Court Opinion

ID: 9746323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:12:10.892786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:12.164126
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that appellee had an interest sufficient to entitle him to notice of the proposed demolition of the property, I cannot agree that the posting of the property was not sufficient to meet that requirement. The majority concludes that the information of appellee’s interest was reasonably ascertainable because “officials in the city’s Bureau of Building Inspection ... had ready access” to a list of properties sold at treasurer’s sale. This added layer that is being placed upon the present procedure, designed to remove structures which have deteriorated to a point that they pose a hazard to the community, is, in my judgment, unreasonable as well as unnecessary.
Most purchasers who acquire property interests in this manner are individuals or entities involved in commercial ventures and are sophisticated in real estate matters. Knowing the condition of the acquired property, the purchasers, in these instances, are undoubtedly aware of the possibility of condemnation, and it is their duty to promptly make repairs. This obligation would clearly encompass the expectation that those purchasers will be aware of any notices posted on that property. Indeed the purchaser in this case testified that he did visit the site during the period when the property was alleged to have been posted. Thus, the issue presented under these facts was not the fairness of the notice by posting but whether the city had, in fact, posted this property.1 The majority today has gratuitously engrafted a further impediment upon a process which is designed to provide municipal government with a workable tool to combat urban blight, the rodent and insect infesta*263tion that it occasions, and the potential for injury that it creates.
It is my judgment that the majority’s holding today places an unreasonable requirement upon municipal government in the discharge of a vital service for the protection of the public. I am therefore constrained to dissent.

. Appellee testified that he viewed the property periodically and that in May, 1978, during the period when the city states the property was posted, he entered the premises with an appraiser. He denied at any time seeing notice of proposed condemnation.