Box 1, Folder 1, Complete Folder

LASS

ra

s —
ee

a























OP ee we

SUI Nao!



x




















































Municipal Court
City of Atlanta

PRESS RELEASE

Date
For Immediate Release

MUNICIPAL COURT CITES
€No. )

FOR HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS

defendents received sentences varying



(No. )

from to :
(Sentence) (Sentence) (Date)

in Atlanta Municipal Court on charges of violating the City's

Housing Codes.









Judge handed down the following
(Name)
sentences:
(Defendant) (Address)
’ » for
(Sentence) (Charge)
(signature)



Judge, Atlanta Municipal Court
The Building Inspectors Department



The Building (usdestes Depactiet i
Frewicpaemtem administers and enforces the Zoning
Ordinance, the Housing and Slum Clearance Code, the Heusing Demolition Ordinance, the Georgia
Safety Fire Law and ihe Elevator Ordinance. lis responsibilities generally regulate ine private use of
private property. The manner in which the department does its job and works with other agencies both
_ in and out of the City government will be reflected in the quality of total community developre ni.

Biatfing, organization, and records must be so developed as to have flexibility, comprehens iveness,

and sensitivity to the needs and requirements of area action. |The Building Inspectéss Department has

been the subject of extensive review and reorganization to better prepare it for thé role. Implementation
of the reorganization is now in the final stage. This presentrevtews-therefore;-must be timttet io
ihereceni-history-of the deparitient, It would be inappropriate to attempt to evaluate performance

development,a constan?t
i

systematic performance.measuremeni-should=be=developedy==

mT oe ay Soe
(fe ea Mi ess Tite

In 1964 Public Administration Service prepared a survey report relating to the consolidation of

inspection servicesin the City of Atlanta. This report reviewed and identified all inspectional functions
carried out among several departments withthe City government. The major attention of the report

was focused on the Depariment of Building Inspections. The findings of the report led to recommendations
for an expanded depariment of Building Inspections to include plumbing inspection (from the Consiruction
Depariment), elecirical inspection (from the Department of Electricity) and housing code inspection
(from the Depariment of Urban Renewal). The City adopted the full report.. The Departments of
Electricity and Urban Renewal were abolished when their few remaining responsibilities were transferred

to other deparimenis and agencies. No one lost his job or was reduced in salary due to the implementation

of these recommendations.


~

The Building Inspection Department : Page 2



Consolidation began in July of 1964, In-She beginning little more could be accomplished than
to effect a legal change. The various officej's were spread from the third floor of City Hall to the
thirteenth floor. ? In late summer 1965, one year later,major office realignments were richie at City Hall
wajch resulted in the Building Inspecti‘on Deparimenit occupying all of the eighth and ninth floors. tha
Wetec’ MNbgrnorsdty wert rele wr 19Gb » an

Physical provisions were made for a ceniral records ard statistical unit and the ceniral permits desk.

Staffing for the Records Bureau was provided by clerical personnel formerly assigned to each of the



inspection divisions. a
A
ceientiailiaaaimiiain a

= =

The present organization differs from the proposed plan in two minor ways. First there is

fore

no separate zoning #7" rneirA, Zoning enforcement is carried out by the Building Code Enforcement

Ser
we



rcement



en

—

Division. The building inspectors carry on this dual function. |
\ /



# One aspect of the zoning enforcement and conirol is in the



Planning Department. Street number assignment and zening certification and applications for
\

rezoning are functions of the Planning Department. At seems logical that the zoning information

\

\

section of the Planning Department could most ae be assigned to the Building Inspection Department.
This would be another important step in congoli ating related functions concerning building construction.

Another area of responsibility that could proayrly be assigned to ihe Building Inspection Department



would be the functions now carried out by peers of City Hall. The Building Department
presenily supplies the Depariment of City/ Hall Bpubabbodbeo@ioyaiddingsox with technical asictunies
and prepares plans and supervises all additions ony alterations to the City Hall and all other City
buildings. This new division, to be £alled a Division of City Buildings, would be responsible for the

custodial duties at City Hall, sup¢rvising alterations to all City buildings, and ta, provide technical
\
information and assistance to otfer City departments \in the operation and maintenance of their buildings.

An Organization Chart indicgting the present organization and including the suggested addition of the

Division of City Buildings js presented in Chart Ley


The Building Inspectors Department Page 3



Staffing. The Depariment has a technical staff of 72 and a clerical staff of 1d: The technical

staff includes the department head (Building Official), an estefan Building Official, two

architect engineers, ten plumbing inspectors, 10 electrical inspectors, 2 elevator inspectors, 9 heating.
and ventilating inspectors and engineers, 16 building inspectors and 15 persons engaged in Housing
Code enforcement. Six technicians are ities registered engineers or architects. Most of the
specialized inspectors are licenseg in their trades,

Dual Inspections . There is a decided trend throughout the county towards the use of dual

inspectors. By combining inspectional duties one person inspects two or more inspectional

fields providing competent inspection in an economical manner. The most common dual inspections
are building and zoning, plumbing and heating, and building and hosting. The City of Atlanta has
only one type of dual inspection - building and zoning. Efforts to extend combined inspections

usually meet strong resistance from craft unions, The use of dual inspections might necessarily

have to be limited to resideniial buildings. This will involve the greatest volume of work, but also

the most routine from the standpoint of technical difficulty. An expanded program of dual inspections
requires a well developed in-training program, cooperation and understanding of the craft unions,

and support from the City administration. Atlanta could probably extend ifs dual inspections to include
Housing Code inspections to all its inspectional specialities. Every inspector, then, wauld be
responsible to note and report to the Housing Code Division any violations observed. Follow-up
inspections regarding housing code violation would remain the responsibility of the Housing Division.
This modification would go far in expanding the ability of the City to identify homes that are
developing features that lead to blight.

Work Program Inspectional services are provided fo insure the health, safety and general welfare

of the community. Building inspections insure that siruciures will be built, repaired and altered

in accordance with accepied standards. Plumbing inspections insure that water and sewer facilities are in-
stalled in a manner that will protect the occupants health, Heating and Ventilating inspections assure

that heating units are installed property and includes provisions for smoke abatement in order to reduce










The Building Inspect&*$ Department Page 4
air pollution. Electrical Inspections insure that wiring installations will reduce fire hazards.
Housing inspections differ from the above in that the housing code is concerned with buildings
that were built under former regulations (usually these required lower standards of safety and sanitation).
li is the general purpose of housing inspection to upgrade the standing of living in existing housing.
Zoning ordinance enforcement activities support the regulationtof land use, conirol of height
and bulk of buildings, establish area requiremenis for yards and other open spaces.
The volume of work undertaken by the department may be measured by the value and number of

building permits issued in the past 10 years@,

Year Value of Building (millions Number of Permits
of Dollars)

1955 76 t 10,613
1956 59 9,682
1957 59 7,79)
1958 108 8,327
1959 4 8,728
1960 91 8,31]
1961 96 10,158
1962 117 9.357
1963 109 9,168
1964 150 9,142
aS x

Building Codes . The City of Atlania provides through these Various codes a high standard of
construction. The National Building Code is basically used for building. In 1965 wee
National Elected be issued which will be adopted by the City, Currently the Ciiy is using
the existing National Elecirical Code with some local amendments. The City is a leader

in developing a Heating Code. This code has recedved national acclaim and has been widely
adopted by other cities. The Plumbing and the Housing codes are not based after any nena code,
b ut do incorporate high standards. Generally, the codes provide for eight inspections to be made
during actual consiruction. A final inspection ismade upon completion of all work to assure

conformance to land use, type of building, area of lot and other requiremenis of the zoning and

building ordinances and codes. A certificate of occupancy is issued at that time.








The Building Inspection Depariment Page 5

Budget and Revue. The depariment collects in fees enough funds to cover all the expenses of

operation. A recent survey of municipal building inspection practices indicated that 72 per cent

of 101 cities over 100,000 population receive 75 per cenit or more of their operating budget from

fees. Thirty-two per cent of these cities receive 100 % or more of their operating budget from

fees,

Public Convenience. The consolidation of inspectional service and a central building permits

desk serves as a public convenience. A contractor or individual can get all building permiis

at one location. He must, however, still go to several other locations within City Hall

for other basic information and permits. Water permits, water meters and location of water

facilities are obtained from the Water Depariment} Sewer permits, Street Opening permits,

sewer assessmenis, curvcut permits and location of sewer facilities are obtained from the Consiruction

Depariment. Applications for rezoning and sireet numbers are provided at the Planning Depariment.

Copies of the Zoning Code are purchased from the City Clerk as are licenses to engage in the cansiruciion

Business . Sods consolidation of these information and permit issuing functions requires considerable
/

study and would effect changes that cross over deparimental lines. Debarimenis have a tendency to

hold on ta functions. Their aim is Puncte their sphere of influence not to‘ransfer it. Realignment

ff
. f . . \ . i fo . _ 2 . *
of functions, as would be required if a\ceniral license and\permit activity were desirayhvould require
A ff ‘ ff %,

the participation of a central administrative agent whoAvould have authority over alll deparimenis.
\ f ; /

None presenily exists.












