Skip to content

Letter to the Editor: Where are our property rights for those living next to a derelict property?

A letter to the editor from Carter Currie
letter to the editor getty images
(Getty Images)

Editor's Note:  On May 15, 2021 Carter Currie said he sent this letter to City of Moose Jaw in regards to a derelict property next door at 1511 Hastings Street that he has been concerned with for the last few years.  This below was recently submitted as a Letter to the Editor and presents his current concerns. 


 The Ombudsman’s office sent a letter to city manager Jim Puffalt on Aug.13 2020, with the findings:
 

From: Jim Puffalt <JPuffalt@moosejaw.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 12:04:45 PM
To: Carter Currie
Cc: Fraser Tolmie; Brian Swanson; Dawn Luhning; Crystal Froese; Scott McMann; Chris Warren; Rod Montgomery; Michelle Sanson; Heather St. Dennis
Subject: RE: Derelict Property 1511 Hastings St.
 
Good Morning Mr. Currie,
Thank you for your kind comments.  We wanted to provide an update and I wanted to apologize for my misunderstanding of the scope of the work being completed.

I misunderstood that the property owner was “obtaining a full demolition permit,” rather she has obtained a demolition permit for the back deck and internal demolition which the Building Official and Fire Chief believes to be reasonable.  The Property Owner is planning to be here tomorrow and is supposed to complete the work before she leaves.

My apologies again.

Jim
City Manager

 
Oct 10, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Jim Puffalt <JPuffalt@moosejaw.ca> wrote:
 

Good Afternoon Mr. Currie:

To provide an update on this issue:

  • There was a tarp placed on the roof to stop the leaking.
  • The roof will be repaired shortly.
  • All branches and apples were cleaned up.
  • The rear deck was removed
  • The back patio doors were boarded.    
  • The grass that was required to be cut will be re-inspected tomorrow, October 11, 2018.  If not done tomorrow, the City will take further action.   

With regards to the internal demolition, the property owner has two months to start the interior demolition from the date taken out which will be diarized.
Rather than continue to exchange e-mails, the Director responsible for Bylaw Enforcement and I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss further.

 
Jim Puffalt
City Manager  
 
So, councillors, I ask you, why would the owner need an extension in August 2020 if all the work, “is suppose to be completed before she returns to Ontario,” according to Mr. Puffalt?

Secondly, in the meeting I attended with Mr. Puffalt and Ms. Sanson, I was asked what my expectation for the property where? To which I replied, “Demolish the house or return it to a livable state.” To which I got silence. “My expectation hasn’t changed.” This is according to bylaw 5484 and the City Act.
 
Mr. Puffalt in an article  (Aug 11, 2020) said I have lobbied city hall to demolish the house:

 
“This has been a very, very, very public issue,” said city manager Jim Puffalt.

Currie attempted to lobby and pressure city hall to demolish the home and clean up the property, but the municipality has followed its procedures when dealing with derelict properties, he continued. 

However, Currie refused to accept this and began a letter-writing campaign urging the home be “demolished.”

Fortunately, Currie went to the ombudsman, which allowed city hall to provide information about the situation, Puffalt remarked. 
 
What did Mr. Puffalt tell the Ombudsmen, to get such a glowing report? Actually the investigation was completed before August 4, 2020. Could the following statement be what he told her, and please keep that in mind.
 
City Manager Jim Puffalt:

(Since the formal complaint in August of 2018, the City has actively ensured that inspections have been completed and work is done on the offending property; it has applied the legislation, regulations and bylaws correctly; it has responded in a timely and reasonable manner.)
 
Jim Puffalt, City hall attempted to convince the resident to take his concerns to the ARO, which is an arms-length body, but Currie declined. 
 
I couldn’t find an ARO bylaw for Regina to check the process, but they allow citizens to file Ethic complaints. It took me close to 2 years starting with an email in 2018 asking your clerk/solicitor if citizens can file ethics complaints. Finally in 2020 a reluctant but positive reply.

So, councillors how is a process in the City’s ARO Bylaw , “arms length,” “and where are our right to confidentiality,” “if Mr. Puffalt gets to handle the complaint and pass it on to department heads or anyone else involved before it goes to your ARO Officer? 
 
City Act
(4) The following persons are not eligible to be members of an administrative review body:
(a) a member of council;
(b) an employee, officer or agent of the city or of a city’s controlled corporation;
 
Councillors maybe it’s time you considered that your required to let the citizens know, the public can file “ethic complaints” against any employee and the mayor or council if they feel so inclined. The following is required by the, City Act 66.1, “you have no process for this in bylaw 4381.”
 
Code of Ethics Bylaw 4381 (1986)
     Whereas public officials and employees and members of Boards, Commissions, and Committees of the city of Moose Jaw have an obligation not merely to obey the law but to act in a manner that is so “scrupulous their conduct will bare the closest public scrutiny.”

l appreciate the offer to talk over the phone but at seventy-one I find I can convey my message by email better as I get to read it prior to sending and am able to change my thoughts as necessary.

I received this highlighted statement in a recent email to support the city’s position as I was told I refused the ARO and wasn’t willing to attend James appeal. Why in God’s name would I want to attend? That was council’s and senior managers’ responsibility to deal with.

I shared the above highlighted statement with a kind lady answering questions for me, yet the clerk/solicitor used it to justify the cities position rather than answering questions I sent to him and the assistant clerk.

I find it offensive and discriminatory to drag my age into this. Frankly this is the reason I don’t go if front of council as when I get nervous, I tend to babble and lose my train of thought. This email has taken a week to write, trying to relay my thoughts accurately.  

Where in the bylaws or the City Act does it say one’s communications are only valid by going in front of council?

As far as the inquiry I gave to council, it was intended to provide information on the potential “repair problems” to the roof next door. 

I’ve learned in life, avoidance looking for truth doesn’t solve a problem but passes the problem on to the next person.

Using the silent treatment and distraction prevents people from resolving their conflicts in a helpful way. When one person wants to talk about a problem but the other withdraws, it can cause mistrust.

Taking this into account, how is my persistence trying to get action, a bad thing?

If you want to question why I’m persistent, please “consider the signatures” of Assistant City Clerk Tracy Wittke and City Manager Jim Puffalt on city communication #EC-2020-0186 and pay special attention to - “the work required to be completed,” and the date August 10, 2020. Far cry from “work to be completed before she leaves,” “and the file is closed,” by the city.

Lastly, Councillors, how many of you bother to “consider the property rights of the citizens living in close proximity as important as the property rights of the owners of these derelict properties?”
 
Take care and be safe,
Carter Currie

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.  

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks