Ive driven by this place multiple times , not only is it an eye sore , it looks very unsafe . What a disgrace.

We have a community Standards Bylaw, why are these properties not being fixed for 7 YEARS!?

Does the city care to address this issue? Or will this remain open for another 7 years?

I suppose they are unconcerned about taxpayers issues.

It has been two months since I have heard back from Erin Stewart. I have not received any phone calls in return.

POINT click Fix... Tell me who do I talk to now?!

The definition of ABANDONED is "to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in ". Is it then true the property is abandoned? Not according to Angie who says and I quote " These people come daily to work on landscaping and spentd upwards of 12 hours at the property. There are evenings when they work outside past dark, keeping people up"
The property is therefore not abandoned. Issue closed.

to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in

Nothing has been done, the issue is being ignored. The city refuses to enforce the standards that have been set.

This house is going to be another case of arson in Red Deer. The neighbors shouldn't have to live in fear about what is going to happen there. There are too many derelict houses in this area. It's time for the city to take a serious look at what is going on in old Eastview.

They do landscaping in summer and have walks shovelled in the winter. The real summer work should be done on the unliveable house. Nobody lives in the house, the owner uses it strictly for landscaping practices. The house is unsafe and an eyesore. It also attracts vandals, the house has been broken into by local kids. I have chased away kids from the inside of the backyard on more then one occasion.

Reopened

Hi Daryl & Denise, what are the "standards that have been set"? Please clarify. Please also explanation how these standards can allow the City to go onto someone else's property who pays taxes on that property and do what you want them to do. Who owns the property?

I drove past this place again to see if it has changed... Moved to get away, and surprisingly (not really) there is now graffiti on a neighboring property!
This area is going to hell in a hand basket... And quick!
I have seen other property owners thumb their noses at authority and rules ( Look up Dell Price and his fight with the City)... This is shades of the same!
I'm grateful our new home is away from this mess.

I also have a friend who lives in this area, and can agree that this house is a complete mess and draws in the hoodlums. When we are returning home after a later night social visit, more than once we have seen teenagers loitering around this property looking suspicious, smoking, with bottles in their hands. They are quickly finding out no one lives here, and it is safe to have as their hangout.

Please do not close the issue. You obviously do no love Red Deer if you do not want it to be a better place. The city has been contacted on this issue and after an issue has been made they have the right to repair a property and charge the owner. I will have to find a link to the actual by law, I will post it.

The owner of this property has several rental properties she needs to bring this property to code. It is not fair to other home owners in the area that actually look after their properties and pay taxes. If the city has to sue her than do it and it can be a lot sale and tear that house down.

To Red Deer Lover,
There are community standards bylaws to deal with this house as well as taxation law. Unless you know the owner you dont' know if they pay taxes or not. If I lived next door to this mess I would be at council meetings often. The owner has several properties, sell one to get this house liveable or sell this house as a lot sale and be done with it. 7 years is long enough for a neighborhood eye sore. Old Eastview has enough problems without homeowners that do not look after their properties and landscaping is nice but that is not the crux of the issue.

Would like to say a few things about this issue if I may. Before i start i will say I am not associated with this property just like I am sure you do not live near this house. We are just both concerned citizens with differing opinions looking for different solutions...... If the property owner does not pay their taxes over some years the city can put it up for a tax sale and if it does not sell then the city can take ownership of it because of the outstanding taxes. Therefore if the owner was not paying the taxes they would lose the property.........it does not appear this has happened given that you said the owner attends the property to do work there....... I do not think I am outline saying they are paying their taxes since they are still the owners of the property....... Ownership,this is the key and another issue. They are the owners of the property not the city not you and not me. But it is a different view point and strategy to want to tar & feather in order to support stripping them of that right -- property ownership ....... How about this --- I would support tar feathering and stripping property owners who paint their houses, fences etc pink or do not have solar heating and use fossil fuels instead, harming our environment. This will not happen of course unless there are specific laws etc prohibiting these things. ...... Another issue, I think it interesting that some on here want to soley focus on blaming the property owner for the "kids" actions and not comment on how perhaps if those "kids" who are breaking the law by entering the property and / or graffiting a property are lacking direction in their life, need better parenting and guidance etc.....I certainly was not brought up by my parents to abuse, vandalize and deliberate damage and disrespect others' property......Accordingly the root of such crimes and all crimes needs to be addressed to resolve such problems........I know the City want the root of crimes to be addressed and looked as they know adding more police will not solve crime as they have said similar...... Likewise finding out why and trying to resolve why "kids" or criminals want to deliberate damage, vandalize other's property would be helpful here wouldn't you say?........Next, I do not believe that the community standards bylaw or MGA specifically says a boarded up house can be taken away from an owner by the city because it is boarded up or becaue no one is living there or because it had a fire and is boarded up........ I suspect the owner is doing the landscaping not for landscaping practices as you have advised but rather because there was complaints about the state of the lawn and the city sent an order to the owner as a result requesting the owner make the landscaping to the level similar to the neighbourhood otherwise the city will come in and perform the work and add it to the tax roll......Hence, If the City could go after an owner because their house is boarded up they would, wouldn't the? I am happy this issue is open as I then can give and express my opinion.