PYLE D UNE

BwuiL oie





DE PARTIVE7



JACSPAEC TH CRS

Fericiak





AS36S TAT



CRE IrcrAaL

Bie DAE









HEvsi/ 6 Pivisier?












BviLDWw Ss AS
Zine Divi spore











MEAT He

VEMmTititTéinw €

|_ Divisions
fox Pele rie






AecrheiS
Divisren >















[ PLumMa ne G

Orisiod/







PLANS eee
fe

FEV ew



a PIV sion



Pvyi Sion oe
City puis Dire’ s

one














DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS

The Department of Buildings administers ut enforces the
Zoning Ordinance, the Housing and Slum Clearance Code, the Housing
Demolition Ordinance, the Georgia Safety Fire Law and the Elevator
Ordinance. Its responsibilities generally regulate the private use of private
property. The manner in which the department does its job and works with
other agencies both in and out of the City government will be reflected in
the quality of total community development. Staffing, organization, and
records must be so developed as to have flexibility, comprehensiveness,

and sesnitivity to the needs and requirements of area action.

The Department of Buildings has been the subject of extensive
review and reorganization to better prepare it for its role. Implementation
of the reorganization is now in the final stage. It would be inappropriate

to attempt to evaluate performance.

Or ganization

In 1964, Public Administration Service prepared a survey report
relating to the consolidation of inspectional services in the City of Atlanta.
This report reviewed and identified all inspectional functions carried out
among several departments within the City government. The major attention
of the report was focused on the Department of Building Inspections. The

findings of the report léd to recommendations for an expended department of










Page Two

Building Inspections to include plumbing inspection (from the Construction
Department), electrical inspection (from the Department of Electricity) and
_housing code inspection (from the Department of Urban Renewal). The City
adopted the full report. The Departments of Electricity and Urban Renewal
were abolished when their few remaining responsibilities were transferred
to other departments and agencies. No one lost his job or was reduced in

salary due to the implementation of these recommendations.

Consolidation began in July of 1964. In the beginning little more
could be accomplished than to effect a legal change. The various offices
were spread from the third floor of City Hall to the thirteenth floor. In late
summer 1965, one year later, major office realignments were made at City
Hall which resulted in the Department of Buildings occupying all of the eighth
and ninth floors. Further office assignments were made in 1966. Physical
provisions were made for a central records and statistical unit and the central
permits desk. Staffing for the Records Bureau was provided by clerical

personnel formerly assigned to each of the inspection divisions.

Staffing

The Department has a technical staff of 72 and a clerical staff
of 16, The technical staff includes the department head (Building Official),

an assistant Building Official, two architect engineers, ten plumbing inspectors,

ee ee eee TT




Page Three

ten electrical inspectors, two elevator inspectors, nine heating and
ventilating inspectors and engineers, sixteen building inspectors and
. fifteen persons engaged in housing code enforcement. Six technicians are

either registered engineers or architects. Most of the specialized inspectors

are licensed in their trades,

Work Program

Inspectional services are provided to insure the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. Building inspections insure that
structures will be built, repaired and altered in accordance with accepted
standards. Plumbing inspections insure that water and sewer facilities
are installed in a manner that will protect the occupants health. Heating
and ventilating inspections assure that heating units are installed properly
and include provisions for smoke abatement in order to reduce air pollution.
Electrical inspections insure that wiring installations will reduce fire
hazards. Housing inspections differ from the above in that the housing
code is eoncerned with buildings that were built under former regulations
(usually these required lower standards of safety and sanitation). It is the
general purpose of housing inspection to upgrade the standard of living in
existing housing. Zoning ordinance’enforcement activities support the
regulations of land use, control of height and bulk of buildings, establish area

requirements for yards and other open spaces.












Page Four

The volume of work undertaken by the department may be

measured by the value and number of building permits issued in the past





ten years.
Year Value of Building Number of Permits
(Millions of Dollars)

1955 76 10, 613
1956 59 9, 682
1957 59 7,791
1958 108 8, 327
1959 114 8,728
1960 91 8,311
1961 96 10, 158
1962 117 993537
1963 109 9, 168
1964 150 9, 142
1965

Building Codes

The City of Atlanta provides through these various codes a high
standard of construction. The National Building Code is basically used for
building. In 1965 a revised National Electrical Code will be issued which
will be adopted by the City. Ourrently the City is using the existing National
Electrical Code with some local amendments. The City is a leader in
developing a Heating Code. This code has received national acclaim and has
been widely adopted by other cities. The Plumbing and the Housing Codes

are not based after any model code, but do incorporate high standards.












Page Five

Generally, the codes provide for eight inspections to be made during actual
construction. A final inspection is made upon completion of all work to
assure conformance to land use, type of building, area of lot and other
requirements of the zoning and building ordinances and codes. A certificate

of occupancy is issued at that time.

Budget and Revue

The department collects in fees enough funds to cover all the
expenses of operation. A recent survey of municipal building inspection
practices indicated that 72 per cent cf 101 cities over 100, 000 population
receive 75 per cent or more of their operating budget from fees. Thirty-
two per cent of these cities receive 100 per cent or more of their operating

budget from fees.

Public Convenience

The consolidation of inspectional service and a central building
permits desk serves as a public convenience. A contractor or individual
can get all building permits at one location. He must, however, still go to
several other locations within City Hall for other basic information and
permits. Water permits, water meters and location of watér facilities are
obtained from the Water Department} sewer permits, street opening permits,

sewer assessments, curb cut permits and location of sewer facilities are








Page Six

obtained from the Construction Department. Applications for rezoning
and street numbers are provided at the Planning Department. Copies of the

Zoning Code are purchased from the City Clerk as are licenses to engage

in the construction business. Complete consolidation of these information

and permit issuing functions requires considerable study and would effect

changes that cross over departmental lines.






Total
Structures

Residential 97879

Non-Residential 11830

Total 109709
Housing

Units . -- 163205
% 100.0

Estimated Number of Structures and Hevsing Units
City of Atlanta CIP Field Survey

. Standard

66127
8543

74670

113999
69.9

In need of In need of
Minor Major
Repair Repair
'
20991 * 8988
2757 434
23748 9422

+ 92412 3 !-s 13807

L~—

19.9 | 8.5
me
b

a

a

Dilapidated

1773
96

1869

2987
1.8

wy



































, ae
154,097 Total Housing Units, ee of! At a
66,550 Total owner-occupied dwellin; shea FE
52,461 White owner occupied. ~: fe
14,089 Non-White owner occupied.. each.
79,365 Tenant occupied. fs ee a
45,266 Tenant occupied, White. Wt
34,099 Tenant. occupied, Non-Whi tes: peat ays
5,710 Vacant unite. waste ge A
4,131 For rent. ti ,
1,579 For sale. i i
2,472 Other (vacant). tes
8,182 Total vacant. OF ae
. on i E
QETERTORATING: Hoey
28,901” Total. | bee |
4 434 (All plumbing: present. PIE ira cease Merge a Beek 3th | bit
3,535, No hot water. I ic ep Ti Hi ae be ieee
11,932 No bath, toiled or ronning water. ee wae
DILAPIDATED: | = 12 eft |
il, 788” otal. . if We ie : : \ a {
- DILAPIDATED § & ‘DETERIORATED: Be bliah de f
Total. Heh Sy Fo ee
aa HE NON WHITS. HOUSING ae Tie MERSTE gt|
wi] Pps feAe [3
48,188 Total’):
SOUND?) Hs
(25,645 Total. Hi
DETERIORATING: a |
14, 614” Total. NY it pat
5,405: All plumbing present. \ aT ialbteess |
Q, 204 GesB Lacking some or all Fasit7 a8 Eh oi] f|
DILAPIDATED: Se eet : ea
DILAPIDATED & DETERIORATED: Rid da
~ 22,543" Total. | es

(In a telephone conversation with Miss Peg Breeland, of M.P -C., on July 12,

she told me the Federal Census figures on dilapidation are lower than M.P. C.

estimates. She spot checked and found Census figures lower than actual con=
ditions show in the field.) — J.A, abe Assist. Director



* pres ge BET —

a

APE cy erie oy BTR

ae






ar

ae) oof ST
pe / J zs fe

AAA | Sit,
‘ Eh Ye ye: ; oe Ae eet fot ed fate t_>
i S ‘ g eee. Op ee 4 Iso sca ee wep

i ;
Qe 211 gle Sitar oe aa . CZ ee Siw
a - c - - Oh El ant
wt ) at- ee ene cl nw a lee @ Ae uy os
an ae pra ake, Lepr ncg f cea a tokhore Chas. meeusow i
; Ae i101- Lene WA. a AS Pom ee, Chee see oe pt ate Ste Site eg
[law Toa ad Were tn thin [Vobin th aeetn’ prome 2.
OAT AL, | BA PRO a Aathy ana) oO € . or) . inh fOr ;
a ur wp. ai was
Lylekirrrnre Ate “a ALIN Beeld cag Se of- Shiv np

feks Peter,
2-& Ca i

ln tE EE traci A staciren sh. ANGE cee)
). farrah GOjb2 > at Lye | a : , :
Den tt) [8 <4 3 7 ae fo yIS3 2 7, 00
5—4 | S49 OS pS
2G sea [330-3.)
/Oo-MVer " Mb; 689

