As most of you know, the building code ordinance that was passed by the Council last year has now been rescinded.

I think the biggest problem with the failed building code ordinance was that the City wasn’t successful at telling people why it was important to them. People will support a lot of things, but they are not likely to buy into an idea that will add a new employee, a set of new regulations, and new costs unless they have a clear idea of why those things are important.

Since we were not good at communicating why a building code was important, we turned to the idea of limiting who the code would apply to. In other words, when we couldn’t win over the citizens with existing buildings, we changed the ordinance to cover only new buildings, hoping that the opposition from the owners of existing buildings would melt away. But, this didn’t reverse the program’s lack of support.

As I have written in the past, the types of calls that I have gotten about buildings have not concerned the newly constructed ones. The calls that I’ve received have been about run-down buildings that people see as a drag on the property values in their neighborhoods.

As an alternative to the building code, the Council is now considering a new ordinance that would address "property maintenance." A property maintenance ordinance would cover any type of building that, for example, suffers from: structural problems; broken windows; peeling paint or unprotected exterior surfaces; holes in their exteriors; leaking or failing roofs; and unsound porches, stairways, decks, and balconies.

This ordinance would have some advantages over the building code ordinance: It shouldn’t require us to hire a new employee. It shouldn’t need the adoption of a voluminous code of regulations. There wouldn’t be a fee structure. And, it would require people to fix the sorts of problems that motivation people to call their Council members.

However, in some ways, this ordinance would not be an easy to enforce because it isn’t only based what might be dangerous about a building. It is also, in part, based on the enforcement person’s or group’s subjective taste. For example, at what point do you order another person to take action that will cause him to have to repaint or put new siding on his house? How much time do you give the person to correct the problem? What if the person can’t afford to do the work?

Or, what if the person doesn’t recognize that his property has these problems? After all, one person’s hellhole is another person’s castle.

For the time being, the Council has assigned its Housing Rehabilitation Committee with the task of considering model ordinances that are aimed at addressing either property maintenance and/or dangerous buildings. At this writing, the Committee hasn’t met to discuss these ordinances, but if the effort goes further toward the adoption of such an ordinance, it is my hope that the City will be able to better convince our citizens of why it is important to them.

In last month’s column, I noted that August was the first anniversary of the launch of our web site. Since we were getting over 3000 visits per month from all sorts of states and countries, I invited the readers of that column to send me an email so I could get an idea of where they were from.

To the only person that responded (a lady from Sioux City and apparently my only reader,) I’d like to say "thanks."

About a month ago, we were on vacation in northern Minnesota. We were staying at a resort. This was the first time that we have been on a vacation with our toddler, Benjamin. Each day, we took time to do an activity with him.

One day, while my wife was shopping, I took Ben out for a stroller ride. We looped the various roads within the resort twice and spent some time at a playground that was near the lake.

We were out for about 2 hours.

While walking, your mind starts to wander. I thought about a number of TV shows where a guy with a baby (or a Labrador, I can’t remember which) is often greeted by a bunch of women who want to play with the child. Since I was near a beach, I thought there was a decent chance that some of them would be wearing swimsuits.

But, this didn’t happen. Women in two-piece swimsuits didn’t descend upon us. I saw a pregnant lady in a one-piece swimsuit that was blowing up an inner tube. For an instant, she looked like she might be interested in coming over to say "hi" to Ben, but she didn’t.

The only special attention we got came from truckers. Truck drivers tend to be more courteous to a pedestrian in a crosswalk when he’s pushing a baby carriage.

(I hope the lady from Sioux City liked that story.)