BTW in response to Daryl's comment about me "You obviously do no love Red Deer if you do not want it to be a better place." Why do you think I do not want to make Red Deer a better place? You are presuming alot there and are dead wrong. I lived in red deer since I was 4, went to kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, red deer college and worked in red deer for 20 years. How about you? My roots are deep and firmly fixed and know Red Deer very well, too well. I know its pros and cons. I would have to say keep your inflammatory comments and trying to sling mud at me to yourself and lets debate the issues. Shall we? Lets keep this debate clean!

And to keep this Ito perspective I have personally lived here for over 34 years... as you wondered.

So Red Deer Lover, when I petition council and go to the papers, you are welcome to sign it.
I understand that the Bylaw doesn't deal specifically with the house, however, allow me and others to build momentum towards making our communities better.

As far as being abandoned, it is a non issue. There is no reason why they could not have repaired this property yet. The longer it sits vacant and derelict, the more time critters have to infest the house, the more time the house and yard attract people up to no good, and what happens of this house became vandalized with fire? The property owners on either side would also suffer losses.

Some points to ponder:

- A study of Austin, Texas concluded that neighborhoods with unsecured vacant buildings had over three times as many drug calls, almost twice as many theft calls, and twice the number of violent calls to police as neighborhoods without vacant buildings

- Every year, there are more than 12,000 fires, most intentionally set, in vacant structures, resulting in $73 million in property damage;

- A 2001 study in Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced an average net loss of $7,627 in value.6

The issue for me is that there is a severe gap in the bylaws as these problem properties show.

The city should be allowed to be able to cap the amount of years a property can stand in disrepair. It should have some recourse to go after property owners that have a disregard for their neighbours at such an extreme level.

The community standards bylaw has some serious gaps in it, and perhaps, this issue remaining open could help us illustrate the city wide issue of derelict properties (and the problems they bring) and owners that believe that they can do whatever they like just because they pay taxes and own property. Sounds a little sociopath is to me.

Good morning,
I have sent this link and all the comments to the city. My contact is having compliance revisit this issue to see what has been done in the past. Please feel free to send your complaints to the bylaw as A Thompson said to keep the momentum and pressure going so something will be resolved with this house sooner than later.

A Thompson: if you want to start an online petition as someone did with the bike lane issue post the link here and I'll sign it gladly. I live in West Park and have been fighting absentee landlords and rentals for 4 yrs already. Time to expect better from fellow homeowners.

Just saw Denise's comment so would just like to add.... please provide me the legal definition of absentee landlord? And why would it be such a dirty word to be one or against the law to be one and /or because someone is an absentee landlord your property should be taken away from them ....as per the law etc.......It is the government's role to protect us....how is that working for you?

There is no legal definition to absentee landlord. It's a catch phrase quite obviously to encompass people that do not look after their properties in one way or another. I am not saying that they should have properties taken away anywhere in any of my comments, quite the contrary. The running theme throughout everyone's comments except yours is that we want people to take care of their responsibilties and sometimes we have to get the municipal government or RCMP to get involved to help us toward that goal. I am not putting words in your mouth so I would appreciate the same consideration.