Leet. /9fo— 60 if, S20 ( 274)
al Bod ae 17900 (123)

i /93 AAA LLA Hep}
7 / v0 00 € ‘|

———————————

es ie me

190 ten. enforcimnrent: wrrel
dintcTecl at Ulin griupe 20, 0














November 25, 1962;

Mr. Joo C. Behrons, Chie?
Conservation and Rehabilitation Branch
Urbon Reneval Division

Rousing and Home Finence Agency

645 PeachtreeeSeventh Building
Atlanta, Ceorgia = 30523

Dear Mr. Bohrens:

Some time ago at the request of Mr. Willian RB. Wofford, the
Building Official of the City of Atlanta, you reviewed the
draft of the S0CA Basic Nousing Code and submitted some
comments. Under scoparate cover, at Mr. wofford's request,
we have sent to you three complinentary copies of this cede
as it was finally published. We are enclosing a copy of
our Publication and Price List for your information in the
event you have occasion to refer to this and the BOCA codes
in the areas which you serve.

ia Very much appreciate your taking the time to comment on
the early draft of this code and must apologize for not
earlier commmicating with you regarding this. In the
volume of work involved it was impossible for us te
communicate our appreciation to everyone. FPlesse forgive
this oversight.

Your comments were carcfully reviewed by the Committee and
you msy find that some of them wero incorporated in the code. ©
Others may not hava been used since in the overall concept

of the Code the cormmitics may have felt it undesirable to

use them at this time. We anticipate modifications of the
code as experlonce indicates necessary and this may lead

to the adoption of some of the things previously suggested
but not accepted by the Comsuittes.

The BOCA Basie Housing Code is propared to. be used in cone
junction with the BOCA Basic Building Code. Together they
provide all the necessary authorities for the administration
of regulations governing both old and new buildings. Thoy
are based on the policy that all activities dealing with the
buildings in a community should cova under the direct supere
vision of the building official. Housing authorities or
similar local public agencies, plarming boards and other



a ee








branches of local government concerned with buildings and their use
should have the full cooperation of the building department in
determining the physical condition of the buildings and in such
other natters as may be necessarye Violation notices and correction
orders regarding buildings should be issued by one agency only ==
the building departmenteealthough the fire prevention official may
properly issue notices and orders regarding fire hazards resulting
from the processes of handling of flammable materials over which he
has jurisdiction, and the hoalth official may issue orders regarding
sanitation « improper use of sanitary facilities or unsanitary
practices < which are under his jurisdiction. We believe that these
assumptions quite well take care of ali necessary conditions and that
they are sound and practical.

Under this arrangement appeals from administrative orders are provided
within proper limitations through provisions of the building code.
Such appeals would apply equally to orders issued in connection with |
corrections under the Housing Code as to those issued under the
Building Code.

We would welcomes any further comments you may have in connection with
this and the results of your experience or the experience of communities
with which you may come in contact in its use.

Sincerely yours,

peb/f Paul E. Baseler ,
Executive Director








November 30, 1964

Mr. W. R. Wofford, Building Official
Department of Building Inspector
City of Atlanta

Atlanta, Georgia 30303,

Dear Mr. Wofford:
Below is a report.of inspections made on buildings by the Housing Code

Division of the Building Department from November 1, 1964, through
November 30, 1964.

PERIOD 1963
1. Buildings inspected this month Original di5D 209
Re-Inspections 1448 ~
2. Units Involved 289 S15
3.. Buildings repaired this month 122 62
4, Units repaired this month 214. 100
5. Buildings demolished this month | 48 10
6. Units demolished this month 107 15
7. Better Housing Commission DS -—
8. City Attorney Cases " 43 -
9. Court Cases . <27)
10. Amount of fines imposed $550 $140
June 1, 1964 -- November 30, 1964
. CUMULATIVE 1963
ll. Buildings inspected to date Original 13506 877
Re-Inspections 5696 -
12. Units Involved 2600 1505
13. Buildings repaired to date P4L 506
14. Units repaired to date 1139 94-7
15. Buildings demolished to date 220 -| 164
16. Units demolished to date 396 267
17. Better Housing Commission Cases to date 186 -
18. City Attorney Cases to date 365 -
19. Court Cases to date 240 56

20. Amount of fines to date $5512 $1991

ane truly yours,

Se Se Suceanan “ive
Chief Inspector

1g




CITY OF ATLANTA
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
800 CITY HALL
TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321
ATLANTA, GEORGIA

December 10, 1964

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
HOUSING CODE DIVISION - YEAR, 1964

THRU
—NOVEMBER

1. Buildings inspected to date Original 2,660
Re-Inspections 10,524

2. Unite involved 4,750
3. Buildings repaired to date 1,319



4, Units repaired to date 2,016
5. Buildings demolished to date 322



6. Units demolished to date 578
7. Better Housing Commission Cases to date . 288
8. City Attorney cases to date

9. Court Cases to date

10. Amount of fines to date
1964 - Thru November

Building Permits issued for:

Additions, Alterations & Repairs to 4,000 $4,851,186 Value
Residential Buildings

Demolition of Residential Unites 1,108


{)

S,



|

CITY OF ATLANTA
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
800 CITY HALL ;
TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321
ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Housing Code Enforcement
Report of Accomplishment and Needs
December 15, 1964

PROGRAM

(a} Court. A special Housing Court is held each Thursday and the number of
eases heard depends on ability of available personnel to prepare and process
cases. At the end of November, 1964, 335 Housing Code Cases have been tried in
Municipal Court with total fines of $7,979 imposed by the court.

(b) Planned Program. A planned systematic Housing Code enforcement program

which provides for complete coverage and inspection of all substandard dwellings

in the city by the end of 1969 has been developed in conjunction with the Planning
Department. This program consists of an up-to-date Housing Conditions Map with
priorities established for proposed areas of enforcement and a Policy and Procedure
Guide. The maps and program have been approved by the Urban Renewal Committee of
the Beard of Aldermen and referred to the Finance Committee for consideration of
additional personnel expenditure involved. A planned systematic program for Housing
Code enforcement is essential if the City is to meet Federal requirements for re-
certification of Atlanta's Workable Program for Urban Renewal in March, 1965.

(ce) Compliance. Attached herewith is a report reflecting the number of buildings
inspected, units involved, buildings repaired, etc., including the number of permits
issued for alterations and repairs to residential buildings and the number of permits
issued for the demolition of residential units. The report is complete through November,

1964. Projected totals are shown for the entire year of 1964,
In addition to the above report overcrowding has been eliminated in 72 unites.


oe

C es



——=a_

Housing Code eteruinant - Dec. 15, 1964 Page 2.
(4) Generel Results. Results of the Housing Code enforcement effort te date have
proven the need for stronger Code provisions. ‘Several amendments to the Housing
Cede have recently been adopted to clarify and strengthen the code. The most
important of these are:
Section 14.12. Mo building, plumbing, electrical or gas or other
permit for an addition, alteration or repair of existing substandard
dwelling unit shall be issued until such time as an inspection of the
property has been made to determine the feasibility of rehabilitation
of such dwelling unit or unite.
Section 14.13. Utility services shall not be provided to any existing
vacant substandard dwelling unit or any substandard dvellig unit
becoming vacant until such dwelling unit has been inspected and
brought into compliance with this code and a valid certificate of
occupancy has been issued.
From the adoption of these amendments on June 15, 1964, through November, 1964,
the Chief Electrical Inspector has discontinued electrical service in 173 vacant,
substandard dwelling units; such service will not be restored until the structures
have been rehabilitated to meet the requirements of the Housing Code.

NEEDS.

(a) Inspectors. in order to inspect all eubstandard dwellings within the city by
1970, 5 additional housing inspectors will be required as provided for in the
planned systematic program of Housing Code enforcement. The budget request for
1965 includes a request for the aforementioned additional inspectors and one

elerical position. Additional technical inspectors as requested in the 1965 budget
are urgently needed,

(b) Asgistance from other Departments. If the improvement of living conditions and
general environment throughout the blighted areas of the city is to be accomplished


a



Aes eg

wed



——=a_

Housing Code Enforcement - Dec. 15, 1964 Page 3.

through Housing Code enforcement, it is necessary that definite and continued
assistance be obtained from other departments by prompt reporting of obvious
violations to the Building Department and prompt action upon conditions referred

to them as being within their jurisdiction. Particular assistance will be required
from the Sanitary Department so far as clean-up of premises and removal of junk
automobiles is concerned and from the Construction Department for street and
sidewalk improvements including the paving of some unpaved streets in older areas
of the city. The Planning Department can assist materially in recording accurately
the number and general condition of housing in areas warked for concentrated Housing
Code enforcement effort and by scheduling the worst of the areas for appropriate
treatment as Urban Renewal projects.

