When city council begins to deal with property maintenance issues, they’re moving toward something that most people hold as sacred—personal property.

Property maintenance matters can lead to heated discussions and heart-felt opinion, and that’s exactly what’s happened in the two cases that Morenci’s council is addressing.

Property owners in both situations have attended meetings and made their feelings clearly known. Beyond the issue of personal property, resolution of the problem often leads to considerable cost for the property owner.

One council member refused to go along with a motion to seek bids for the demolition of a structure that’s been ruled unsafe. It’s back to that issue of personal property, and she’s not so sure that council should make the decision to tear down someone else’s property.

It’s easy to sympathize with that opinion, but it’s also necessary to consider how the other six councilors view the issue. It comes down to the old saying that asks why have laws if you’re not going to enforce them.

If a structure is deemed unsafe and the owners are doing nothing to rectify the situation, council must either take action on its own—citations or a demolition order—or ignore it all. If ignored, then there must not have been much reason for the law in the first place.

If the issue reaches the point where the next step is to order demolition, the decision won’t be an easy one. But if the law exists for the good of the public, then the right to ignore the neglected property must be overridden.