You can’t Code-Enforce your way to Neighborhood Revitalization
At Chamber Judge Executive forum, we were asked about the fact that the City of Paducah has invested significant focus and resources into revitalizing the Southside. We were asked as County Judge Executive, how would you define the Southside as it extends beyond the city limits into McCracken County, and what would your priorities be for revitalizing those areas?
Judge Executive Craig Clymer talked about adding code enforcement, making property owners clean up their properties and tearing down eight to ten dilapidated homes.
Then he said something that highlighted a fundamental difference in how we approach this issue:
“I don't think that I would give money to improve their homes. I think that might be taking government too far.”
I disagree. You can't code-enforce your way to neighborhood revitalization.
Enforcement and demolition are sometimes necessary, but they address the problem after a property has deteriorated. Sometimes it makes far more sense to help save a house before it reaches the point where taxpayers have to pay to tear it down.
That's what Paducah is doing and I believe this approach can be extended into the county.
The City has made Southside revitalization a priority since 2021. We listened to residents, created a Southside Steering Committee, removed blight, encouraged business investment, and developed incentives to improve existing housing and encourage new construction. I asked the County at the time to partner with the City because the south side of Paducah extends into Farley and even parts of Reidland. They declined.
Today, Paducah's Southside Housing Incentive Program helps homeowners make major improvements including roofs, windows, siding, electrical systems, HVAC, and accessibility improvements.
The homeowner still has to invest their own money but the City helps offset part of the cost. I don’t think that’s a handout, it’s using public investment to leverage private investment.
And it can make good financial sense. Once a neighborhood has recovered, property values increase and additional private investment is attracted.
If a small investment helps a homeowner save a deteriorating house, improve a neighborhood, and increase surrounding property values, isn't that worth considering before taxpayers eventually have to pay for code enforcement and demolition?
Counties Across America Do This
This isn't an unusual role for local government.
Housing rehabilitation, blight removal, and neighborhood improvement programs are used by cities and counties across the United States.
HUD's Community Development Block Grant program specifically supports activities including housing rehabilitation incentives, in addition to demolition of deteriorated structures, infrastructure improvements and elimination of blight.
Counties participate in these programs across the country.
Indiana, for example, has an Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program that allows counties to receive grants to help homeowners repair roofs, HVAC systems, electrical systems, and other critical components of their homes.
This is a common community-development strategy because preserving a house can be less expensive—and far better for a neighborhood—than allowing it to deteriorate until demolition is the only option.
Where Does the Southside End?
The forum question also asked where the Southside ends and where it flows into McCracken County.
To me, community concern doesn’t stop at the city limits. This is not a City/County issue, it’s a community issue.
If deteriorating housing and struggling neighborhoods extend into the County, we should look at what has worked in other communities and counties across the United States and determine which strategies could work here too.
Not every City program will work for the County. Government shouldn't solve every problem or pay every bill. But we shouldn't take a valuable tool off the table simply because someone believes helping homeowners is “government going too far.”
I believe we need enforcement and investment. Demolition when necessary - but rehabilitation whenever possible.
My final thought - I'd much rather incentivize a family to help themselves and save a house today than ask taxpayers to tear that house down tomorrow.
That's not government going too far. That's government thinking ahead.