(e) Legisletion. Severel conferences have been hold with the City Attorney who is
preparing legislation whereby the city can proceed “In Rem” against substandard
property. This will permit the city to proceed against the premises or building and
will eliminate difficulties with out-of-town owners, estates, incompetents, etc.,
which have ceused concern.

We are hopeful that additional legislation can be enacted to require
demolition of houses which have been boarded up and are vacant. Under existing laws
the current practice of permitting houses to be boarded up and remain has not been
@ satisfactory solution.

(4) The Courts can assist the program by:
1. Promptly disposing of a11 cases without delays and postponemente.
2. By continuing appropriate fines when convictions for violations have
been attained.
3. By imposing reasonable fines when a violator is convicted of an
offense even though a correction may have been made prior te court
action.


Ss
=



DK





Housing Code Enforcement = Dec. 15, 1964 Page 4.

(e) Public Understanding of the program is most important and is a field in which
the Citizens Advisory Committee can be extremely helpful. Participation by all news
media, civic groups and business organizations should be utilized to point up and

rl emphasize the problem and to secure maximum cooperation from the public.










eA

\

\






































































October 5, 1965

Mr, Henry L. Bowden, City Attorney
1114 William-Oliver Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Henry:

In response to your request, I am enclosing a copy of Senate Bill 4 that was
passed by the 1965 Legislature which grants home rule authority to municipalities.

Section 4, Subparagraph 6 of the Home Rule Act states as follows:

“Action affecting any court or the personnel thereof, except any
municipal court having jurisdiction only over municipal ordinances."

Section 5 of the Act provides that the City has the authority to fix salaries,
compensation, expenses, etc., of their employees, but makes no provision what-
soever for the changing of duties of the employees,

In a meeting in Mr. Landers' office with you and Miss Dusthimer, we discussed
the possibility of changing Miss Dusthimer's title from Chief Law Clerk to
some other appropriate title in which we could vest more authority in her
position to consummate court orders, etc. As you will recall, the position
that Miss Dusthimer holds was created as a local act by the Legislature and
is codified under Section 5.1.34 of the 1965 Charter. This section reads as
follows:

"There is hereby created in the department of municipal courts in
the City of Atlanta the position of chief law clerk, who shall be
appointed to office by the chief general judge and shall hold
office at his pleasure."

The question that I would like to raise to you regarding Miss Dusthimer's posi-
tion is whether or not we have the authority under either the '62 Home Rule
law or the '65 Home Rule law to change her title and her duties. I would
appreciate your early answer to this question.

Yours very truly,

CQ
Charlies L. Davis
City Comptroller

CLD:CW
Ene.

ec: Mr. R. E. Landers er


December 16, 1965

Mr. Edward H. Baxter

Regional Administrator

Housing and Home Finance Agency
Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

Dear Mr. Baxter:

Thank you for your letter of November 29th and the comments
therein relative to our current Housing Code Compliance
Program,

As stated in your letter, we are ahead of projections in units
inspected, but behind projections in compliances. We believe
that a better balance between inspections and compliances can
be attained and it is our aim to accomplish this immediately.

An ordinance will be submitted to the Board of Aldermen at its
meeting on December 20th creating three additional Housing
Code Inspector positions and one Typist-Clerk position effective
January 1, 1966. The creating of these positions should assist
us greatly in attaining the necessary balance between inspections
and compliances.

To date, through the C.I.P. Program, we have in our date
system approximately thirty-two bits of information on each of
the 110,000 parcels within our City. This information will be
in such form that it can be evaluated shortly after the first of
the year. This will enable us to know precisely the number of
substandard structures that we are dealing with in order that
our Housing Code Program, work load and dead lines can be
properly evaluated.






Mr. Edward H. Baxter
Regional Administrator
December 16, 1965
Page Two

We appreciate the continued interest of you and your associates
in our programs and assure you that we shall continue to strive
for maximum results through enforcement of our Housing and
Building Codes.

Sincerely yours,

Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor

IAJr:lp

CC: Mr. Collier Gladin






CITY OF ATLANTA

DEPARTMENT of PLANNING
700 CITY HALL



Atlanta, Georgia 30303

WYONT B, BEAN December 9, 1965 _
PLANNING ENGINEER

COLLIER B. GLADIN

To: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
From: Collier B. Gladin \\\ if
P Moo \D

Subject: Steps to be taken under the City's current Housing Code Com
Program.

As was stated in Atlanta's 1965 Recertification of its workable program, the
greatest disadvantage of the presently adopted Housing Code Compliance Program
was having to rely on 1960 housing census data to determine the number of sub-
standard housing units that the program faces. This, in no way, compromises the
approach of the systematic Housing Code Compliance Program; however, it does
make it difficult to determine the actual housing case load and, therefore, the
actual number of housing code inspectors needed to accomplish the program during
the allotted period of time. The City of Atlanta feels that a careful analytical
approach has been made to the problem, together with realistic estimates as to
what can be accomplished. The City saw the year 1965 as a trial period for the
Housing Code Compliance Program to determine if the estimates were accurate.

To this end, Atlanta Personnel and Comptroller Departments have been reviewing
the personnel requirements of the Building Inspector Department in general.
Administrative changes as they relate to Code Compliance are being considered
that will balance housing code inspections with compliance. The Comptroller
is recommending that within the 1966 budget three (3) Housing Code inspectors
be added along with one Typist Clerk II. This will require an approximate
$19,000 expenditure the first year.

Considerable progress is being made on Atlanta's first Code Enforcement Project
Area, Several areas were considered by the Planning Department, and the Center
Hill area of 480 acres and 1031 families has been chosen by the Planning and
Development Committee. Hopefully this application will be completed prior to
the first of the year,

Further, Atlanta has taken the position that through the Community Improvement
Program, it will be able to determine precisely its Housing Code work load and,
from this, the City will be better able to further develop the Housing Code
Compliance Program to a greater accuracy and make any necessary changes in the
conduct of the program.




Page 2
December 9, 1965

To date through the CIP Atlanta has in her data system approximately 32 bits of
information on each of the 110,000 parcels that lie within our boundaries. This
information will be in a form that it can be evaluated shortly after the first
of the year. This will enable the City to know precisely the number of sub-
standard structures that we are dealing with in order that our Housing Code
Program work load and deadlines can be properly evaluated.

I feel that Atlanta is, and will continue, progressing in an orderly manner to
provide her citizens with safe and sanitary housing in which to live and prosper.

C foe






DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMEN

HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

November 29, 1965



Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor of the City of Atlanta
City Hall

tlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mayor Allen:

The results of the first nine months activity under the City's current
Housing Code Compliance Program, forwarded by letter of November 1,
1965, has been received by this Agency.

From the periodic evaluation submitted, it would appear that the City
has made inspections in all areas designated in the Program submitted
by the City, with the exception of areas designated as Cl and C3. The
twe areas reported as inspected during this report period known as
"Blue Heaven" and "Vine City'' would appear to equal the inspectionel
workload estimated for said areas Cl and C3.

The interim report indicates more units were inspected than were pro-
jected but compliances reported for the period (as compared to the
City's schedule for the same time) indicates that the City has not met
the goals established by the Program. The results obtained indicate
that the City has fallen behind its scheduled compliances for the period
by a total of 478 structures containing some 2,347 dwelling units.

In the initial Housing Code Compliance Program, which accompanied the
1965 request for recertification, the City reported a shortage of two
(2) sector inspectors. With the utilization of inspectional. persornel
in areas not scheduled for inspection in the Program, it seems obvious
that other areas scheduled are without adequate inspectors. From the
initial inception of the Housing Code Program, this Agency has felt
that the goals established were beyond the means of the projected
staff, and again, the nine month report holds this to be true.

The present 12 field inspectors appear inadequate to meet the expressed
goals of the Program. The new specially selected areas being added to
the workload and the fact that the City is falling behind in its pro-
posed compliance schedule would appear to require that the City should:
consider immediate steps to fill the present inspector vacancies, to

av








provide additional staff to fully implement the Systematic Housing ode
Program, and to provide staff over and above this for inspection and
compliance in the areas established by the "Crash Program."
With the addition of staff and budget to carry out the Program, the City _
should be able to achieve a meaningful degree of progress and a creditable
record by the time of your next recertification request.

Sincerely yours,

| 4, } Z ‘ ,

Regional Administrator

cc: Mr. M. B. Satterfield.

T4
wr.




DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

REGION II December 29, 1965

Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor of the City of Atlanta
City Hall

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mayor Allen:

We appreciate your letter of December 16, 1965, advising of steps
being taken to employ additional personnel to assist in the execution
of Atlanta's Housing Code Compliance Program. We are also pleased to
learn that information being assembled on each of the 110,000 parcels
within the City will provide a means for properly evaluating progress
being made toward attaining the goals established in the City's
Housing Code Compliance Program.

Initial inspections under the Housing Code, periodically followed up
by re-inspections are, of course, only a means whereby the desired
result of compliance with the code can be obtained. The employment

of additional staff should enable the City to approach a better
balance between the three stages, initial inspections, re-inspections,
and eventual compliance. We encourage further steps in this direction
and assure you of our utmost cooperation in this endeavor.

