Infamous House And Complaints Surrounding It Returns To Council

An infamous house on South Hill was back on the agenda on September 8th as Council heard the Ombudsman’s report on how the matter was dealt with by the City.

The home, located at 1511 Hastings Street West, has been called the neighbourhood eyesore by surrounding neighbours in excess of a decade.

To help get the vacant and what he considered a derelict property the next door neighbour, Carter Currie, started a high profile letter writing and media campaign through The Moose Jaw Express newspaper in what he saw as inaction by the City to properly follow the bylaws and rectify the situation.

Carter feels the ‘abandoned’ property is a safety hazard and the fire department had issued a demolition order if the identified problems were not rectified.

The pending demolition was dealt with at an August regular Council meeting where the property owner, Dr Elizabeth James, addressed Council via videolink asking for an extension to complete the required repairs and to allow for the home to be sold. The City ultimately granted her an extension but not as long of an extension she had requested after they heard her story.

The house is located at 1511 Hastings Street West - MJ Independent file photo

The campaign to have Council order the home’s demolition escalated to the point the neighbour filed a complaint with the provincial Ombudsman’s Office to move the City to take action in what the complainant saw as inaction.

Speaking to Council, city manager Jim Puffalt said the City is barred from releasing to third parties any information the City may or may not have taked against derelict properties.

“The City is required to follow the Freedom Of Information and Protection of Privacy rules and legislation so we can’t speak about a number items and that is certianly (the case) in an enforcment against a property,” Puffalt said. “We can speak in general terms. We are dealing with ot, we are managing it along with what we have to do.”

In response to wht he saw as the City’s inaction to rectify the problem and Council’s not ordering the demolition the complainant filed a complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office. It was at the time a move supported by the City so they could relate exact details of what they had done on relation to the complaint.

“We were very fortunate the complainant took it to the provincial Ombudsman. We talked to them and we were able to provide that information to them,” he said.

The Ombudsman sent a letter to the complainant and the City stating that after review the City had been following the proper procedures regarding the property.

“From their words the City met its’ legal obligations to provide the property pwner with a reasonable administrative review in fairness in accordance with the law informing the property owner of an appeal process and negotiating reasonable timelines for negotiating reasonable timelines for negotiating work on the property,” he said, adding “we also found he City of Moose Jaw responded properly to the complaint about the property while maintaining its’ obligation to insure the privacy of the property owner.”

Puffalt said the Ombudman’s report affirmed the City had acted judiciously and fairly within the legislation to properly issue orders against the property.

The Ombudsman also suggested City Council should write the complainant and provide the proper procedures to address Council.

Puffalt mentioned and thanked the Moose Jaw Express for contacting the City in 2019 and asked them to deal with the issue as the newspaper felt the complainant had a case but it was not their job to deal with the issue but the City’s. An apparent 180 degree turn from their alleged position in early August.

During her videolink appearance Dr James had claimed the City had contacted her to ask if they could use an e-mail she had in a legal case against the Moose Jaw Express. Over the last 18 months the City has on more than one ocassion been in a war of words with the newspaper and other local media.

“We are glad to say the property owner finished all of the work that was in the order,” Puffalt said.

Councillor Brian Swanson said the information was great but Council “also needed to bear in mind the complaints against the residence were some 15 years in length.”

“So you can kind of understand the frustration of a resident that has been trying to get action that takes 15 years. Some would see that as persistence. And you try politely and that doesn’t work I guess we should keep that in mind in this process to there was a lot of frustration built up over a very long period of time,” Councillor Swanson said.

Council then voted to write the complainant a letter to inform him on the process to address Council and to receive and file the report.