborhood he was “embarrassed” to have people visit. In addition to the garbage and detritus in the yards, he said, one of the properties has a pool in the front yard – in violation of city ordinances – which he said created a safety hazard by blocking the view of oncoming traffic when exiting the neighborhood.
Another neighbor, Mr. Harr, who owns property in the neighborhood, said he was, “fed up with the dogs down there.”
Harr said the dogs tear the garbage out “every Monday night” when it was put out for Tuesday morning pickup. He said he didn’t know if they were turned loose purposely, or they just happened to get out before garbage day, but the result was a mess. He said one of the dogs, a German shepherd that was not a stray, was aggressive towards children and other dogs, and had also chased an elderly neighbor into her home.
Harr said there was also an issue with feral cats in the neighborhood, but they weren’t as pressing or concerning as the dogs that were allowed to run free.
One of the property owners whose property was the topic of discussion said he had received letters from the city, and talked with Hammer, and he “thought (he) had cleaned it up” to the city’s satisfaction, but that he was addressing the other issues that had been raised with him.
“It won’t be much longer until it’s cleaned up,” he said.
He is also the home with the pool, and said there was no room for the pool in the backyard area. He asked about the possibility of flipping his front and back yards to be in compliance with city ordinances, noting that he has entrances onto both yards, but councilman Troy Combs pointed out he had already defined the area with the pool as his front yard when he said the pool wouldn’t fit in his back yard.
The property owner also blamed some of the garbage on his property on the dogs that tear into trash.
But another neighbor said the problem was more than just daily trash strewn about by dogs.
“I’m talking about junk, not trash,” she said, noting that her complaint was with things like “old washing machines.”
“We’re not talking about hamburger packages,” she said.
She also noted that she has battled roaches, mice, and other vermin that she believes stems from the garbage that accumulates on adjacent properties.
While the city took action to begin the process of dealing with problem dogs by adding a new position to the street department (see “Grayson adds animal control position” in this issue), Larry Doucet asked the city to consider having a dumpster placed in the neighborhood for garbage collection. If residents carried their trash to a central dumpster instead of individual receptacles, he said, they could mitigate the impact of loose dogs until the root of the problem could be addressed.
While some residents complained they couldn’t carry their garbage several blocks to dump it – “we’re old,” one stated – Combs brought the issue before council, asking about the cost to the city to have a dumpster placed in the neighborhood.
Councilpersons Terry Stamper and Sudy Walker said it wasn’t the responsibility of the city to provide receptacles like a dumpster. But Combs countered that Grayson was a home rule city, and they could take action to place dumpsters in neighborhoods if they had the political will to do so.
Council also discussed plans to add another street department employee, and to have that department handle dog complaints, which Stamper and Walker opposed as well.
Councilman Jerry Yates joined with Stamper and Walker in opposing the hiring of another street department employee at this time, but said he thought the city did need to move on dumpsters, to help with the trash issue until the dog problem could be resolved.
“I think we need to move on the dumpsters, to help now,” Yates said. “But I cannot go in favor of the city paying a dollar more for anything we are already paying for through the county. It’s not right.”
The property owner, Harr, said the cleanup of large items was more important to him than dumpsters as well, but Steele said they would take care of both issues and “will put out dumpsters until it’s cleaned up.”
Another pair of the property owners cited for non-compliance, who sat quietly through most of the meeting, listening to their neighbors, spoke up at the end to apologize for the negative impact of their vehicles and appliances on the neighborhood. They said they’ve been working to be in compliance and will continue to do so.
While Steele said he appreciated their contrition, and that they were working to clean up the property, “there’s a point in time where you have to draw the line,” the mayor said.
Steele said he would support holding the imposition of any fines for a period of two weeks, to give the property owners time to address the rest of the issues. After that time, he said, the city should look at the possibility of imposing the fines on any property owners who were still not in compliance.
Councilman Bradley Cotten made a motion to that effect, moving to hold the fines for two weeks, and to continue to hold them if the property stayed in compliance, but not to waive them completely. That way, he said, the possibility of future fines could serve as a deterrent to property owners backsliding and allowing junk to accumulate on their land. In addition, property owners are still responsible for the cost of any city-led cleanup that has already taken place on their property.
Contact the writer at editor@cartercountytimes.com
