FAIRBURY – Frustrated over the presence of some dilapidated houses with yards and alleys filled with unused stuff, one member of the Fairbury city council voiced his concerns with both city and county government this week as he begins a foray into cleaning up parts of Fairbury.  

Fairbury city councilmember Charley Endorf has had enough of certain properties being left uncared for, saying these unclean conditions hurt Fairbury’s property values and community optics. 

“What I would suggest is we take a hard look at this. How are we going to get people to move to Fairbury when we’ve got junk sitting all over the place?” Endorf said at the Fairbury city council meeting this Tuesday. “We don’t allow chickens and pigs and all that stuff because of health reasons, but we allow this junk?” 

Chief atop Endorf’s list of concerning properties are a stretch of a couple of houses on 3rd Street across from the Sheriff’s Office littered with cars of varying condition and quality, and an alley between F and G Streets on the north side of Highway 136 filled with debris, among others.  

“I drove by that alley – I thought I was in Ukraine the other day,” Endorf quipped. “Rutgers University was the birthplace of college football – Fairbury must be the birthplace for muskrats, skunks, ‘coons, snakes, all that stuff that could live in that place.” 

First, Endorf brought his concerns to the Jefferson County commissioners on Tuesday morning, seeking to understand the legal process surrounding the region’s nuisance violations. Reached via phone during Tuesday’s weekly meeting, county attorney Joe Casson outlined that tickets for nuisance violations must be filed by the city’s code enforcement office, headed by Dan Lufkin, before the attorney’s office can pursue a legal outcome in court.  

Every ticket that the code enforcement officers and the sheriff’s office transmit to the attorney’s office gets taken up in court, Casson stressed. But code enforcement is a city operation, not a county process: so the attorney and the commissioners recommended Endorf present his concerns to government at the city level. Fortunately, the next twice-monthly city council meeting was later Tuesday night, and, fortunately, Endorf has just won a seat on that nine-person body – so that’s where he headed next.  

“I’m fed up with the garbage in this town – the property garbage. We talk about 3rd Street across from the police station...that’s been there for years. That didn’t just start six months ago. Who’s dropping the ball?” Endorf opened. “I talked to the enforcement guys today, they say they’re doing their job. Talked to the sheriff, they’re doing their job. Went to the county commissioners, got total support from them. We got Joe Casson on the phone, he’s doing his job. So somebody’s dropping the ball.” 

The city of Fairbury’s municipal code document – publicly viewable online – has many specific definitions for a nuisance, including “filthy, littered, or trash-covered cellars, houseyards...vacant lots, houses, buildings or premises;” as well as “any unsightly building, billboard, or other structure, or any old, abandoned, or partially destroyed building...which are either a fire hazard, a menace to the public health or safety, or are so unsightly as to depreciate the value of the property in the vicinity thereof.” 

The code outlines that every property owner in the city limits is charged with keeping their real estate “free of public nuisances.” Potential violators are examined by code enforcement and, if necessary, served a ticket by law enforcement. Ticketed landowners are then expected in court – but Casson, the county attorney, underscored one potential issue with absentee landowners: if the people that theoretically own the property don’t actually reside there, it’s a lot more challenging to get them to come to court to state their case.  

But for a city like Fairbury that features multiple programs and procedures designed to combat “blight” and other unsightly aspects of smaller-sized cities, it makes sense that there would be a premium placed on wiping out some uncared-for properties – perhaps there’s a different path forward the city government can pursue.  

“What are we going to do to clean it up? Do we need to change the ordinances, do we need to be strict?” Endorf concluded Tuesday. “I don’t have the solution, but somebody is dropping the ball. Somebody is not carrying out [their role]. And I’m not going to blame any one person. But where? Do we need to change our ordinances, so they’re stricter? We have to set a precedent – we’re not going to change our ways if we don’t set some type of change.” 

Fairbury mayor Kelly Davis underscored that since Endorf’s comments were presented during the council’s public comment session, the body was unable to take any direct action or even react to his statements. But if an action item is ever formally added to the agenda, then the city council can consider taking action, and potentially pursuing a path forward.