Sincerely yours,
WL CMa —

cing iva Edward H. Baxter
Regional Administrator

hs

- Cllr Dlladirs

Gill wy




aA SS



yi








































































CITY OF ATLANTA

REPORT OF, J HE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS OFFICE

























































i
FOR THE MONTH OF 1966
NO. OF PERMITS “CLASSIFICATION COST NO. OF FAMILIES
HOUSED
= Condominium $ 614,500.00 33
Frame Dwellings, 1 Family. ......... $ 9 230,630.00 538
2
—Masonry Dwellings, 1 Family. ........ $ 20,650.00 2
8
Frame Dwellings, Duplex. . ..-....... $ 113,405.00 16
Masonry Dwellings, Duplex... ....... $
23
Apartnieént Houses = (foc 405066. 22 Ea aR A $ 12 074,734.00 1,793
4
Churches & Religious Buildings. ....... $ 323,000.00
55
Add-Alter-Repair Churches... .. 2. es $ 1, 622,623.00
7
Amusement & Recreation Buildings ...... $ 267,445.00
53
Stores & Other Mercantile Buildings. . ... . $ 3,572,410.00
27
Service Stations. eh eee die oe A Ga xen $ 741,950.00
96
Residential Garages & Carports ........ $ 96,675.00
2
Parking Garages .. ¢ e306 a Ss ce as $ 560,000.00
ll.
Garapes icine 2a pattie pee 8 Gow _ §$ 536,800.00
4
Hotel & Motel Buildings. . . .... 2... $ 1,486 ,000.00
9
School & Educational Buildings. . ...... $ 10, 463,283.00
47
Add-Alter-Repair Schools... .......-. $ 6,724,011.00
44
Office Buildings. 3 + fia 0 408 B amon Ses $ 49 ,454,614.00
$2 Office & Warehouse. . ............ $—42567,750.00
v Utility Buildings. .... . ig 97,000.00
= Industrial Buildings. . . 2... 7. ee eee $ 768,800.00
34 Swimming Pools.s..6 seG ie Sg ee ee $ 240,518.00
1,747
: Fire Escapes Elevators & Signs ....... $ 1,363,752.00
5,067
: Add-Alter-Repair, Residential. . ....... §$ 6,642,057 .00
854
Add-Alter-Repair, Business Bldgs... ... 2 ¥ 20,573,273.00
114 334,780.00
Demolitions-Business Buildings. . . ..... $
735 194,708.00 = 903
1 AlgsemsioReRainiditist Buildings. ... ... $—623,565-60—
2 Auto Sales 1,070,000.00
1 Funeral Home 49,000.00
1 Sub-Station 93,225.00
1 Cultural Center 9,142,555,00
1 Dormitory 112,639.00
1 Truck Terminal 600,000.00
2 Fire Station 441,652.00
1 Library 3, 124,000.00
1 Sales & Truck Service 383,000.00
Total g ermits a Total Cost
Air Lines Facilities 11,012,000.00 2,382
Total No. of Families Housed
9,595 TOTAL TOTAL $ 166,533, 984.00



W. R. WOFFORD

Inspector of Buildings
FOPM NO, 4-2








i

April 22, 1966

MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Collier Gladin
From: Dan Sweat

Subject: Code Enforcement Project application

Ld

I notice in your Neighborhood Analysis section of the Workable
Program, you mention that the preliminary Code Enforcement
Project application for Federal assistance was prepared for the
Center Hill area.

If you have an available copy of this application I would certainly
appreciate having one for my enlightenment and files.

ca A A Sl i








CITY OF ATLANTA

DEPARTMENT of PLANNING
700 CITY HALL

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

WYONT 8. BEAN May 26, 1966
PLANNING ENGINEER

COLLIER B. GLADIN
CHIEF PLANNER

TO: Collier B. Gladin, Assistant Planning Engineer
FROM: Jerry Coffel, Planner II

SUBJECT: Federal Code Enforcement Program

Recently I have reviewed the Center Hill Code Enforcement project materials
and discussed it briefly with Woody Underwood, Comptroller's Department.
While I was not unaware of them, I again considered the ineligible costs of
providing sub-surface community facilities -- water mains, sewer lines and
storm drains. As you recall, the City's action on the project turned on
its lack of funds for the last item.

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a few additional thoughts
on Center Hill. Through the Basic Sewer and Water Program, the City could

now obtain Federal funds to provide the needed sewer lines and water mains

for the project area. Also, the Regional Office has indicated once that it
anticipated that storm drains would be made qn eligible project cost in the
1966 housing amendments to the code enforcement program. At the present time,
the Comptroller's Department is preparing bond issue statistics based on our
preliminary estimates for Center Hill; this includes the cost of financing

the ineligible cost items. If the bond issue is passed on this basis and the
storm drains become an eligible project cost, the City would gain an additional
$60,000 in Federal funds and @ould release an additional $60,000 in bond issue
monies. :

Now I think we can initiate two actions to get the Center Hill Project underway.
First, it will be most appropriate for the Mayor's Office to contact Congressman
Weltner to enlist his assistance and influence in modifying the 1966 housing
legislation to make storm drainage work eligible cost items in the Code Enforce-
ment Program; this could be begun by transmitting a copy of this recommendation
to Dan Sweat, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, for his reaction. The
second action involves coordination with the Water Department and Construction
Department to insure that the cost of needed water mains and sewer lines in
Center Hill are included in their application under the Basic Sewer & Water
Program. I believe the only improvement in their applications related to the
Center Hill area is an additional water main along the Bankhead Highway. The
best means of accomplishing this action would be to get Dan's support in getting
an amendment to the existing City's application to H.U.D.


Collier B. Gladin
May 26, 1966
Page 2

In essence, what I am suggesting for you to consider is meeting the needs of
Center Hill by influencing the 1966 housing legislation and coordinating the
use of another Federal aid program by two other City departments. No small
undertaking I agree. However, it can reasonably be accomplished and the City's
financial obligation in Center Hill lessened. If you think the ideas have
merit, we should probably talk them over with Dan Sweat.

Dovey OHpel




Codie cee menL



“Georgia's Station of the Year” P.O. Box 4207 Atlanta, Ga. 30302
o °

wagatv | Géenne/ EX TO RIAL

COPYRIGHT, STORER BROADCASTING COMPANY 1966



PAUL RAYMON DALE CLARK

STATION MANAGER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

H.W. RAY
GENERAL MANAGER

ROUTE TO:

Friday, June 3, 1966

A Committee of conscientious citizens is pointing an
accusing finger at two groups they say are hurting Atlanta's fight against the
spread of slums.

That fight is important, and Channel 5 thinks the Com-
mittee story needs airing.

We're talking about the Citizens Advisory Committee for
Urban Renewal. In blunt language it says property owners in low-income areas of
Atianta are being swindled by contractors and repairmen, many of them "the out of
town or ‘fly-by-night’ variety."

City inspectors tell a resident he must make repairs to
bring his house into compliance with the Housing Code. These unscrupulous repair
men move in then and take advantage of the situation.

In a letter to the Fulton County Grand Jury, the Committee
says "contracts are not being fulfiiled and substantial sums of money {are being)
extracted by tactics little, if any, short of swindling."

Since the authority of the City is involved--with the in-
voking of the City Housing Code--the Committee thinks there is a duty to provide
these property owners some protection. Channel 5 agrees.

The Committee suggests licensing or registration of all
repair contractors, a form of bonding, or some type of required inspection before
the home-owner pays.

The other group hurting our battle against siums are ir-
responsible tenants. Those who break windows, damage walls and put coal in the
bath tub!

WAGA-TV offers a reasonable opportunity to reply to the views expre ssed in the editorial to a responsible person or group repre-

senting a significant opposing viewpoint, provided request for reply time is submitted to WAGA-TV within one week of this telecast.






WAGA-TV Editorial (Continued)
Friday, June 3, 1966

When a property owner brings a house into compliance with
code standards, the Citizens Committee thinks tenants should be required to keep
it in good condition. If they are guilty of wanton destruction, some think the
tenant--not the owner--ought to be required to pay.

The Citizens Committee is asking the Fulton County Grand
Jury to go into both of these situations and recommend action.

Channel 5 endorses that. But without waiting for lengthy
investigations we think the City Aldermen could blow the whistle on swindlers and
back up responsible property owners.

We hope they will do that and keep the pressure on Atlanta's
effort to clean up the slums we have and prevent the growth of new ones.

WAGA-TV Editorial
is presented weekdays:

7:25 a.m.

7:10 p.m. in EARLY PANORAMA
11:20 p.m. in LATE PANORAMA


CITY OF ATLANTA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
Atlanta 3, Georgia



WILLIAM R. WOFFORD, P,E., R.A.

OR OF BUILDINGS
INSPECT July 27, 1966
ELMER H. MOON, E.E., P.E.

ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS



MEMO TO: Dan E. Sweat
FROM: W. R. Yoteoussye./

The attached are some recommendations made by a Committee of
questionable Congressional authority concerning building codes.
The U. S. Conference of Mayors in the June meeting in Dallas adopted
the report by a margin of two votes (something like 38 for, and 36
against, were cast). It is questionable and highly controversial
in building code fields. It is a product of some federal people
who want a federal building code and are making every effort to
get one, but the model code groups, building industry and others
are opposing this move.

I am acquainted with the Assistant Director, Norman Beckman,
who presented the matter before the Mayors' Conference in Dallas
and has been plugging the report all over the nation. The purpose
of promoting the report is purely for the perpetuation of a few
high federal government officials.

Incidentally, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
is taking a more realistic approach by asking the Building Officials
Conference of America and other code groups what they think about
building codes, These groups have been employed to make reports to
HUD concerning building codes throughout the nation. (TI attended a
meeting last week in Washington where this was discussed with Federal
Code officials.)

I think some of the high officials prodded Mayor Dailey and
others to press for adoption at the Dallas meeting. Simce the
Dallas meeting, the Advisory Commission is circulating the report,
the contents of which are in direct opposition to the view of the
model code groups,

I am enclosing a copy of my monthly message to the membership
of the Building Officials Conference of America.

Enc.

ATLANTA THE DOGWOOD CITY




A)



,
|
|



To implement some of the key recommendations in the Advisory Comission on
Intergovermment al Relations Report, the Commission, which basically adopted a ataff
repert, recommends that the state enact legislation authorizing and directing a
state agency to prepare and promlgate 2 comprehensive model building code with a
products approval procedure and permicsive adoption by local subdivisions, The



a@geney and should establish en appellant body to hear appeals from decisions of
adepting lecal jurisdictions on the application of the code.

The matter of state building codes is @ concern to municipal governments and
model code organizations throughout the nation. 1, personally, feel that a building
code can be administered and enforced at the local level ander metropolitan juris-
diction better than at the state level. Lecal governing bodies can amend a code
consistent vith new, recognised standards at semi-monthly meetings. Appeals can
be considered bafore & locsl eppeats boacd with far greater efficiency. All states
do wot have the sone political situation; 89% of the building coastivction in sens
states is in tho metropoliten axea, therefore, a metropolitan building code would be
proper. Im other states there are several municipalities semewhat of the same size
where « state code would function properly. I, personally, feel that a metropolitan
code commission is the answer to uniformity in building codes and that permissive
adoption of a state code would unnecessarily create duplication and confusion with

wmumicipal codes in that the building official would be pressured to approve construction

in a thriving metropolitan area based on a miniwm state code considered appropriate
im some rural community.

Grete tegistenewes that eeukliy nest éuce 9 year ave connecnsé with astters of
budgets, roads, sanppectionment, ote; there te tittle thus or seneern fet spdening &








BOCA REWS

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

August Iseue - Page 2

building code at a legislative session.

r * “:; * & w e % oe * Ps ay

—ciagpatn te Worth Carolina BOA for a successful meeting in Gastonia and to
SBCG for a auccessful Geode Changes Meeting in B'ilam.....0ur best to John Behrens
of Fresno, Pres. ICBO; Fred Davis of Garden City and Joseph Bartell of Prince Georges
County, new menbers of the BOCA Executive Board.

Hello to Borman Beckman, Assistant Director ef the Advisory Board, as he hails a
cab in Frisce’s Chinatown for pilgrimage back to Dulles and to Gene Quinlan, proverbial
Mayor of Scully Square - come, let us reason together.






ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20575



fg t
0 MeN TAL

July, 1966

TO: MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS

At the suggestion of the U. S. Conference of Mayors and the
National League of Cities, we are sending to you a copy of a recent
report by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
which will likely be of interest to your locality. This report
deals with: Building Codes: A Program for Intergovernmental Reform.

The report concludes that obsolete code requirements; unnec-
essary diversity of such requirements among local jurisdictions,
particularly in metropolitan areas; and inadequate administration
and enforcement, taken together, tend to place unwarranted burdens
on the technology and economics of building. The Commission calls
for a major overhaul and restructuring of intergovernmental respon-
sibilities for building codes to help overcome these and other
obstacles to meeting the Nation's housing and commercial construction
needs.

To implement some of the key recommendations in the report,
the Commission is preparing model State legislation on such matters
as State technical assistance to local governments for building —
code administration, a model State building code, a State construc-
tion review agency, and State licensing of building inspectors.
These draft bills will be included in the Commission publication,
1967 State Legislative Program, available on request later this
summer.



Sincerely yours,

Executive Director

Enc losure ob








TO:



FROM: Dan E. Sweat, Jr.

[HY For your information

{_] Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the

necessary reply.

[_] Advise me the status of the attached.





Ste Powe 07 = Pbraues
Ae hirn



DEQ











FORM 25-4-S






August 29, 1966

To: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
From: Dan Sweat

Subject: Journal Editorial of August 25, 1966
on Urban Renewal Code Enforcement

I taiked to Reese Cleghorn of the Journal Editorial Staff Friday
about the subject editorial. Reese said he wrote the editorial
and that it was simply a matter of the newspaper's calling
attention to code enffrcement practices of the city over a period
of several years and that he felt the time had come to voice the
paper's opinion more strongly.

He says that it goes back to the establishment of the separate
inspections some six years ago and the placing it back under
Mr. Wofford. He gave no indication that anyone from the
department had talked to him recently but did mention the
Lightning situation and the name of Wayne Kelley and Willie
Williams which would suggest to me that he possibly has talked
to some of the dissidents in Vine City.

He said so far as he was concerned the editorial was aimed at
Wofford and the enforcement program and not necessarily the
people inthe Atlanta Housing Authority.

Since my discussion with him, I have obtained what I believe
to be accurate figures on public housing in Atlanta over the
last ten years. I have attached a summary of these figures.
You will note a wide gap between the 7,576 completed housing
units and the 20, 994 displaced families. This report does not






Mayor Allen
Page Two
August 29, 1966

take into consideration the private sector of the housing market

and I would imagine that a considerable amount of low and moderate
income private housing has been constructed in Atlanta over this
ten year period.

I hope that we can document this information through our CIP study
and I will follow up with the CIP to try to make sure that we can
obtain this information.

You will note I have shown the total figures and also broken out
the units constructed or planned inside urban renewal areas.

I am afraid that I would have to admit that we don't show up very
well with low income units constructed inside urban renewal
projects. However, I don't think this represents the true

criteria for measuring the success of our urban renewal program,

I do feel, however, that there should be a complete study of our
housing patterns and the City policy on low income and moderate
income housing construction. The CIP should shed much light
on our current situation and perhaps we can use the CIP Housing
Study ha the jumping off point toward a comprehensive housing
plan for the city.

DS:fy





PL hic eee ing and "Gs =

. DIS eee

A+ lavta a aaa feb
EGS PF OCe |
Cegust #7 MiGCtam

i
i 4 Ds the IO-geac forrect VSS Cee sede
Werte Zo, IGY ails tw Qt lente wuere. dis loca ko

as qa ywsult of elf Gover rnateS | aecthow — ur bed serve



| A gh wey ond Pe ad Coustuchor ote .

PIPE ,
| eA SI Senge pods, ae Units CHEE

ee et nde eee poblee J cieinls
| Wece 4h Seat win eGen put oded?

mn 3¢ 1 ei ts Single tem la jose talcarn 22)-D-2

L357. Ute Splat, waded Wen SLBOy Des
i:

Z \ow dont

1322 nits Sh bhes mq CPHbwla Hrsiag Billet)

A iw Helle ah 4 +, Ch Com ple feD pebhie posing , te
| So llecsirg uni fs Gre Unley Cons tructror, out oP bid | Plercred

| of on) . pesewators!
suk

: ake

ro. YVnri ts Nal-D-3\ onda Sonm t H prt CLL

Jose
Ww
MSO axoi ss 42)-D-3 plewted Chockdal OR /yo,of )

\or ows

/ as i? Us ae Pile Hoo5 tag ond =/ Meenas CAA)
1 820 pits Doble Mogieg ony reseyowhin CAVA)

se Ss of fobs hbesiug er of ere
[ay 5¢ cle OL bow ine Doar Piro ects
13,553, i les displeed bu U- be) Renense/

3388 eee hevsina ae tie Ca pstrocted) ov ad
ae =

i Bes | ‘ ‘T hese include #
| Gn b Lees a

ajo, units potas pobie ice Ghee

Bess ADS ay ae ee
Wee oars | pack EGET OF Wise Ee ae. Nee
ahi Under. Be se, ros a Diag

ee

| ay cco : |
[ 0O0 uni I WwW (= fro Vie hovs vg CA A\
2 08S Un ots 9O/-D-3 yprodve te (Vor7e |
65 lakoices prvoate Cone rectrs - Modevarke Ee —

” eee Dees wot Pens BNG Jorher ot ee On ye
Unde, PCSepvey7 on.

