wilkes

Ronda.

I think a solution could be: a fire department responds to a house fire. They are able to knock down the fire but the house is a total loss. They should report their actions and assessment to a county department. So now it is in a computer database. After a certain amount of time, if the destroyed structure is not removed, it triggers a response in the database, sends an alert to the powers that be to issue a complaint to the homeowner. Then there is automatic follow-through not dependent on a citizen complaint.

I think the Winkler Mill home is gone. I noticed someone tore down the house behind the Dodge dealership at the intersection. I have mixed feeling about this. I hate seeing an eyesore but no one should have the right to force their will on another property owner. It starts with something most agree on then someone will cross the line. Pile of firewood a car that is not tagged a field that is over grown and so on. I can't stand people that buy one acre of land and act like they own the whole mountain towards large land owners that own land that has been in their family sense the 1800's. I've had a few run ins in the past so I know how it feels. Years ago a tract of land joining me was developed and they didn't like that their view was hidden because that part of my land was overgrown. I had not been on that part in a couple of years so I let it grow up. They ran their mouth so now they can not see nothing. I'll die before I doze everything over. Funny thing was I was going to plant an apple orchard there that would look good by now but it's over grown black pines and briars.

The properties being evaluated are clearly neglected properties whose owners have been previously advised of the issues, but have done nothing to alleviate the situation. These properties detract from our community and the value of other properties unfortunate enough to be located nearby. Big brother conspiracy instigators should always balance people's inherent "rights" with an equal dose of personal "responsibility".

There goes Cohn Enterprises assets.

We are also talking about half burned houses that are left to stand for years. county will not take action until a citizen files a signed complaint!! This being Wilkes County, who is going to risk that?? County officials should see these houses, and file their own complaint, with not fear of personal vendetta.

Usually, the standard is "unfit for human habitation" and the owners are given plenty of opportunity to rectify the situation

Some houses have been unoccupied for years , and they're falling down, nothing wrong with getting rid of them.

Backwater... am I missing a town in WIlkes???
North Wilkesboro, and Wilkesboro....

I don't think its "what's ugly" but what is a safety hazard. Most places I know of have building inspectors that can condemn a house,

I've thought of this before. Mainly with deserted trailers. It's a manufactured product. When deserted, it's nothing more than trash and the material should be recycled, if appropriate. Traditionally built houses last much longer, but of course if they're deliapidated enough they should be tore down.

One man's junk is another mans treasure. What is unattractive to me may not be to others. As long as a property does not create a hazard why should it be condemned? If in a area where regulations are clearly defined and in place at the time of the acquisition of a property, then such should be followed.

Look at Downtown of the 3 towns.All 3 towns have run down property on Main Streets.Jmo.

Well from reading the article its pretty much self explanatory. It states what kind of homes under article 2 section 5 of the county ordinance. So I don't see that they are coming after just anyone. Its honestly up to the owner to comply with a citation and I don't have an issue with them trying to clean up some areas myself.

So the County actually has ordinances? What about one for rental properties that aren't fit for dogs let alone humans to live in?

Are you saying that if I have a "junk house" on my private property, the county should have the right to take it away, just because they think it's ugly?

What if I intended to use it to, I don't know, store hay. Or tear down the wood to build a new shed. Or I just have bad taste and think it's decorative. Don't I have the right to choose what I do with my own property?

Some are very clearly junk, hope these are the one's they're referring to.

I just read on the homepage that the commissioners are discussing whether to remove what they consider to be "delapidated houses" from private property.

In a neighborhood, I could understand this, but this isn't the case. Now, we're talking about the county deciding whether something is pretty enough to stay, and then if they decide it's not then using tax money to remove it.

I think this is a very slippery slope unless they can clearly define what defines the house as being "junk," and in what circumstance the property owner would be forced to pay versus the county. What do you guys think?