I want Oilton to look better.
That means overgrown and neglected lawns mowed, trash cleaned up, and dangerous properties addressed. People should take care of their homes, respect their neighbors, and take pride in the community.
I do not believe we have to choose between cleaning up our town and protecting the freedom that comes with living in a small community.
That is what concerned me when the Oilton City Council recently considered adopting the International Property Maintenance Code, commonly called the IPMC.
Oilton already has ordinances dealing with weeds, trash, dangerous structures and nuisances. Before adopting hundreds of additional standards, we should first ask: Are we enforcing the laws we already have?
If our current ordinances leave a real gap, identify it and fix it. But that is different from adopting an entire model code because we want the town cleaned up.
The IPMC is not some obscure code. Norman, Baltimore, Philadelphia and South San Francisco have adopted or incorporated versions of it. Tulsa also has extensive property-maintenance regulations.
Those communities can decide what works for them. Oilton needs to decide what works for Oilton.
The IPMC goes far beyond tall grass and piles of trash. It addresses broken windows, exterior surfaces, gutters, electrical receptacles and faceplates, bedroom size, occupancy and other conditions in existing homes. It even regulates insect screens on certain windows and openings used for ventilation.
There is a difference between a porch that is collapsing and could hurt someone and whether an older home’s ventilation window has the type of insect screen required by an international model code. There is a difference between trash attracting rats and chipped paint.
Some of those requirements have a health or safety purpose. But should every one of them become something the City of Oilton can cite an existing homeowner for?
Oilton has a lot of older homes. Many were built generations ago. An older house is not automatically a bad house, and it does not mean the owner has thousands of dollars available whenever something breaks.
For example, a homeowner may know his roof needs repaired. Everyone driving down the street may know it needs repaired. But if that homeowner does not have several thousand dollars to fix it, what does giving him a ticket accomplish?
The roof still needs repaired, and now he has a roof problem and a court bill.
That gets to the bigger question: What is the purpose of code enforcement?
There is a big difference between someone who refuses to fix a problem and someone who simply does not have the money to fix it. Our ordinances and enforcement should recognize that difference.
There will always be cases where enforcement becomes necessary. Someone cannot repeatedly refuse to mow a yard, leave trash piled up or allow a legitimate nuisance to continue forever.
But a fine should be a tool to get compliance. A fine may convince someone who refuses to mow his grass to finally mow it. A fine does not magically create the money for a new roof.
At what point do all these citations, fines and fees start becoming another tax on the people who live here?
A citation is not technically a tax. But if government keeps adding rules and attaching fines and fees to those rules, the resident still feels the cost.
If every code violation in Oilton disappeared tomorrow and the city never collected another dollar in code-enforcement fines, I would call that a success.
Success should be measured by problems corrected, not dollars collected.
That is one reason I supported retired Police Chief George Hensley becoming Oilton’s codeenforcement officer.
Over a year ago, George knocked on my door. My lawn mower was broken, and I had not mowed my yard in about three weeks. I immediately started explaining myself because I thought he was there about my grass.
George laughed and said, “Brian, I’m not here about your lawn. I’m here about the cemetery.”
I told that story at the council meeting for a reason.
My point was not that George would give me or anybody else special treatment. The rules should apply fairly to everyone.
My point was that George has spent years earning the respect of people in this community. People know him and know his record. Because of that, I believe residents are more likely to listen when he tells them something needs to be taken care of.
A respected local official may be able to knock on a door, explain the problem and get it corrected before a situation ever reaches court. That is very different from having an unfamiliar official from outside the community show up with a citation in hand.
That is where I would like us to start: consistent enforcement of the ordinances we already have by someone who understands the community.
If we find problems our existing ordinances cannot solve, bring those specific problems to the council, let the public hear about them and write rules that address the actual gap.
Some people choose places with detailed rules about how property should look. Other people choose small towns because they want more room and more independence.
That does not give anyone the right to create a dangerous property or nuisance. Freedom comes with responsibility.
But there is a point where reasonable standards become unnecessary regulation.
I am not arguing for rundown properties or against code enforcement. I am arguing that before government creates more rules, it ought to prove the rules we already have are not enough.
Enforce what we have. Give people a reasonable opportunity to fix problems. Recognize the difference between someone who cannot comply immediately and someone who simply refuses. Use stronger enforcement when it is actually necessary.
Oilton can become cleaner without becoming more controlling.
A clean town and a free town are not opposites. Good local government should protect both.
Empower first. Regulate when necessary. Enforce proportionately.