You give me far too much credit and power. I am not stopping you from doing anything. Last time I checked Canada is a free and democratic society and you are able to do as you please within the law. I certainly cannot stop you. I hope you do have the ability to truly build better communities for all people and not closed, narrow-minded, dictatorial communities and governments who then decide who can live in a community because a few do not like that type of person living near them , the type of structure next to them, the color of the structure, the number of trees in their yard etc. You know the argument “not in our backyard” which is no solution at all, rather just creates more problems…………. It has become quite obvious in the last few years what Red Deerians do not want in their neighbourhoods and communities – Native Friendship Center, Low Income Housing, French High School etc. Red Deer and Red Deerians are quite a tolerant bunch, aren’t we?........ But Red Deer and Red Deerians have no problem and are very tolerant of their downtown having at least 7-8 low income housing projects owned by one person/company/entity (quite a chunk of real estate), as well as a detox center, safe houses etc. all within a few blocks of each other....... We all realize that we need low income housing and these other organizations in our community but placing them altogether so close in proximinity has created the Downtown Red Deer of today that everyone complains about as being unsafe….. There are drug dealers, drug addicts, prostitutes etc controlling our downtown……The answer to that apparently is spending millions of dollars making the downtown look prettier so no one hopefully notices the drug addicts, drug dealer, prostitutes, criminals damaging property and stealing our goods. That might be a solution during the business day of 9-5 or during special events such as the Christmas parade. ….But that is no solution at all. …..Because after 8pm is when downtown changes into a nightmare……..Back to the issue at hand……you have said that this house had fire damage. Was there a fire in the house? I do not know as I am not the owner, nor have I been in the house. So you saying there has been a fire in the house is not enough proof for me to determine there was a fire. I would assume if a structure is unsafe, it would be determined to be unsafe and of course have a scale of reference and procedure to determine that and I am sure the city would take certain measures in that incidence as they would have the law behind them to do so……… You have unilaterally decided and determined that the house firstly was abandoned and have now amended that unilateral decision to decide that it is derelict. Please advise what makes a house derelict. Please provide the criteria for this as per the law. I do not believe you have the authority, legal or otherwise, to decide that a particular house is derelict or abandoned. Likewise, I do not believe you have the authority, legal or otherwise, to decide that a particular house requires the city to take an owner’s property………If there is no scale of reference in the law that determines the criteria and classify what is abandoned and / or derelict and no scale of reference or guide to determine the criteria in order to penalize and punish an owner by taking their property away then your rantings have no foundation or substance…………I believe ALL property owners have a right to know this scale of reference and classification as that is only fair to all parties and would be fitting in a free and democratic society, not a closed, narrow-minded, dictatorial community and government that like to play games with property owners, bully them, and act like RAMBO…………I won’t ponder points that are not definitive and are only merely predictions. There was a prediction that the world was going to an end in Dec of last year and that did not happen either. Accordingly Austin Texas USA is not Red Deer Alberta CANADA. Austin Texas’ economy and problems are not the same as Red Deer Alberta’s economy and problems. They are not mirror images of themselves. What is going on in one country, state/province, city is not the same as another. I You can quote and provide an insurmountable studies, articles etc. but they are all just predictions and not definitive proof of anything. Where are the stats for fires in different type structures in Red Deer, Alberta Canada. I would like to see that as that would be relevant here…………You use words and phrases such as “unsecured vacant buildings” , “vacant ”, “disrepair” , “derelict” and these are adjectives you use to describe what you want it to describe and want it to mean in order to strip a property owner of their property, but you have no legal scale of reference or guide to determine this. You even use the word “sociopath” (obviously you can not keep this debate clean) to describe someone who thinks paying their taxes and keeping ownership of a property is important. A Sociopath is defined as "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience". I do not believe the dream of property ownership aligns itself with sociopath…….The only “sociopath” here is someone including governments who believe there should be no guide or reference to determine classifications, definitions, penalties etc. as the law does and should do….. Last time I checked we all entered into a social contract to live together and with one another under the rule of law.

last time i checkedout what an absentee landlord meant it is --- an owner of a property not living on the premises. It does not mean someone who does not look after and care for their property though.....Not all property owners can live on the properties they own! Absentee landlord is not a negative term or wrong thing to be which you are inferring.You would need to come up with another term or phrase if you want it to be a negative thing.

