Eyesores put on notice in Yakima County

YAKIMA, Wash. -- Yakima County's file on the Richard Lopez nuisance property is about 40 pages long -- 40 pages of warnings Lopez didn't heed.

The county opened the case in 2006 when its code enforcement department got a complaint and conducted a site inspection.

It will close the case in the coming months when it hires someone to knock down Lopez's dilapidated house outside Wapato.

That case and another involving two properties near Sunnyside mark the first time the county has used its new authority to tear down nuisance properties at their owners' expense. And if the owner doesn't pay up, the county can foreclose on the land to recoup costs.

"What we're trying to do is put the community on notice that they no longer can turn their back on county code enforcement," Yakima County Commissioner Mike Leita said. "And if they choose that path, there will be grave consequences."

Passed late in 2007, the amended nuisance-abatement law gives code enforcement its teeth back -- something made necessary by a 2005 state Supreme Court decision. Prior to 2005, the county used "summary abatement" authority, granted on a case-by-case basis by county judges. It allowed them to tear down problem properties, just like the new law.

But the state Supreme Court, examining several cases from around the state, issued an opinion that year that put use of such authority on shaky legal ground. That left Yakima County with clunky abatement methods such as civil injunctions and difficult-to-prove misdemeanor charges.

In many cases, it basically meant you could keep your yard filled with as many old cars as you wanted. Or rent your unsafe house to unlucky tenants. Or litter your property with old, rusted appliances.

The county had neither the legal mechanisms nor the staffing levels to bring all of its nuisance cases to closure, said Dave Saunders, who heads the code enforcement department. The three-person department ended 2006 with 1,056 cases still active.

That number is down to 756 as of this week, progress Saunders attributes in large part to the new abatement law. In addition to reinstating the county's authority to tear down problem properties, it also established $550 civil infractions that serve as a wake-up call to would-be deadbeats, Saunders said.

"My code enforcement officers tell me that just having the ability to write an infraction is helping immensely," he said.

The new law passes legal muster by mandating more contact with offenders prior to penalties, and it includes additional opportunities for property owners to plead their case or to cooperate, he said.

It varies from case to case, but between code enforcement and the county's legal department, violators are given at least six notices -- six chances to work with the county and stay the legal penalties.

That's why it's only now, more than a year after the new law passed, that the county has reached the point of tearing down buildings.

"I insist that there be sufficient contact effort made," said Paul McIlrath, the county deputy prosecutor who oversees code enforcement. "We review the record to ensure that the mail we've sent has been picked up, that we've called them, that we've served them with papers."

Hence the thick case files.

The Lopez property, at 110 Horschel Road near Wapato, was deemed a "dangerous building" back in August 2006. Aside from the dilapidated state of the house and a nearby shed, there were junk vehicles, trash and appliances in the yard. Photos taken by code enforcement officer Janna Jackson less than a month ago show no improvement.

Lopez, who has a Kennewick mailing address, was not available for comment on this story. Neither phone number the county has used to contact him in the past belongs to him anymore.

This week, McIlrath will take Lopez's case, along with the one near Sunnyside, to a Superior Court judge and request orders of abatement that will allow the county to hire contractors to tear down the buildings on his property.

"It should be a fairly straightforward process," he said.

* Pat Muir can be reached at 577-7693, or at pmuir@yakimaherald.com.

* What makes a nuisance property

The definition of "nuisance violation" in Yakima County code is about 1,000 words long, not counting references to other parts of the code. But basically a nuisance property is one that is unsafe or that infringes on the property rights of neighbors. It can be deemed a nuisance because of unpermitted buildings or expansions, dilapidated buildings, trash in the yard, junk vehicles in the yard or any number of other reasons. The entire definition can be found in the Chapter 13.11 of the county code, available online at http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/yakimacounty.

The county's designated building official, Dave Saunders, makes the final call on specific cases. He is loathe to intrude on property owners' rights to do as they please with their property, but he's also sensitive to the rights of neighbors who could be adversely affected.

"The thing is, both of the parties have property rights, and we're trying to protect both."

• Jobs
  www.yakjobs.com
• Homes
  www.yakhomes.com
• 
• 
  
• Autos
  www.yakwheels.com

• All Special Pubs Yakima Magazine Channels YakJobs.com YakWheels.com YakHomes.com Playdate Yakima Bride Yakima Wheels (Print) Home Buyer's Guide Baby Brag Book Graduates 2009 Summer in the Valley Prep Football 2009 Women in Business Holiday Gift Guide
• Advertisement