Burlington city councilors on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to an ordinance that would significantly increase penalties on owners of vacant buildings.
Under the current ordinance, the city can fine buildings owners $750 per quarter, or $3,000 per year, no matter how long the building stays empty. The proposal, however, would introduce higher fees the longer a building is unused. For buildings vacant less than a year, the city would charge $1,500 per quarter or $6,000 per year. For those left empty for at least four years, the fine would rise to $4,000 per quarter or $16,000 per year.
Several councilors said they think the fees could be even higher and that their constituents had suggested the same. Councilor Becca Brown McKnight (D-Ward 6) said negligent landlords need to be held accountable for blight.
“Running your property-based business with a total disregard for the negative impact you have on your community is about to get a lot more expensive,” she said.
Burlington isn’t riddled with vacant buildings, but the handful it does have are highly visible and have become magnets for graffiti and crime. Seven Days examined the issue in a 2023 cover story about six vacant commercial buildings, plus the city’s own Memorial Auditorium. A year later, only one of those properties has been revamped: the former Duncan’s Auto on St. Paul Street is now the cannabis shop Hey Bud.
The council’s ordinance committee will review the proposal before it comes back to the full council for a vote.
Related
Blight Sites: Burlington’s Vacant Commercial Buildings Are Eyesores and Potential Safety Hazards. Some Remain in a State of Ruin for Years.
Earlier in the meeting, councilors agreed to put a charter change on the ballot for Town Meeting Day in March. The change would make it easier for the city to alter certain rental regulations.
Under the current charter, landlords must provide between 90 and 120 days notice before terminating a lease. Tenants looking to move out must give landlords notice equal to “two rental periods.”
But if the city wants to change these provisions, it would first have to get permission from the legislature and governor — the standard procedure for all charter changes.
Councilor Evan Litwin (D-Ward 7), who introduced the ballot item, said that process is too cumbersome. The proposal would instead allow the city to define appropriate notice periods in an ordinance, which could be amended on the local level.
“My proposal is to allow for local control of that conversation so that we can react nimbly and responsively to the unique rental housing market we have in Burlington,” Litwin said in a statement. “This measure, in my mind, is an effort to stabilize our community during a time of profound financial strain.”
Also on Tuesday, councilors delayed a vote on a proposal that would let people sue anyone who violates a city ordinance.
The proposal would apply to any city ordinance — such as bans on littering or public urination — but was crafted to target vandals who have defaced public property with anti-transgender stickers in recent years. It would allow people to bring what’s known as a “private right of action” in lieu of the city government enforcing its own laws.
But councilors decided they needed more time to assess the implications of the ordinance, including whether the city has a plan to enforce it and whether it would infringe on free speech rights. In a story last week, Seven Days interviewed First Amendment attorneys who suggested the proposal would be unconstitutional.
The council voted 8-4 to delay discussion until its meeting on December 9. The vote fell largely on party lines, with Democrats advocating to postpone the vote and Progressives arguing against it.
The stickers in question started appearing in 2020 as part of a campaign by activist Bill Oetjen. Officials say the decals, which carry messages such as “No one was ever ‘born in the wrong body,'” make transgender people feel unwelcome and unsafe.
The ordinance contains a so-called “hate crime enhancement,” which would award at least $100 in damages if a person could prove a sticker targeted their race, religion, gender identity or other protected characteristic.
First Amendment attorneys, however, have said putting restrictions on an expressive activity such as stickering raises serious legal questions. Jared Carter, a lawyer with Cornell University’s First Amendment Clinic who represents Oetjen, said the ordinance was written to target his client and that if the city wants to police graffiti, it needs to do so equally. Harrison Stark, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, said Burlington’s proposal, if passed, would likely get the city sued.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Councilor Tim Doherty (D-East District) said he had “very, very serious concerns” about the section of the ordinance that allows private rights of action. Doherty, who is an attorney, said he regularly warns his clients that litigation can be draining and expensive, and he wanted more time to consider whether the city should encourage such lawsuits.
Councilor Mark Barlow (I-North District) agreed, saying he’d heard from constituents, including some “from the legal community,” about that aspect of the proposal. Councilor Gene Bergman (P-Ward 2), a former city attorney, however, said a private right of action would be “a reasonable way to promote enforcement” of the ordinance.
Other councilors questioned the other ways in which the city would enforce the law. The proposal includes a provision that would allow people to submit pictures of suspects to police, who could write the tagger a ticket.
In a memo, Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak wrote that the short-staffed police department could refer stickering cases to the Burlington Community Justice Center, which offers a restorative process for offenders and victims. That could include having the person clean up the offensive graffiti, the mayor wrote. The city’s park rangers could also enforce stickering violations.
But some councilors pointed out that the mayor’s memo had only been posted a few hours before the meeting. “Based on that, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask for more time,” Councilor Joan Shannon (D-South District) said.
Mulvaney-Stanak urged the council not to delay, suggesting that the reelection of former president Donald Trump last week has emboldened people to spew hateful rhetoric.
“I want to be very clear that the times we’re living in have changed since last week,” she said. “We’re trying to create a tool to make sure our community knows that we are serious about addressing hate and bias [and] we must move with great urgency here. If you’re considering delaying action on this, I want you to really reflect on why.”
Also on Tuesday, Mulvaney-Stanak addressed the backlash to her repost of an Instagram story that included a call for abolishing the police.
Originally shared by Outright Vermont, the post was promoting GSA Day for Gender Justice, a national day of action for LGBTQ+ youth, which is scheduled for November 14. The post featured a nine-point policy platform from the National Trans Youth Council, which, among other things, called “for the abolition of the police, ICE, borders and the judicial system.”
Mulvaney-Stanak, a Progressive, shared the post as a story on her official mayoral Instagram account, @mayorbtv, over the weekend. On Monday evening, the Burlington Democratic Committee issued a press release chastising her for being insensitive to the woefully understaffed Burlington police department.
On Tuesday, Mulvaney-Stanak issued a statement explaining that she’d read the post’s caption, but not the post itself, before sharing it. The mayor, who is a lesbian, said she’d intended to use her platform to support LGBTQ+ youth.
“I want to be clear that I do not advocate for abolishing the police, nor have I ever,” her statement said. “When I realized the post included this content, I personally removed it from my social media.”
Mulvaney-Stanak also defended her record on policing issues. In her seven-month tenure, she’s crafted a budget that includes funds to hire more police officers, and her office is looking into the possibility of building a combined police and fire station to replace those aging buildings.
“My support for our officers and non-sworn police staff is unwavering,” she wrote. “I apologize for any confusion or concern that this post caused.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, Councilor Shannon thanked the mayor for clarifying her viewpoint.
“Sometimes in customer service, you can come out of making a mistake with a customer stronger than you went in, winning that loyalty,” Shannon said. “Today I feel, for me, that you did that.”
Related Stories
Blight Sites: Burlington’s Vacant Commercial Buildings Are Eyesores and Potential Safety Hazards. Some Remain in a State of Ruin for Years.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