You also need to read my response that I wrote previously but the moderator has not let it showed up yet I guess. I responded to AR THOMPSON's last comment posted today and if the moderator puts up my response then you will see that the end result of what we both want is not so different.We want the same thing but for different reasons. if the moderator does not put it up by morning then i will re=post it

This thread has nothing to do with low income housing or native centres. Neither is it about stripping a property owner of their property. An abandoned house in major disrepair invites criminal activity. I am a neighbour to this partially burnt down house. I was born and raised in the Red Deer area and have worked here my entire life. Although I do believe A Thompson's points from Texas and such are very valid in pointing out how abandoned and housing such disrepair invite vandals into an area. I require a safe place to live for myself and my family, I believe you want this too. Please take time to realize the real issue here. Coming on 8 years of disrepair is too long, I would understand a couple years to get things in order. The owners of this house live on the outskirts of Red Deer, if money were an issue then why not sell. I am wanting to move from this neighbourhood and this house is also bringing my value down. NOBODY wants to live beside a half burnt down abandoned house, DO YOU?

Redeerlover:
this will be my final post to you, you have been ridiculous an you can seek attention from me but I will not give it to you. Any comments will be ignored.

Do you know where you stand on issues? Or do you prefer to just rile people up to procure points on this online system...?

You wondered about proof of property values and quality of life being brought down by these properties. You provided it to me in a comment you made on another issue 5 days ago.

If you were my friend you couldn't visit me or buy my house... As you wouldn't set foot in Inglewood due to it's issues.

Properties like this an others have a funny way of making people not want to live by them or invite crime, making people not want to visit.

That in turn would affect my quality of life and my property values... Thank you.

You, red deer lover, are starting a debate that isn't here.

The points I put up are for reference, you know, like when you post your dictionary terms. It's reference to help people put something into terms they understand.

This is not a debate.

I lived in the very close vicinity to the house (exact location not required but I was very close) and was even friends with the owners.

Two things: you claim I cannot give evidence of a fire. LOOK AT THE PICTURE! If this issue is so important to you then drive past the house and check it out! I also LIVED THERE when the FIRES occurred. There was an original fire and then a SECOND fire!

Second issue: I nor anyone else said that these owners should have their properties taken from them. NO ONE! You are the one that has said these things. You are always typing about property rights....As a property owner we have rights AND responsibilities. This is an issue throughout Red Deer that needs to be addressed.

This building highlights it for me because I have so much background information on it. They should have the right to own a property as long as it doesn't cause issues for homeowners surrounding. (I lived there for 7 years and now this issue has been going on for 8 YEARS! Come on, enough is enough.)

Then comes in their responsibility: fix it so that the issues don't continue. Rent it out, fix the siding, move back in, put in windows, fix your eaves troughs so that critters do not enter the property. Doing landscaping does not make it look like people live there.

DO SOMETHING about your responsibility as a building/property owner.

For someone that likes to throw around a lot of "facts" and garbage information, you like to call others out for the same. From now on I look forward to seeing nothing from you that includes any reference material.

Again, this is not a debate, if you don't agree with it, go away. We have heard your side, thank you, good bye.

Did you realize you actually help us by posting your posts here??? Every time you post an off topic post here, or you think we are in a debate, you put this topic at the top of the list... THANK YOU!

And just a little post script: Arguing with people online does not make you look intelligent.

Daryl & A Thompson.....Then the law should be protecting you in these situations. But obviously they are not and this is where the problems lies, not with me but with the city and government who formulate the laws such as the community standards bylaw etc.....Have the City lowered the tax assessment on the property in question, hence devaluing it? I doubt it....They want their tax dollar and top tax dollar.......But saying it devalues property values is not proven or conclusive. Rather than complaining about the property itself and knowing the law is inadequate to deal with this issue the way you want to then go to the city and lobby council for change..........You are right i do not want to live in crime fulled areas and I want the city to do something about it......I am glad you agree with me. The law is inadequate to deal with such situations.......I am only advocating being fair and reasonable and having proper laws in place........Please keep in mind the following guys......We are more in agreement than you realize on what needs to done here but for some reason you do not want to see it and I do not know why....... There needs to be established guide lines, criteria, scales of references etc defining what is derelict, unsecured vacant building, vacant building, penalites and punishments associated with it etc......... It is only fair that ALL property owners know what these laws are with established guidelines, criteria, references, punishments and penalties and if these laws are not yet established then get your government to do so to be fair to all, instead of those wanting to play games and play around with property owners with laws that are inadequate ….. Remember it is the government’s responsibility to establish such laws and regulations and it is government’s responsibilities to protect us…… No one is above the law and it does not work just wanting to twist the law in order to achieve what they want as per their own standards but do not have the formal law to back them up....... If you do not like the law the way it is then advocate to change it so we all know and are held to the same standard....... It is only fair in a free and democratic that each and every property owner knows what is expected of them and can refer to a criteria, guide etc to be judge by, penalized or punished and refer to when in doubt or when one questions their property.

