A year or two ago, at a borough council meeting I was covering, a resident attended to complain about his neighbor’s property. He lived in a half of a double home and the other side of the house was condemned.

Nobody was doing anything about making repairs to the deteriorating property. The borough council couldn’t help the resident making the complaint. It was suggested the complainant hire an attorney and take civil action.

That same council adopted ordinances governing the upkeep of property. A zoning officer was hired and began aggressively enforcing these regulations. People were cited for vehicles with outdated inspections, trash on the property, etc.

Nothing can be done, though, with the property that’s falling apart. A band-aid repair is OK but look the other way if it requires a more serious remedy.

The borough says if the property owned is cited, a magistrate might not levy a large fine or they give the landlord a low payment schedule.

And it seems there’s absolutely nothing the borough can do about properties already in such disrepair that they are uninhabitable.

In Lansford, a house was badly burned on Patterson Street and the owner had no insurance. It sits vacant and presumably - I wasn’t on the premises to know for sure - it could be infested with rats, skunks, snakes, etc. Maybe even vagrants go inside.

Is this fair to the neighbors who pay their taxes and who try to maintain their properties? What good are ordinances if they can’t be enforced? What about the declining property values of neighboring homes?

On the other hand, officials can only place a lien on the property for the price of demolition and other costs such as back taxes.

When a borough tears down a property, it gets expensive because there are engineering costs, outside contractor fees, extra costs for removing hazardous materials such as asbestos shingles, back taxes, etc.

So if the borough incurs a $75,000 bill to demolish a property (and that figure isn’t an exaggeration), could the borough ever recoup that amount of money?

Another problem occurring is more and more properties are being bought by LLCs (limited liability corporations).

With these, the corporation and not individuals are primarily responsible for any financial situations.

Let’s say an LLC buys a house and it burns down at some point. First, there’s a possibility the owners of the LLC might not even be known. Second, the only assets of that LLC might be the building that burned. Finally, inadequate or no insurance means another eyesore exists.

Even when zoning issues do occur, usually the municipality is restricted to citing the owner for violations on the exterior. If it’s a rental property, a more thorough inspection of the property is allowed when the municipality has rental ordinances and active zoning officers.

So, what’s the answer? Whether it’s in Jim Thorpe, Nesquehoning or virtually any other community, there are condemned buildings that render local officials virtually helpless to take action.

Here’s some suggestions:

1. LLCs are required by law to register with the state. Many use a PO Box for correspondence to further hide the identity of the individual or individuals behind them. All LLCs should be registered with the county and local government, with identification of the participants, made known.

2. Minimum insurance for catastrophic cleanup should be required of all property owners. Regular house insurance should be enough, so long as the municipality goes after cleanup costs immediately after an incident occurs and before the insurance payout is spent elsewhere.

3. Since qualified zoning officers are becoming more difficult for municipalities to find, maybe a countywide zoning officer with arrest powers should be hired. Zoning fees could be used to help pay the salary.

4. Sometimes an individual or LLC (or individuals with LLCs) own multiple properties. When a building is condemned, it should become possible for municipalities to use those other properties to fix the situations.

5. Magistrates must stop being lenient of issuing fines of property maintenance violators and show that with ownership comes responsibilities.

It’s not fair to make someone live next to a condemned and/or burned-out building for sometimes years and years. It’s not safe. It has a negative impact on the whole town.

Nor should taxpayer money be used to clean up someone else’s mess without reimbursement.

Owner responsibility is something that must be demanded. Especially when owners sometimes buy already deteriorating properties for sometimes less than $1,000. Who checks to make sure these individuals are responsible owners?

Ron Gower is a correspondent for the Times News.