Work together on acceptable blight bill

Gov. Sam Brownback’s veto of a bill targeting urban blight might seem an overly zealous defense of property rights. But it’s a red flag when proponents insist a law won’t be used as aggressively as its language clearly allows.

The governor’s move should spur advocates on both sides to come together on legislation that leaves no potential for abuse of municipal power at the expense of low-income homeowners.

Wichita and other cities have huge problems with unoccupied, deteriorating properties, which currently are defined as “abandoned” when they’ve been unoccupied for 90 days and delinquent on property taxes for two years.

By expanding the definition of “abandoned” properties to include those that have been unoccupied for a year and have a “blighting influence on surrounding properties,” Senate Bill 338 would make it easier for a municipal government to take over such sites and, with a district court’s approval, transfer possession to nonprofit groups with plans to rehabilitate them.

Organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Mennonite Housing and Power CDC already have helped clean up and transform not just lots or blocks but neighborhoods in Wichita. It’s reasonable to want to enable their efforts, and do more about the 17,600 vacant properties in the city.

But it was telling that the bill’s opposition in the Legislature, where it passed the House 79-44 and the Senate 32-8, spanned left and right politically.

Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City, filed a formal protest arguing that the bill would “legalize grand theft” by “not-for-profit” developers in the name of “civic pride” or “community betterment.”

Five other Democrats and four conservative Republicans in the House joined Rep. Gail Finney, D-Wichita, in the explanation of her “no” vote, which warned that the bill allowed “our local governments to expeditiously confiscate, seize or destroy law-abiding citizens’ private property without compensation, adequate notice, and a legal property title.”

Mayor Jeff Longwell and other Wichita City Council members expressed disappointment at Tuesday’s meeting with the veto, complaining about how certain cases stretch for three or four years as homeowners manipulate the system and affect neighboring property rights. They have a point.

But so do opponents including Brownback, who said in his veto message Monday that he would “welcome legislation that empowers local communities to respond to blight and abandoned property that does not open the door to abuse of the fundamental rights of free people.” That should be the shared goal.

This story was originally published April 13, 2016 at 7:08 PM with the headline "Work together on acceptable blight bill."