When Oxford First Selectman George Temple proposed a public hearing on a blight ordinance this month, he said he wanted to know whether people were for or against it.
On Monday night he got his answer: against.
Overwhelmingly so.
The response was so strong, Temple said after the meeting that he would cancel plans for a town meeting to move forward with the ordinance.
“I want to have a better finger on the pulse of the town,” he said.
The 11-page ordinance would have given officials the power to levy daily fines of $100 per violation on owners of blighted properties. Owners would first receive a warning giving them 30 days to fix problems before fines would be imposed. It would target, among other things, abandoned vehicles, junk, overgrown grass, and dilapidated buildings.
Click here to read a copy of the proposal.
Around three dozen people spoke during a hearing on the proposed law Monday, and all but a few said they opposed it.
Eugene Rourke was the first resident to speak and summed up a sentiment repeated by many others. After reading the ordinance he was reminded of living in a condo, with all the condo association’s rules.
Don Mayers delivered an animated speech during which he said that in bad economic times, giving people only 30 days to correct problems wasn’t right. Besides, he said, blight is in the eye of the beholder.
“Personally, I like to see free range chickens walking around the road,” he said, deeming it “obvious” the proposal was “designed to drive the poor and the middle class out of Oxford so the town can be turned into another Greenwich.”
Another resident, Raye Hodgson, said the context of the bad economy “has to be a part of what we’re doing about this problem.”
“We need to take more time and not rush this process,” she said.
Sarah Pawlowski said that while she didn’t agree with everything written in the law, she also disagreed with the notion that no law is needed, saying her parents own a house next to an unsightly property and it will bring the price of their home down.
“What my parents have put into their house, their home, their mortgage … they deserve to get that back and then some,” she said.
Others, like Michael Bawlick, said some town action to control “excessive blight” might be good, though they opposed the current proposal.
“We need compassion, we don’t need harassment,” he said.
To that end, several people who spoke Monday said they’d volunteer time to help people who own properties in disrepair. A legal pad circulated as a sign-up sheet attracted 28 names.
Temple also cited the upcoming spring cleanup the town is organizing when he said he would cancel plans for a town meeting on the blight proposal.
“We’ll see what it looks like then,” he said, but noted that if blighted properties are still a problem in town, the ordinance could surface again. “If we have to (reconsider it), we will.”
