Knight Chair in Investigative & Enterprise Reporting
Finding problems facing small cities — continued
Dilapidated buildings
Only four of the seven cities we surveyed discussed problems with dilapidated buildings. But discussion about the buildings appeared so many times in the four cities that the problem ranked second behind city council operations and services.
We found Owosso had 45 properties that were assessed with “hazards and nuisances.” The city’s old housing stock was on a list of problems discussed at one city council meeting. The list stated: “the higher unemployment rates, chronic lower household income, and high personal debt loads do not take care of the essential needs of dwelling units.” We learned 71 percent of the houses in Owosso were built before 1960.
Mount Vernon had the second highest total with 34 dilapidated buildings. Albert Lea and Newton ranked behind Mount Vernon with six and four dilapidated buildings, respectively.
While Newton had the smallest number of dilapidated buildings, it was the only city where a council member specifically linked dilapidated buildings to how people perceive the city. The council member commented that bicyclists taking a ride across the state would see junk cars and dilapidated buildings in Newton.
Traffic, roads and parking
“It looks like a used car lot,” an Albert Lea citizen said, referring to how one resident is violating the city's parking ordinance.
Six of the seven cities we surveyed discussed problems with traffic, roads or parking. During 2006, Albert Lea's city council discussed these issues more often than in any other year we looked at. At Sikeston, traffic, roads and parking were discussed once. At Logansport, the problem was not discussed at all.
The same three cities that had the most problems with city council operations and services — Albert Lea, Owosso and Mount Vernon — also had the most problems with traffic, roads and parking. Both Albert Lea and Mount Vernon shared the problem of not having sidewalks on parts of routes children use to walk to school.
In Albert Lea, Owosso and Mount Vernon, speeding and streets needing repair were discussed at least once. One citizen in Mount Vernon commented that she has lived on the same street for 43 years, and it hasn't been touched as far as repair.
Property upkeep
“If you go down to Olson Drive, it is the same way: everything is out in the weeds. Nobody is taking care of anything,” said an Albert Lea citizen.
Our survey found that weeds, unmowed grass, litter and junk cars appeared most frequently under the “property upkeep” category of complaints. And these complaints were about privately held and city-owned property. Six of the seven cities we surveyed discussed property upkeep at least once in 2006.
Albert Lea citizens commented 23 times about property upkeep, more often than any other city we surveyed. At city council meetings in Albert Lea and Beaver Dam, toughening property maintenance standards was discussed. One citizen in Albert Lea suggested city “ ... staff get a little tougher with these property owners.”
Three cities we surveyed shared the problem of grass and weeds not getting cut, and two of these cities also had problems with littering. In Newton, one citizen complained that the city was lax in enforcing its rules. According to the minutes, he “addressed the issue of weeds, littering and sidewalks, noting if they were not going to be enforced they should be removed from the city code.”
Mount Vernon and Albert Lea had an identical problem: People were not moving their trash cans from the curb. In Albert Lea, there is an ordinance requiring their removal. In Mount Vernon, two citizens came to the same meeting to complain about trash cans. According to the meeting minutes, the citizens asked what could be done about neighbors who leave their garbage cans out front of their homes all of the time.
Logansport was the only city without any property upkeep problems. The Sikeston and Beaver Dam city councils discussed the problem once in 2006.