Thank you for reporting this issue to us via SeeClickFix St. Pete. We have forwarded the information you have provided to our Codes Compliance Assistance Department, and they will now inspect the location and take any necessary action. Sincerely, Mayor's Action Center

Update from the Codes Compliance Department: a case has been opened and is being investigated for this reported location. Any further updates or action will be handled by the Codes department. To track the status of this case, or to find contact information for the assigned investigator, click here:

https://actiononline.stpete.org/Click2GovCE/casesearch.html?caseYear=18&caseNumber=21035

or call 727-893-7373 and refer to the above case number.

Codes Compliance 6将个问题分配给Codes Analyst 2

Hi Russ. I explained this on another issue but I can’t find that so I can’t copy and paste… But here’s your explanation/ answer: what happens is when someone’s lawn needs to be mowed the city comes around (unfortunately usually a citizen has to post to see click fix especially here in the south since the city throws most of its assets north of the city) , then they issue that person a violation and the person has 10 days to mow their lawn. (During which time not only does everyone have to look at the overgrown mess but the grass is growing for 10 more days!) Then , if after 10 days the property owner does not mow his lawn then codes send a notice to sanitation to take care of the property. This can take another one to five days or more before sanitation comes out and finally mows the grass.

At that time the city pus a lien against the property, I believe it charges $108 per mowing. So… Think of the cost in man hours from the time the property owner does not mow the grass till the time the city finally does it! Lots of taxpayer funding going into property owners who don’t maintain properly and the rest of us have to pay for that!

So say the city does that five times. Then, for instance as in the case of Kevin Farrows two lots here at 5th St., South and 13th Ave., South, two houses are built. ( and just imagine how many violations he’s going to have building two houses! As a sidenote, in this case in particular he was granted a variance to build two houses instead of one with some very particular parameters. One of which is certain trees are not to be touched! You know what happens if he ignores those stipulations? He has to re-plant the tree which of course is going to be replacing a 100-year-old old Grand Oak with a two-year-old Oak! And he gets slapped with a little fine. Just something to think about…) anyway after he builds his two houses and he goes to sell them a lien search will turn up that he has liens against the property for the maintenance that the city performed. At that time the prospective new owner can petition the city to drop the lien charges. And it is my understanding that the city more often than not approves that. The reason is because it would cost them more to take a guy to court for $500 in fines than it would be to get the money back , and , it’s in the city‘s best interest to have a new owner at the property who is going to maintain it themselves.

So the end result is the previous land owner had his property maintained by the city at the expense of taxpayers and he did not have to pay a dime to have that done.… Not a bad little scam is it?! While it’s tempting for the rest of us to say “well we’ll just do the same thing“… Unfortunately we don’t want to live in squalor so we choose to maintain our properties properly. Not sure there’s any legal solution to this as the cities hands are pretty much tied, which is why I have tried to get people involved in what’s going on in our immediate area especially with zoning and variances and things like that. Unfortunately I was the only person showed up at the variance hearing for Kevin Farrow and was unable to present the ’other side of the story’ , so to speak. So he got his variances to build two houses on what is really just one lot.

Goldnwolf… What happens when the city 'Forces' a resident to maintain a Street or Alley which is NOT a ROW?

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Well I wonder what comments Russ made that they would not let him post here? Hmmm....

CompanyClerk , i’ve done some preliminary investigation into Right of Ways and Ally‘s etc. But I have yet to have time to come to any conclusions that I could answer your question with. The public right of way is “not City property...” (as quoted to me by the head of Codes) , yet it is not private property either. So if anybody out there understands what that means exactly please let us all know! .....Federal land?? By the way just because you don’t have telephone poles in your alley does not mean it’s not a right of way , almost every alley in St Pete has the sewer running through it.

As far as the city “forcing“ you to do something, (again I’m just a landscaper not a lawyer…), But it is my understanding that unless you’re breaking a law (which is not the same thing as abiding by Code ) then all the City can do is levy fines against you and if you don’t pay them then we’re back to the lien situation I described earlier.

I'm not sure why simply stating the obvious as to how easy it would be to fix everything Goldnwolf explained in the earlier comment would be censored. Maybe the City doesn't want everyone to know how easy it would be and that they are failing their constituents?? And I'm more active than just this post so if the City wants to block this one too it will just get worse for them.

Issue 4941874 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Issue 4941874 is no longer marked as a duplicate of this issue.

This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 4781107.

If you are already receiving notifications regarding this issue,
you will now receive updates regarding issue 4781107.