Fix it or face foreclosure: Enfield’s blight ordinance targets minor issues

 

Chipped paint on Town Hall is blight under the town's proposed blight ordinance

Imagine being fined $100 a day because your lawn grew too tall while you were in the hospital. Under Enfield's proposed blight ordinance, this nightmare could become a reality for many residents. The Town Council will consider this revised ordinance at its Monday night meeting—but as written, it could harm hundreds of residents over minor cosmetic issues, from overgrown grass to temporary home repairs.

While it's reasonable to address properties that pose genuine health and safety risks, this ordinance goes too far by treating cosmetic issues as equally severe.

For example, if grass or weeds grow taller than 12 inches, the town can issue a citation requiring correction within 10 days. If it's not addressed in time, the property maintenance inspector can impose fines of $100 a day—with no cap—until the problem is resolved. In extreme cases, these escalating fines could even lead to foreclosure.

The process for notifying property owners is equally flawed. The town relies on hand-delivered notices or certified mail. If the owner can’t be reached, the town publishes a notice in a local newspaper. But what if someone is hospitalized or away in an emergency? Who will see a legal notice? A simple phone call, text, or email could prevent unnecessary misunderstandings, yet the ordinance includes no such human element.

Minor problems, big fines

The problems don’t end there. Temporary and routine issues—like a broken section of fence, a tarp on a small part of a roof, or even parking a car on the grass—could now be classified as blight. These situations often arise because repairs are expensive, and residents address them as soon as they can. Yet under this ordinance, even these minor issues could result in aggressive enforcement and steep fines.

For elderly, disabled, or low-income residents, the stakes are even higher. This ordinance provides no meaningful protections or support for people in difficult circumstances. Is cruelty the goal?

Other towns have rejected ordinances like this for good reason. East Windsor residents, for example, voted down a similar policy last year, fearing it would give the town excessive control over private property. As one resident told CT Insider, "What I do or have that does not adversely affect you is none of your business."

No one wants to live next to a truly blighted property—but what is blight? The term is subjective, and Enfield's ordinance fails to distinguish between minor cosmetic issues and serious health or safety concerns. 

A better approach

By comparison, Tolland's ordinance offers a more reasonable approach. In sharp contrast to Enfield, It only considers cosmetic issues as blight if there are three or more cosmetic conditions. It also incorporates safeguards for vulnerable populations. Their process requires a meeting with Human Services to provide assistance and ensure fair treatment.

Enfield's ordinance lacks these safeguards. It is overly punitive, and not ready for adoption. Residents could face substantial fines for minor, temporary issues—and that's simply unfair.

Enfield officials must revise this ordinance to include protections for elderly, disabled, and low-income residents, as well as clear definitions separating cosmetic and health concerns. Residents should demand a more balanced and compassionate approach. Monday’s meeting may be your last chance to protect yourself from the town.