Toa (s

| Se pees ie Come __ moderak Rwwme
Teel | EE
Completed Ze Poe oT

wd nd define a
eros eh res”. sh ee
Swede UR fats See | =
, congletd iD: ge ha LON Ml edly
wat ON GS/ Cortsfe Pion : 3.
nn oad rare jee0 ——s A/F. eaters






ay



eee eee TE

CITY OF ATLANTA
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS ©
800 CITY HALL
TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321
ATLANTA, GEORGIA

August 31, 1966

Mr. Henry L. Bowden, City Attorney
1114 William Oliver Bulliding
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. Bowden:

On July 6, 1966, I wrote to you asking that an ordinance
be prepared along the lines of the May-June Grand Jury Pre-
sentments in order to require a performance bond of home
improvement contractors.

I understood that certain information was being collected
from model ordinances available to prepare the aforementioned
ordinance for the City of Atlanta,

I would appreciate the early drafting of the above
ordinance in order that it can be presented to the Board
of Aldermen.

Very truly yours,
W. R. Wofford
Building Official

WRW: at
cc. .Mr. R. Earl Landers



er + ee gee a

a:




Office of the Mayor

.

ROUTE SLIP
TO: Via a

FROM: -R. EARL LANDERS

For your information

Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the

necessary reply.

Advise me the status of the attached.





















FORM 25-4-L











hi / ‘ty
1 je vw
JV \, fs é
' \\ w \\ u i ¥
i] '
LV UV ul
Vv 4
+19
obe
. A VAGKOQALA
PAITGQA + o4UU-d4]4
GFFICERS
ae Vice NT
GER
STOR



EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PAST PRESISENT

FifaT



301 “Wi PRESTON STREET
GALTIMOGRE, MARYLAND

BOCOND PAST PRESIDENT
1iN SALTZMAN
20 AYERVE |

LYN, KEW YORK



ASCHENGRAND
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
BEAGCHFPIELO, NEW JOASEY



JOSEPH E.

BARTELL



HEMET H o& BROWN
5 COMMISSIONER
» MISSCURL



+. DEPARTMENT
TY, NEW YorR

VINCENT DIMASE
if, DEPT BLOG. INSPECTION
PAOVIDENCE, RHOOL IsLaNo

o



WALTER E. GRAY
SUPT. PUBLIC SUILOCINGS
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS
PAUL HOLLERAN
SPECTOR
RENTUCHY

CHIEF OUILDING in
LEAINGTORN,



LOINGS
ROAANORE, vi RGA

OWEN PERKINS
GHIEF (NSPECTOR
ROYAL OAK, MicHican
a

FRANK £. WELLWOO
COMMISSIONCA OF BUILOINGS
TORONTO, ONTAA)S, CANADA



STAFF

FRSCUTIVE DIRECTOR
PAUL E. BASELER
Cope CORAMLATOR — Boca Coses
TECHNICAL SIRECTSR
RICHARD L. SANDERSON





oy
i Tt? TT Ty “~ 34 TH LC. A T 7
BUILD Ne OFFICIALS
TRY Nii at, Tin A
CONFERENCE of AMERICA, Inc.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE: 1313 EAS TH STREET + CRICAGO, ILLINGIS 60637 FOUNDES i915
. bin. tot |
;
& | SB '
é ;
.Mr. Norman Beckman, Asst. Director - ‘ Hy ies ae
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations i pies nha ge j
+ a ege Blas a yu as r
Washington, D. Ce.-205/5 Haber aretha tie yas oe 4
Dear Mr. Beckman:
This is a belated acknowledgment of your letter of July 26, 1966 re-
questing the use of the BOCA membership roster or addressing services
for circulation of the Report of the Advisory Commission on Inter
governmental Relations concerning building codes and making recommenda-~
tions for the complete restructuring of the present system by which
building codes are developed and administered. The National Coordinating
Council of the Building Officials Conference of America, the International
Conference of Building officials and the Southern Building Code Congress
together with the building industry have pointed out that the Report is
incomplete ‘and based upon inforiwation which has not been adequately
backed by fact. a

2
a

ty

rom
our years of knowledge and experience in the building code activity
we believe that the implementation of these recommendations would re-

sult in utter chaos and rather than-curing the alleged building code
activity problems would create new and greater problems. /

The use of the BOCA membership list for distribution of information

is restricted by certain conditions established by our Executive
Committee. Under these conditions I am not at liberty to release this
information for the use of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmenta
Relations for the circulation of this report. If you desire and so
indicate I will be pleased to place this matter before our Executive

Commitee at its mid-year meeting in December for a ruling regarding
policy. In the meantime I have not the authority to grant the re-
quest in your letter of July 26, 1966. A

Very truly yours,
peb/ft Paul E. Baseler

Executive Director

careful study of the recommendations in thd Report, based upon \










ATLANTA, SEQRGIA

FIRST Vice &
RAYMOND X

DEPUTY







SECOND Vice PRESIDENT



SCCRETARY
WILLIAM H. LINDSAY, JR.
peeuTr wi vars Ih EH
& SPECTIONS

SS ES.GVIL ONS
PHILADCUPSIA. PERNSTLVANIA





TAEASURER

NGS





EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

FIRST PAST PRES. SENT

i IMPROVE MENTS
Te OF MAa iYLANO

301 W. PRESTON STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND





SECOND PAST PAE
SENJAMIN SAL
1620 AVENUE
BROOKLYN, Atw You





BERNARD T. ASCHENGRAND
CH EF DUILDING INSPECTOR
BERGENFiELS, NEW JERSEY



&, ManYLAND

KENNETH o. i



FRED J. DAVIS

SUPT. SLGG. CEPARTMENT
GaakcEN City, New Yorn

VINCE NT DB MASE:



PAaOVIDENCE, RROoE | S.AND

WALTER E. GRAY
SUPT, PUBLIC BUILDIN
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS



ROASCAE, VIAG.NIA

OWEN PERKING

CHIEF (NSPECTOR




ROYAL OAK, MICRIGAN
FRANK ELLWOOD
ccHM 469 OF BUILOINGS



TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA



STAFF
BARCUTIVE DIRECTOR
PAUL E. GASELER
Core CORNELATON — Goca Coors
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
RICHARD L. SANDERSON



BUI i, ein tee =
BUILDING OI! 2BICIALS
INFERENCE of AMER T
CO NE EREN N Fa Oi AMERICA, ATG:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE: 1313 EAST GOTH STREET + CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60637 iz of FOUNDED 1715,
August 30, 1966 ¢ 2%, ro .
HP leoe eee he pe
OE
. Mr. Norman Beckman, Asst. Director ,
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
Washington, D. C. 20575
Dear Mr. Beckman: i
This is a belated acknowledgment of your letter of July 26, 19€6 re-
questing the use of the BOCA membership roster or addressing services

the Advisory Commission on Inter-

, - wie
making recomm

for circulation of the Report of
governmenta 1 Re concerning building codes and
tions for the complete restructuring of the present ae by whic
building codes are developed and administered. The Na cm
yume of the puters ea eee Pa cea oe of america,

lations

tog Behes with Bae: building saa lave pointed out chee the Report is
incomplete and based upon information which has | not been adequately
backed by fact. <

From a careful study of the recommendations in thé Report, based upon
our years of knowledge and experience in the building code activity

we believe that the implementation of these recommendations would re- |
sult in utter chaos and rather than curing the alleged building code }
activity problems would create new and greater problems. *

en

The use of the BOCA membership list for distribution of information

is restricted by certain conditions established by our Executive
Committee. Under these conditions I am not at liberty to release this
information for the use of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations for the circulation of this peer ts If you desire and so
indicate I will be pleased to place this matter before our Executive
Commitee at its mid-year meeting in Hedenbat for a ruling regarding
policy. In the meantime I have not the authority to grant the re-
quest in your letter of July 26, 1966. ,

Very truly yours,

Paul BE. Baseler
Executive Director

peb/£










September 22, 1966

Mr. David R. Beecher

Associate Administrator - Operations
Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Inc.
101 Marietta Street, N. W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Dave:

Attached is a copy of a list of properties which havé been
referred to the Atlanta Housing Authority by the Housing
Code Division of the City of Atlanta Office of Inspector of
Buildings for relocation assistance.

Since your center people are working very closely in

this cooperative effort to provide relocation in the most
badly needed areas, I thought you might want to pass this
along for follow up by your field workers,

Sincerely yours,

Dan Sweat
DS: fy

Enclosure (1)








CITY OF ATLANTA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
Atlanta, Georgia 30303



WILLIAM R, WOFFORD, P.E., R.A. J. S. BUCHANAN
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS CHIEF HOUSING CODE INSPECTOR

ELMER H. MOON, E.E., P.E.
ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS

September 15, 1966

Mr. Dan Sweat

Governmental Liason Officer
Second Floor, City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia

Dear Dan:

The Housing Code Division has requested the Atlanta Housing
Authority Central Relocation Service to offer relocation assistance
to the tenants in the herein listed properties. These properties are
in the Markham-Haynes Street, Incinerator, and Capitol Avenue Areas.

