Merger Of Abatement, Code Boards Proposed

The city's nuisance abatement board was resurrected last year as a way to do away with neighborhood eyesores where drugs and prostitution are rampant.

Since then, the board hasn't heard a single case.

One board member has resigned in protest over the lack of action. Terms of the other six board members expire next month and no one has volunteered to fill their shoes.

So City Council Attorney Martin Shelby has proposed transferring the quasijudicial board's responsibilities to the city's seven-member code enforcement board.

"It has not been very productive," Shelby told council members at Thursday's meeting.

The proposed changes would require approval from a majority of the council.

Created in 1990, the board was active for a decade, but disbanded a few years ago.

One of the group's main functions is to hear cases about properties where there has been a pattern of drug sales, gang activity, prostitution, or dealing in stolen property.

The board can impose fines and, in limited cases, close a business. They can also force a business owner to hire security officers or install security cameras on the premises.

Much of the board's inaction has been attributed to the way the law is written.

For example, a business or abandoned home could be a known source of drug dealing, prostitution, or selling stolen property for several years, but unless someone is arrested for those offences twice in six months, by law, it can't be declared a public nuisance.

Another roadblock is the threat of litigation involving property rights issues. A 2001 Florida Supreme Court ruling limited when nuisance abatement boards could close businesses to instances where the illegal action is intertwined with the business itself.

That means the boards can't close down a hotel where drug dealing is going on unless it can prove that the criminal activity has become an inseparable part of the business.

The city says despite the lack of activity by the board, its existence has helped fight crime and blight by the threat of action, and they don't want to abolish it again.