By Chris Post / Editor-In-Chief

Residents of Marshall’s Ridgecrest neighborhood are continuing to press city officials for action on a problem property they say has lingered for years, while city officials say enforcement is moving forward but must follow due process requirements.

The issue has surfaced at back-to-back Marshall City Council meetings, with residents asking for a clear timeline and questioning whether stronger enforcement options, including condemnation, are available.

At the Sept. 1 meeting, Ridgecrest resident Mike Shipp told the council the property’s yard had continued to be mowed even after a scheduled hearing was canceled, but said lawn maintenance was not the neighborhood’s primary concern.

Shipp instead focused on the condition of the house itself, including broken windows and what he described as a long history of repeated violations.

“I would like to ask if this requirement for the replacement of these windows is an open-ended offer,” Shipp said.

Shipp told the council the problems had existed for more than 15 years and said the property owner had gone through hearings multiple times without lasting improvement.

“He’s been to hearings multiple times,” Shipp said. “Nothing’s been done. It goes right back to where he was.”

Shipp also said neighbors had seen additional wildlife coming out of the building.

He asked the council and mayor to establish a firm deadline for correcting the problems.

“Please don’t leave it open-ended because we’re going right back to status quo,” Shipp said.

Two weeks later, Disa Farris returned to the council on behalf of Ridgecrest residents with many of the same concerns.

Farris asked how the city determines the timeline for property owners, in this case Jerome Bublitz, to bring the property into compliance when multiple problems exist.

“If it’s broken windows, he gets 90 days. The roof’s collapsing, he gets 90 days. Or is it one stop, fix it all up?” Farris asked.

She also questioned whether condemnation might be an option, saying residents understood that fire-safety authorities may have the ability to close or condemn an unsafe structure.

“We’d kind of like to know where that possibility stands too,” Farris said.

The discussion continued later in the Sept. 15 meeting when council members raised similar concerns about whether residents were being given enough information about the city’s progress.

Peggy Sherman, Ward 2 council member, said Ridgecrest residents had repeatedly asked for a timeline and appeared to be seeking some indication of what happens next.

City officials said the answer is complicated by the property owner’s legal rights. City Administrator J.D. Kehrman said condemnation may be possible through different avenues, but those avenues do not remove the city’s obligation to provide notice and due process.

“There may be different avenues towards that, but it doesn’t change the underlying rights of the property owner and the obligation of the city to give them notice and to give them due process,” Kehrman said.

Kehrman said the city has asked outside code and engineering professionals to review whether provisions in state law could strengthen Marshall’s existing ordinances.

He cautioned, however, that the city cannot create a special process aimed at a single property owner and must enforce its rules consistently.

“We’ve got to be very careful that we’re treating everyone the same and that we’re not acting outside the code,” Kehrman said.

Kehrman said the city currently has multiple enforcement efforts underway involving the Ridgecrest property.

The prosecutor has been in contact with Bublitz over recent citations, while the city continues to pursue property-maintenance issues involving grass, weeds, junk and broken windows.

The city is also using its strengthened vacant-property ordinance, which Kehrman said will create a timeline and plan Bublitz must meet.

A separate administrative process could address broader health, fire and safety concerns.

That process, however, is closely governed by law.

Kehrman said a procedural mistake could jeopardize the city’s ability to enforce its codes against the property.

He said the city remains engaged with the issue and suggested the city attorney may provide the council with a more detailed presentation on condemnation authority and related state statutes at a future meeting.

“We certainly understand everyone’s frustration on this particular property and there’s some others in town that just don’t have advocates from the neighborhood like we have at Ridgecrest that have been lingering for years and years,” Kehrman said. “And we really want to get those properties cleaned up and off the books and we want to hold those individuals responsible.”