pf_03142 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Power of cities to define and abate nuisances Whilc the tcrn} "nuisance" is too vague to be accurately dcfincd, it rcfcrs gcncrally to that class of legal wrongs which arise from a pcrson's unrcasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use of rcal or pcrsonal property, or from improper, indeccnt, or unlawful personal conduct that obstructs the right of another or the public, and produces such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt that the law will presume a consequent damage (see Black's Law Dic- tionary; 66 C.J.S. "Nuisances," Sec. I, p. 728). The law distinguishes between private and public nuisances. A private nuisance produces damage to only one person or a few people. The prcvention or abatement of a private nuisance is the responsibility of the individual injured by it; it is not an appropriate subject for municipal action. A nuisance is public if it annoys, injurcs, or cndangcrs thc safcty, health, comfort, or rcpose of any considerable number of peoplc (Minn. Stat. 609.74). It is public if it affccts the surrounding community gencrally or thc people of somc local ncighborhood (Village of Pine v. Munch, 42 Minn. 342, 44 N.W. 197, 1890). A nuisance may be both public and private; Qublic in its gencral effcct upon' the pu6li<:.ai1d private as to those Wno suffcr a-.spcCialor paiticuIardamage from iCTIie rCUrcssTor a pu15fic wrong is public ~c- tiOfi;f~i~inj~drc"SSJS,throug.t1-Jmvat.e actiOir~ ~1icipal ordinances rclating to nuisances must addrcss only public offenscs. The courts will hold them valid only if they are construcd as not covering private nui- sanccs. Statutory cities have authority by ordinance to dcfine nuisanccs and providc for thcir prevention or abatcmcnt (Minn. Stat. 412.221, subd. 23). Almost all home rule charter cities have similar power by virtue of eithcr an omnibus grant of authority commonly includcd in charters adopted since about 1930, or spccific grants much like thosc in the statutory city codc. Numerous Minncsota cit.ies havc adopted ordinanccs to cxcrcise this statutory or charter authority. Thc League model ordinance in this mcmo includes a general public nuisance prohibition similar to that in the statc law. It follows the gencral provision with a list of spccific acts and omissions which are prohibited as public nuisanccs. It is cIcar from thc numerous court cascs that a city may not makc a relativcly harmless act or omission a puhlic nuisance. The city may not define as a public nuisance somcthing which is not in fact a nuisance, and the courts often strike down ordinances which attempt to do so. There is, however, a large area of conduct where there can be reasonable differences of opinion as to whether acts or omissions are really public nuisances. In any such case, the courts are likely to give considerable wcight to the council's ordinance detem1ination that a public nuisance is indeed involved. It is for this rcason that thc model ordi- nance, following common practice, includes within the definition of public nuisances a long list of particular acts or omissions to act. The Legislature has supplemented its general definition of public nuisances with particular statutes providing special regulations and procedures with respect to particular subjects. ODe statute is the hazardous building law, which provides its own authority and procedure for the repair or demolition of hazardous buildings, buildings which are cIcarly in the category of legal nuisances (Minn. Stat. 463.15 to 463.261). There is also an old law which provides that when any "nuisance, source of filth, or cause of sickness" is found on any property, thc health officer must order the owner or occupant to rcmovc the objectionablc substancc or condi- tion within a period, not ovcr 10 days, stipulated in the notice. If the owner or occupant docsn't comply with the notice, the condition is to be correctcd by the shcriff, marshal, or other peace officer at the owncr's expense (Minn. Stat. 145.22-23). No ordinance is necessary in order to make use of this statute. Inclusion of these subjects in a nuisance ordinance permits a criminal penalty for violation but does not prevent use of the special statutory procedure instead in any particular case. Although this old law has never been repealed, it is now seldom used. Initiation by the hcalth officcr as a local proceeding is now generally impossible because Ihat officcr has becn supplanted in evcry county (now at lcast 84 of the 87 countics) that has takcn advantagc of the 1976 commu- nity health services act. The law has a $100 limit on the amount that may be assessed against property for the cost of removal of the objectionable condition; and its purpose may be largely achieved under the city's power to define and abate nuisances and to asscss undcr the local improvemcnt code (Minn. Stat. 429.101) thc cost of elimination of public hcalth and safety nuisanccs. Inclusion of these subjccts in a nuisancc ordinance seems to be a more cffective way of dealing with these subjects. Unlike the old statute on nuisanccs, source of filth, or cause of sickness, the 1974 addition of rcmoval of public health or safety hazards from privatc property to the list of current scrvices whose cost may be spccially assesscd contains no dollar amount that may hc asscssed to rccovcr costs of city elimination of thesc hazards. Becausc the 1974 amcndmcnt includes safcty as well as health hazards and therc is no indication that thc Lcgislature intended to provide for any diffcrence in trcatmcnt betwccn the two types of hazards, it seems almost ccrtain that the $100 limit in the old law does not apply to the elimination of hcalth and safcty hazards undcr the local improvemcnt League of Minnesota Cities Page 3