Last night, the Eureka City Council narrowly passed a Vacant Building Ordinance that will allow the city to collect hefty fines from property owners with long-standing vacancies in residential and commercial buildings. 

The intent of the ordinance is to fix Eureka’s blight problem, not to punish landlords who can’t seem to find an interested renter. Given that goal, exceptions to the penalty are written into the ordinance. Owners looking to rent, sell or lease their property “in good faith” are exempt from the fine, as well as those with a permit to renovate or demolish the building. People with extenuating circumstances may also seek an exemption. 

Otherwise, folks who let properties sit empty for 90 days or more will be subject to a fine of $1,000 per month. After a year, the fine jumps to $5,000 per month.

“The fine is intended to be punitive,” City Attorney Autumn Luna clarified during last night’s meeting. “Fines are intended to be an amount that is enough to discourage people from violating the law.”

The ordinance also includes a monitoring and maintenance element that aims to keep empty buildings in good shape pending occupation. Property owners of vacant buildings will need to submit a “vacant building plan” explaining how long their building will be vacant and why. Under the ordinance, owners are required to upkeep buildings’ landscaping and exterior appearance and clear away trash and graffiti. The city will monitor vacant buildings quarterly and collect  monitoring fees. Those fees, which will be set at a later meeting, will be lower than the fines and aren’t punitive; they’re meant to cover the city’s monitoring expenses.

After tweaking the ordinance during a couple of meetings last month, the council passed it without new changes last night. That said, the council was divided. While some members voiced satisfaction with the ordinance, others worried about its punitive nature and wondered whether it will effectively tackle Eureka’s blight issue. The ordinance will replace the city’s existing Vacant and/or Boarded Building Ordinance in the municipal code.

The council agreed that blight is an issue across the Eureka’s neighborhoods and commercial districts, tarnishing neighborhood pride and disincentivizing visitors from exploring local businesses.

Business owners are frustrated, Councilmember Leslie Castellano said, because vacant buildings along the 101 corridor near Old Town signal to visitors that there aren’t open businesses nearby. 

“In the spirit of trying something out and learning from what we try, I completely support this,” Castellano said.

Councilmember Scott Bauer said he continues to wonder why so many buildings are vacant, and expressed uncertainty in prescribing a solution when the cause isn’t fully understood. 

“I think it’s an interesting concept, but being someone that craves data – as a scientist, I think data is important – I did a lot of research, and I and talked with people who I consider experts, and nobody could give me a good reason, a tax reason, to keep a building vacant,” he said. “I couldn’t find it.” 

Bauer asked staff for opinions on whether the ordinance will accomplish its intent. 

Director of Public Works Brian Gerving said his department of four staff coordinate between 600 and 800 code enforcement efforts per year, and adding more to the load is “a bit of a concern for me.” 

“However, if it’s going to achieve something meaningful, that’s great,” Gerving said. “I don’t know that these new provisions would get at the root causes of those vacancies. I don’t know that this is the best tool for that, but if it’s what council is asking staff to do, then we’ll certainly do it.”

Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach asked whether there is a better tool.

“That’s the harder question to answer, and I I don’t know that there is a better tool,” Gerving said. “I don’t know that this is the right one, but I can’t offer up an alternative at this point, because […] I don’t know that we have the right data on what the root causes of all these vacancies are.”

Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach listed several hangups with details in the ordinance.

The monitoring plan will require property owners to submit a timeline for occupying the building, which Contreras-DeLoach said is difficult, if not impossible, to predict. 

She also worried that maintenance requirements spelled out in the ordinance – which aim to prevent trespassing by replacing broken windows, for instance – are too heavy-handed. 

“I think this sounds good on the surface, but it’s almost like we don’t know or are cognizant of what property owners are facing in Eureka, which is a high level of property crime and windows being busted out,” said Contreras-DeLoach. Windows are expensive and replacing them can take time, Contreras-DeLoach said, adding that she herself has been robbed three times. 

She also listed some concerns about the monitoring element of the ordinance, which requires property owners to implement security at vacant properties. Some options are open-ended, allowing the city to decide what security is sufficient on a case-by-case basis.

“I’m uncomfortable passing anything where we’re not being very specific about what powers we’re giving ourselves and what we’re asking of code enforcement,” she said. 

Overall, Contreras-DeLoach said she finds it problematic that the ordinance aims to address both residential and commercial buildings at once, because different types of buildings sit vacant for different reasons.

During public comment, one person appeared in support of the new rules and two firmly against them. 

“I don’t know that you can tell someone what they must do with their property,” said one public commenter. “That’s like saying I must drive my car or I must ride my bicycle. I don’t think that it is productive to demand that real estate be returned to use when there is so much lack of interest in the space being utilized.”

Meanwhile, community member Raelina Krikston called the ordinance “a proactive and essential measure for our community’s development […] one tool in a toolbox that addresses some of the most egregious issues that our current ordinances have been ineffective in improving.” 

Krikston suggested directing funds from the fines toward the local housing trust fund or other similar initiatives, an idea that council members G. Mario Fernandez and Castellano later supported during discussion.

Before making a motion, Councilmember Kati Moulton reiterated the harmful impacts of blighted buildings on neighborhood health and business success. 

“If someone is simply leaving their property fallow, not to be used, that is a disservice to the community as a whole,” Moulton said. The timeline for satisfying the rules – paired with exceptions for those making an effort to sell, rent, renovate or demolish their property – add up to a fair ordinance, she said. 

“I want our code enforcement to have this – the potential for an ordinance with some teeth at the far end of this process. It’s not a short process. There’s many steps to get through before the teeth come into play,” Moulton said. 

The motion passed 3-2, with Bauer and Contreras-DeLoach dissenting.