THE DALLES — The City of The Dalles denied an abatement appeal from R. Douglas Powell on Monday, following the declaration of a house in the public right-of-way as a public nuisance at the last regular city council meeting.
The ownership of the house, located on E Ninth Street, has been disputed. In 2015, Powell purchased the parcel directly south of and adjacent to the right-of-way where the house is located and “wrongly assumed the house was on the property,” Powell said at the meeting. Since his purchase of the property, he has been renting it out.
However, the city maintains that the structure is located fully within the city’s right-of-way, making it city property. According to City Attorney Jonathan Kara, this was confirmed by a right-of-way survey conducted by Klein & Associates.
At the beginning of the appeal hearing, Kara reminded the council that the question of ownership wasn’t the focus of the appeal; rather, they were only trying to determine whether or not the property constituted a nuisance.
“The only question before the council tonight, pursuant to our municipal code, is whether a nuisance exists,” Kara said.
According to Kara, encroachments in the public right-of-way have always been considered nuisances under Oregon Law. No one may occupy the public right-of-way without express permission from the city, which Kara said there is no record of for the property on E Ninth Street.
In the appeal Powell filed, he made three main arguments: The structure was there before the right-of-way; the city can take other routes to get rid of the structure, such as purchasing it; and the city should apply eminent domain. Eminent domain is a law where the government may take public property for public benefit, given they provide just compensation to the owner.
Kara addressed each of these arguments, saying the city’s records indicated the structure was built in 1920, after the right-of-way. He also pointed out that the city had tried to negotiate with Powell regarding the property, and were in negotiations from January 2020 to July 2021. Kara said he and Powell’s attorney had discussed coming to a compromise involving no money, where the city would finance the destruction of the house and Powell would sign a release. However, Powell terminated these negotiations, Kara said.
“It is unreasonable to characterize the city’s efforts here as, quote, ‘not willing to negotiate,’” he said.
As for the claim of eminent domain, Kara told the council he believed it was inapplicable, seeing as the structure is already on public property and Powell uses it without permission.
However, Kara said all of these arguments were essentially irrelevant, as none of them spoke to whether or not a nuisance exists.
Following Kara’s presentation, Powell was given the chance to voice his side. He claimed to have definitive proof the house was built in 1896, and records of his paying property taxes on the house, meaning there was clearly city permission. He also said he wasn’t part of negotiations. Powell also asserted that he shouldn’t be held to remove something he didn’t put there.
“I’ve done nothing wrong. I inadvertently bought this problem property about seven years ago. The city has had 113 years to fix this issue instead of springing it on an unsuspecting owner. At the least, the city should have taken care of this issue when they first became aware of it something more than 20 years ago, instead of waiting until I happened to be the unfortunate owner and victim of this nonfeasance."
Powell also objected to the house being declared a nuisance instead of being purchased from him under eminent domain.
“This should never have gone as far as legal action, as I’ve always been willing to negotiate an argument,” he said. “To me, Mr. Kara isn’t willing to negotiate. It’s one-sided and nothing else.”
Powell then told the city that according to Zillow, the house was worth $177,000, though that price has dropped to $145,000 this year. He told the city he wanted $150,000 for the house and a week to get everything out of the house.
City Councilor Dan Richardson then asked about Powell’s history with owning properties, confirming he owned several. Richardson also asked what Powell paid for the property, to which he said he paid $25,000 for the property he believed the house to be on back in 2015, though he argued that wasn’t relevant.
He said following his purchase of the deed, he incorrectly assumed the house was on the property.
“I get a deed in the mail after I buy a piece of property and I don’t really look at them,” he said.
Following the hearing, the council voted unanimously to deny Powell’s appeal, agreeing the house was a nuisance. The property was to be abated in three days, by Oct. 28, or the city would implement its own enforcement of abatement at its own costs, which would later be assessed against Powell.
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.