Property owners who let landmark properties or properties in the historic district deteriorate to the point of demolition by neglect can now face up to a $1,000 fine after city council approved changes to the historic preservation ordinance Tuesday.

What is demolition by neglect? Demolition by neglect was already defined in the ordinance, so what is different now? What specific changes were made to the ordinance?

What is demolition by neglect?

Demolition by neglect is a designation given to properties that have deteriorated to the point of necessitating demolition. It applies to properties with issues including deteriorating foundations, buckling walls and pieces of the building falling off.

State law outlines that this designation only applies to historic buildings or buildings within historic districts. It also allows municipalities to bring a misdemeanor charge against a property owner found to be guilty of demolition by neglect.

While that was defined in the city’s historic preservation ordinance, there was no clear fine structure to incentivize compliance.

Changes implemented Tuesday apply a fee structure to the misdemeanor charge. Property owners found guilty of demolition by neglect will be fined $300 for the first offense, $600 for the second and $1,000 for the third, all within a one-year period. Each day improvements are not made to the building can count as a new offense.

“We’re not trying to fine people into oblivion or make it harder,” said Nathan Katona, building department director. “So, it’s a matter of if we have someone who really does not want to follow the rules and really wants to just be difficult and try to make the town worse, we have the ability to make it quite painful financially, but that’s not our goal.”

Columbus has a code that sets standards for all buildings in the city. How is this any different?

The International Property Maintenance Code sets standards for all properties in the city and allows for property owners to be issued a municipal court ticket and fines of up to $1,000 for issues like broken windows, peeling paint and holes on the exterior of the house.

However, Katona said the IPMC does not include a specific infraction for demolition by neglect. It can also be hard to ticket for IPMC infractions when buildings are already in a state of deterioration from old age, he said.

“It can be a little harder to prove with (IPMC) as far as just general deterioration,” Katona said. “… (There) sometimes appears to be a pattern where people are intentionally neglecting it because they don’t want to deal with it and they don’t want to sell it. This allows us to start some avenues to start the conversation with the property owner.”

Additionally, the goals of the IPMC and the historic preservation ordinance are different, Katona said.

“Historic homes are protected, and we have an obligation that has been placed on us by the … Mississippi Department of Archives and History to uphold the historic preservation,” he said. “… The issue when you get into the historic district is … the goal is preservation, so we don’t want to be tearing homes down that have been there from the 1800s and are an integral piece of our community, contributing to the historic district.”

Are there any properties in the historic district that would qualify if the changes are adopted?

Katona hopes the new penalty structure will allow his department to intervene before a property gets to the point where it needs to be demolished.

While he could not name any specific properties that he would cite with this ordinance, Katona said one property – a Greek Revival home built in the 1840s at 725 Second Ave. N. – could have potentially avoided demolition proceedings if a fee structure was already in place. The Historic Preservation Commission voted Monday to stay demolition of the house for 120 days while the owner works on a rehabilitation plan.

“There’s nothing that (the new owner) can do; it’d be hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix it,” Katona said. “So that’s a great example, so if this ordinance (had) been in place 15 years ago, they probably could have started the conversation with the owner then of, ‘Hey, you can’t let this historic 1800s home just fall apart.’”

Editor’s note: Do you want answers to questions about the Golden Triangle? Each week, Dispatch reporters set out to explain or update a timely, practical issue. Email your question to [email protected].