Green Bay Council gets earful on managing eyesore properties

GREEN BAY – On a block with well-kept buildings, a vacant eyesore property can detract from other properties and become a target for vandals, Alder Joey Prestley said Oct. 20 at the Green Bay Common Council meeting. He is pushing for a new ordinance requiring vacant commercial properties to be registered with the city and establishing annual fees for properties sitting empty.

But not everyone likes the idea of more property fees, fines or taxes. Opponents fear the ordinance, with registration fees of $500 for commercial properties vacant for 12 months and rising to $4,000 for buildings that have sat empty for four years or longer, would deter real-estate investment in the city.

While Prestley said the city needs the revenue to cover the cost of inspections and citations related to vacant properties, the ordinance failed by a five- to-seven vote and fired up a lively debate about property rights before the Council sent it back to the Protection and Policy Committee for a possible rewrite.

Prestley, who represents District 6, and Jon Shelton of District 4 had the Common Council’s support to amend two sections of the ordinance by removing a 12-month cap for listing a vacant building for sale and by exempting a new owner from having to pay vacancy fees billed to the previous owner. As amended, however, the ordinance didn’t garner enough votes to advance. 

“We’re trying to incentivize people to productive uses of property in Green Bay,” Shelton said, while others said it could deter investors, sending them to other nearby communities to make investments instead.

Several alders, led by Ald. Melinda Eck, wanted the draft ordinance killed entirely, citing concerns about unfair treatment of vacant commercial properties in good repair. They said existing ordinances give the city the tools to address blighted properties. But Eck’s motion to deny the ordinance also failed five to seven.

The motions and votes followed over 90 minutes of discussion that dominated the two-hour meeting, including a lengthy public comment period that brought property owners, realtors and others to speak before the council.

Rick Van Der Leest, president of the Apartment Association of Northeast Wisconsin Inc., said it can take a property owner years to get a building leased. “As long as they’re taking care of the property and maintaining the property, I don’t understand what the issue is. We respectively ask for you to vote no on this,” he said.

Shelton responded by saying, “I see our role as advocating for tenants.” Shelton said he hears from constituents about the price of rent, which generally rises with high demand and tight supply. “The younger somebody is, the harder it is for them,” he said. “For me, doing everything in our power to lower the price of rent is one of our top priorities.”

But others said the ordinance overlooks the impact to small business owners, who often are commercial-property tenants. 

Jared Fink of Goldfinch Management, a property management firm, said he opposed the ordinance as it could turn away investors and hurt small businesses. “It takes a risk to own a small business. We all know that. I just want to make sure that we’re not making the barrier harder for them to get an affordable space to rent,” he said. 

Fink pointed to the years involved in developing the Shipyard project and to redeveloping the Schauer and Schumacher building that sat vacant for over 15 years before the Revelry concert space moved in this year at 227 E. Walnut St. and office space opened at 109 N. Adams St. 

Dane Lasecki, executive director of the nonprofit Grow Green Bay, said the ordinance hits the smallest vacant commercial properties the hardest because the fines don’t consider a property’s size or value. A $4,000 fee is 1.6 % of the value of a $250,000 building but less than a tenth of 1% of a $5 million building, he said.

“That makes the burden 20 times heavier on the small storefront owner in one of our neighborhood corridors than on one of the largest property owners in the city here,” Lasecki said. He pointed to Wisconsin law, section 66.0678, requiring municipal fees to be reasonable. Yet the ordinance sets fees that rise according to the number of years a building is vacant and not necessarily based on the cost to the city, he said.

Jennifer Sunstrom, director of public relations and government affairs for Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, said the association opposes the ordinance because the city has other regulations in place to address problem properties without affecting the property rights of other owners. “The ordinance imposes financial penalties on commercial property owners who have done nothing wrong other than experiencing a vacancy in an uncertain market. A vacancy is not a code violation; it is not a nuisance. It is not by itself a threat to public health,” she said. 

Sunstrom said the proposed penalties for vacant properties will discourage investment in Green Bay commercial real estate. “The proposed ordinance treats vacancies as if it was misconduct when in reality, it is often the result of broader economic forces outside the property owner’s control.” 

While Prestley said the ordinance would provide the fees the city needs for administrative services related to blighted properties, District 1 Alder Jennifer Grant said occupied buildings with similar issues of disrepair also require city services. She asked Prestley why vacant properties would be treated differently.

Prestley explained vacant properties may be more likely to attract vandals. “If you don’t have somebody there regularly checking on things, you have more risk of break-ins, you have more risk of vandalism,” he said. A burst pipe in a vacant building can cause a larger problem if it goes unnoticed, he said.

District 12 Alder Kathy Hinkfuss also expressed concern about the ordinance’s fines. “I think it’s a really bad message to people who want to invest in Green Bay,” she said. “Is this really the route we want to go? Let’s use a carrot instead of a stick.”

Eck said she read all of the comments she received from constituents who emailed the alders. “There’s only a select few people who are for this,” she said. “Everybody else is against it. We’re here to represent the people of Green Bay. If the bulk of Green Bay is against it, I think that we as their representatives should take that into consideration and vote no on this.”