Red Deer lover you have too much time on your hands and like to draw others into futile arguments. I will not be commenting on any more of your diatribe again as you twist what we say to suit your purpose. This is not a public forum of debate but a vehicle to let the city know about individual concerns to be addressed and closed by the city not you.
To Angie, Daryl and A. Thompson you have much more patience than I do for irrational rants.

Angie, it pleases me just as much as you this issue is getting air play....Regarding my suggestion.....I will put in simpler terms as it is quite a straight forward idea -- the government formulating laws to support actions and responsbilities and formulating laws to support enforcement of actions and responsibilities....... It is that simple and primary to any community and government and quite a rational (defined as logical and reasonable) expectation of government and quite effective when wanting to enforce a property owner's responsibilities, Denise...............Denise, I disagree with you that this is not a public forum on issues and it is wrong that you say it is only the city that has the power to close an issue on here. This is a public website, not created and not run by the city. They are a member on this website. Anyone can open and close an issue on here and A Thompson is an example of that when he has closed my issue (http://seeclickfix.com/issues/318736-stop-downtown-free-be-parkers ) formulated from a valid issue raised from “cau5e” that I read in his issue...............This website would not have a comment area if it was not meant to be used. The comment area is for anyone to write their comments and give their opinion in support or otherwise. See click fix advocates……”Thanks for your participation in SeeClicKFix and on this issue. This is obviously a source of concern, and I appreciate your passion. However, please try to keep your comments constructive. Any posts that are abusive and violate the SeeClicKFix terms of service will be removed from the site. As always, feel free to direct questions to contact@seeclickfix.com.”
Sounds like you want to make this website a vehicle for the city to control and determine only. This is not the city’s website rather it a see click fix website, based in the US...........Accordingly, “SeeClickFix uses the power of public and distributed communication via the web to bring citizens closer to their local government and each other. Through partnerships with local media, governments and social user features SeeClickFix has spread all over the United States and is starting to spread internationally.” (quoted from http://seeclickfix.blogspot.ca/)........So, the see click fix website is to bring the citizens closer to their local government and each other. Is the local government not wanting to get closer to its citizens? Or perhaps just not closer to those that disagree with them and point out shortcomings? This would be irrational (defined as not logical or reasonable)........The city promotes this website on their own website as a means to report non-emergency problems in the community ……….. http://www.reddeer.ca/OnlineServices/reportaproblem.htm …… Therefore, the city has the option to participate in and on this website like any other member, or not........With that, the city should be aware they cannot control and stop others’ opinions being voiced on this website because they do not like what is being said, otherwise we would not be living in a very free and democratic community, more like, a community of censorship. This would be irrational (defined as not logical or reasonable).......Denise, I never have enough time on my hands for issues in or about Red Deer. I am just wanting to make our community a better place and a community who respects one another’s opinions including differing opinions in order to seek the best solution for Red Deer. The best results when dealing with an issue is listening to all sides of the issue in order to formulate the best viable solution. We would be a very closed minded, narrow minded community if it does not listen to differing sides to issues and does not want to find the best solution to an issue. I would think someone posting an issue on this website is using this website as a vehicle to finding the best & most viable solution to that issue.........For you this issue, you say, is futile from your comments above, but for me this issue is not, unless council and government do not do what they should do, what they are suppose to do, and what they are elected to do. Diatribe no, not at all, you give me too credit and power. I am merely giving suggestions on how to fix issues lacking and wanting. I was always taught by school and family that is the polite, logical, and reasonable thing to do - raising an issue is the easy part, but one also needs a real logical, reasonable, viable solution to resolve an issue. Great parents, great teachers and great schooling in Red Deer taught me this important lesson.

Just wanted to make a clarification.....Angie advised above that ": I nor anyone else said that these owners should have their properties taken from them. NO ONE! You are the one that has said these things."
It was in fact Denise that said the following..... "If the city has to sue her than do it and it can be a lot sale and tear that house down." ...... Sounds pretty much like stripping the owner of their property by suing them, having a lot sale, and tear the house down....

Hahaha does anyone ACTUALLY read that garbage??? ^^^^

Nope!

