Inquirer: Yes it's ugly, but it doesn't appear to break any laws
A Concerned Reader and property owner named Barbara called to see if I could get something done about an abandoned house next to one of her rental houses.
She said the long-vacant house on Laurel Drive over in the Edgewood area is an eyesore that makes it hard for her to rent her nearby house.
She said it's boarded up, but she suspects people are getting into it and possibly squatting in there.
So I rode out there and had no trouble recognizing which house she was talking about.
It looks to have been a nice little brick ranch house at one time. But now it is indeed boarded up in several places. The paint is peeling on the eaves and fascia, but the roof looks to be in fair shape. No visible holes or even sagging.
As Alert Readers will recall, on several occasions I have encountered houses like this one -- one you would not want to be living next to, but one that is not bad enough to be in violation of any city ordinances.
In other words, as I have pointed out before: ugly isn't illegal. (If it were, as I have also pointed out before, a few of my friends would be felons.)
The owner of the house, according to city records and Nexis, moved away a few years ago but is still apparently having someone cut the grass. As for shrubbery, the lone piece of it, a lone tropical tree, is bone-yard dead. So the yard isn't in violation.
As for the house, it is boarded up, although the plywood covering the side door is either delaminating or has been pulled away. I couldn't tell from the street, which is as close as I can get, legally.
As we all know, the standard the city uses to declare a house beyond redemption is if in the opinion of inspectors it would take more than half the house's appraised value to bring it up to code, it'll get a big red D and get on the city's demolition list.
I'm no engineer or certified inspector and I've never seen the inside or the back, but this house doesn't look anywhere near that condition.
The only possible infraction is a large hunk of a pine that was obviously cut down a while back. As we have learned from earlier Inquirers, there is a quirk in city code concerning trees on the ground. That is, if you cut it down, you are required to cut it up and haul it away. If it fell over naturally, you are not required to clean it up.
As you can see from the photo, this one was either cut down with a chainsaw or there is a beaver in the neighborhood who went to Georgia Tech.
All that said, I will call the proper city authorities and find out if it's on the city's radar, or if I'm missing some infraction here.
Sorry, Barbara.
Seen something that needs attention? Contact me at 706-571-8570 or mowen@ledger-enquirer.com.
This story was originally published January 11, 2015 at 9:12 PM with the headline "Inquirer: Yes it's ugly, but it doesn't appear to break any laws."