This sums it up City of Red Deer, you have the authority to do something.

RSA 2000
Section 546.1 Chapter M-26
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT
292

Municipal Government Act
Order to remedy dangers and unsightly property
546(0.1) In this section,
(a) “detrimental to the surrounding area” includes causing the
decline of the market value of property in the surrounding
area;
(b) “unsightly condition”,
(i) in respect of a structure, includes a structure whose
exterior shows signs of significant physical
deterioration, and
(ii) in respect of land, includes land that shows signs of a
serious disregard for general maintenance or upkeep.
(1) If, in the opinion of a designated officer, a structure, excavation
or hole is dangerous to public safety or property, because of its
unsightly condition, is detrimental to the surrounding area, the
designated officer may by written order
(a) require the owner of the structure to
(i) eliminate the danger to public safety in the manner
specified, or
(ii) remove or demolish the structure and level the site;
(b) require the owner of the land that contains the excavation
or hole to
(i) eliminate the danger to public safety in the manner
specified, or
(ii) fill in the excavation or hole and level the site;
(c) require the owner of the property that is in an unsightly
condition to
(i) improve the appearance of the property in the
manner specified, or
(ii) if the property is a structure, remove or demolish the
structure and level the site.
(2) The order may
(a) state a time within which the person must comply with the
order;
(b) state that if the person does not comply with the order
within a specified time, the municipality will take the
action or measure at the expense of the person.
1994 cM-26.1 s546;1999 c11 s31

I have to return a phone call on Monday from the supervisor in I&L I'm in contact with.

While I understand that 'demanding' this home owner tear down this property may seem insensitive, the fact is the amount of money that eye sore is robbing the neighbours of in the value of their properties, is quite possibly MORE than the value of the destroyed home. Never mind those who simply CANNOT FIND A BUYER because of that mess.
Given the fact that insurance is clearly not going to address this issue, you have to ask, what is the series of events that lead up to these last 7 years? Please, do not pick up the violin, unless you are prepared for a full orchestra from the neighbours.
Bottom line. The homeowner needs to bite the bullet and clean it up OR the residents will have to band together and head to court. The City Council will NEVER get involved. My neighbours retaining wall is falling into my yard, their property is 4 feet above grade, their fence is 10 feet above ground, and all of their water drains into my backyard. 2 years of dragged out home visits, empty promises and...NOTHING. It is costing me at least $15,000.00 in the value of my property and that is IF I can sell. Tear down a half burnt down home?? HA! You are waisting your time.
The City of Red Deer does not protect it's citizens or their properties. You have 7 years of proof. The by-laws were created by a much more conscientious council that no longer exists. That list of 'laws' are mere suggestions for polite society. Meanwhile the City's inaction almost validates the offending homeowner.
Call a lawyer. All of you. Add court costs to your claim. Your obligations to 'politeness and sensitivity' have been met. Time to ask for yours in return.

"Can the neighbors sue you?" This question reminds me of the skit from SNL (Saturday Night Live) where a little old lady was waiting for a bus and an attorney approached her and ask:

Attorney: Would you like to make a lot of money?
Little Old Lady: Well, I guess I wouldn't mind.
Attorney: And are you willing to sue someone to make a lot of money?"
Little Old Lady: Well I haven't thought about it but I guess I would. But don't you have to have a reason to sue someone?
Attorney: "Myth #1, You need no reason to sue someone. Simply the desire is sufficient.'

"Can the neighbors sue you?" The answer is Yes. What if oil from your underground oil tank was travelling to their property and causing oil fumes in their basement?" Could they sue you? Can the neighbors sue you for not maintaining your property? Technically, they could sue you but practically unless they could show that they lost a sale on their house due to you, or some direct and real damage, they really can't sue you. But if your sewage was running over their property, obviously they would have a valid reason to sue you.

A Town can bring a lawsuit against you for not maintaining your property, especially when you are violating health and safety standards but this type of lawsuit would be extremely rare and usually the Town would give you the opportunity to correct the problem. The odds of the Town bringing legal action is remote.

The City of Red Deer ha assegnato questo problema a Inspections

Thank you for reporting an item through SeeClickFix. We apologize for the delay in updating you on the status of this item, but we will follow-up with you shortly regarding this issue.

If you still have concerns about this issue, please contact us at 403-342-8190.

Thank you.