Hopefully the funds now available through the; EOA Program can
be utilized to overcome some of the tenant problems in regards to
relocating. We will continue to refer these situations to the
Atlanta Housing Authority, as they come to light, with special emphasis
in the area of Capitol Avenue and Washington Street.

Sincerely,
J.S. Buchanan |
Chief Housing Code Inspector



JSB:mse

ec: Supervisor of Inspection Services

ATLANTA THE DOGWOOD CITY








Properties Referred to the Atlanta Housing Authority



454 Dover's Alley, S.W.
449 Dover's Alley, S.W.
456 Dover's Alley, S.W.
445 Miller's Alley, S.W.
453 Miller's Alley, S.W.
405 Chapel Street, S.W.
409-A Chapel Street, S.W.
409-B Chapel Street, S.W.
447 Chapel Street, S.W.
R-447 Chapel Street, S.W.
429 Chapel Street, S.W.
412 Markham Street, S.W.
414 Markham Street, S.W.
416 Markham Street, S.W.
418 Markham Street, S.W.
420 Markham Street, S.W.
424 Markham Street, S.W.
419 Markham Street, S.W.
421 Markham Street, S.W.
448 Markham Street, S.W.

422 Markham Street, S.W.
554 Markham Street, S.W.

82 Haynes Street, S.W.
80 Haynes Street, S.W.
72 Haynes Street, S.W.

74 Haynes Street, S.W.




=9-
76 Haynes Street,
78 Haynes Street,
38 Haynes Street, S.W.
89 Haynes Street, S.W.
179 Chestnut Street, N.W.
382-384 Foundary Street, N.W.

R-359 Magnolia Street, N.W., #1

R-361 Magnolia Street, N.W., #2

106 Randolph Street, N.E.
448 Whitehall Terrace, S.W.
240 Mangum Street, N.W.

242 Mangum Street, N.W.

238 Mangum Street, N.W.

395 Mayes Street, N.W.

501 Edgewood Avenue, N.E.
718 Capitol Avenue, S.E.
460 Arnold Street, N.E.

457 Arnold Street, N.E.

859 Center Hill Avenue, N.W.
721 Tifton Street, N.W.

780 Capitol Avenue, S.E.

754 Capitol Avenue, S.E.










CITY OF ATLANTA

MUNICIPAL COURT

General Division
165 DECATUR STREET, S.E. — JAckson 4—7890



Atlanta 3, Georgia EDWARD T. BROCK

Associate Judge

September 29, 1966 T. Cc. LITTLE

Associate Judge

ROBERT E. JONES
Chief Judge

Mr. Earl Landers,

Administrative Assistant to the Mayor,
City Hall,

Atlanta, Georgia.

Dear Earl:

There has been some discussion between the Building
Inspectors' Office and the Court regarding the Urban Re-
newal. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the letter that
Mrs. Colette Dusthimer, who prosecutes these cases, has
sent to Col. Malcolm Jones. Mrs. Dusthimer has discussed
this problem with Mr. Bob Lyle, of the City Attorney's
Office, and I am sure he will discuss the matter with
you. The copy of the letter enclosed is simply for your
information.

In the future, if any controversy comes up regarding
the Urban Renewal Program where the Courts are concerned,
I would appreciate it very much if you would give me a
ring and allow me the opportunity of discussing the
Matter with you.

With kindest regards.
Sincerely yours,

R. E. Jones, Chief Judge,
MUNICIPAL COURT, General Division,
City of Atlanta.

REJ/dj

Enclosure










September 20, 1966

Col. Malcolm Jones, .
Supervisor of Inspection Services,
Building Department,

City Hall,

Atlanta, Georgias

Dear Col, Jones:

As you know, Mr. Milton, Codes Compliance Officer, and I review
each case prior to trial each Thursday and determine the penalty and
Court order, which I recommend to tha Presiding Judge. I am sure you
will agree that nine times out of ten, Judge Sparks imposes the sen=
tence and order which I request in behalf of the City.

Mr. Milton and I make our recommendation to the Judge on the
following basis: \

1. Number of prior notices of deficiencies by the City to the
defendant.

2. The severity of the violations (whether or not there are a
few minor repairs or numerous violations).

3. Whether or not we feel the defendant's failure to comply is
willful, or whether or not the person is financially unable to make
corrections.

4, Whether or not the defendant is receiving income from the pro=-
perty, is an owner-occupant, or the building is vacant.

5. The defendant's past record in Court, if any.

6. Whether or not the person we bring into Court has the author=
ity to make repairs (for example, agents, who have only the authority
to lease or sell the property, and no authority from the owner to
make repairs. Also, in cases involved in litigation, estates, ine
competents, etc.).

€,




7. Whether or not the property is located in a "Proposed
Area", Up to the present time, Mr. Milton has advised that it
is the policy of the Housing Division to only require minimum
standards of the Code to correct hazardous, unsafe and unsanitary
conditions, until such time as the property is acquired.

Joe Shaffer has received one notice from the City and it is
my understanding that this section is in a "Proposed Area". The
tenants have also been cited for violating the Code. I presume
these tenants are destitute; therefore, if a penalty is imposed,
the majority will serve time in the City Jail in lieu of payment
of the fine. If possible, I would like to know whether or not
suitable housing is available in Atlanta at an amount these people
can afford to pay. If we request that these people vacate the
premises immediately, I believe this question will arise and I
would like to have an answer.

In view of the City's policy in "Proposed Areas", and because
of the recent riots, I am bringing this matter to your attention,
so that if you deem it necessary, the Mayor's office and Mr.
Wofford might be consulted.

It is my suggestion that we have a conference regarding this
matter, and I am of the opinion that Mr. Robert Lyle should be
present, inasmuch as he and I have worked on these cases together,

Very truly yours,

(Mrs.) Colette Dusthimer,
MUNICIPAL COURT, General Division,
City of Atlanta.

cD/a3

CC: Mr. C. Le Milton, ~
Codes Compliance Officer.

o pry Re ix |
a es |
AIR


October 3, 1966

MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
From: Dan Sweat

Subject: Low Income Housing Program, City of Atlanta

In accordance with your verbal direction ‘of September 28,
1966, the following program is recommended to meet the requirements
outlined for acceleration of the City's housing code compliance program

an adequate
and development of imaciexnate supply of low income housing.

The program as outlined herein is desigged to accomplish

two major objectives:

1. Relocation of a maximum number of low income families
from the worst slum areas and demolition of substandard structures

prior to June 1, 1967.

2. Acceleration of construction of authorized public housing






Page Two

units and development of new public housing resources with target dates

of June 1, 1967, and June 1, 1968.

In order to accomplish these goals the following major

recommendations must be considered:

1. Adoption by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of a strong

policy of Housing Code Enforcement and issuance of a clear

implementing directive to all officials charged with such implementation
and operation of the Housing Code Compliance Program. (Copy of

proposed policy attached)

2. The Housing Code Compliance Policy adopted January 1,
1965, be revised to provide for priority treatment to ''clearance,
code enforcement'' areas and firm designation of Title I Urban Renewal
areas on a 2-year maximum delay schedule. (Copy of propesed revision

attached. )

3. Addition of a minimum of 14 new positions in the Housing
Code Compliance Division, including 10 additional inspectors and four

clerical employees,

4, Adoption by the Atlanta Housing Authority of an innovative

and energetic program of public housing using all available resources


Page Three

of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including lease

and purchase of renovated private housing under the ''turnkey"' program.

5. Encouragement of and assistance to private,, non-profit
and profit housing developers by the Atlanta Housing Authority for the
construction and development of private and semi-public housing resources
for low income and moderate income families, utilizing the '221"

programs as well as private capital.

6. Immediate review of all pending and authorized public

housing projects and initiation of necessary action to complete all
‘

scheduled projects prior to June 1, 1968.




October 13, 1966

MEMORANDUM

To: Mr. Bill Wofford

From: Dan Sweat

4

Thanks for the copy of Dr. Weaver's speech to the Building
Officials Conference.

He had some interesting remarks which I am certainly glad
to get for my file.

DS:fy



ae

a ee












| ’ a)
“CITY OF ATLANTA



CITY HALL ATLANTS, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404

October 14, 1966
IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR

R. EARL LANDERS, Administrative Assistant
MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary
DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Liaison

MEMORANDUM

To: Mr. Earl Landers
From: Dan Sweat
Subject: Housing Code Compliance Program

In an effort to comply with your request that I look into the
problems and complaints regarding ie Housing Code Compliance
Program, I have attempted to analyze the major sources of

difficulty and suggest possible corrective measures.

Iam submitting an analysis of the Housing Code Compliance
Program Policy and Procedure Guide adopted January 1, 1965,
pointing out areas where the Guide should be updated and also areas
where the Guide is not being followed or cannot be met because of

inter-departmental or extradepartmental problems.




Mr. Landers
Page Two
October 14, 1966

Included in this report is a brief history of recent changes
in the Department of Inspection and an outline of current organization

and operations.

I have not attempted to analyze the various divisions of the
Building Inspection Department, but to point out areas of concern in

the administration of the Housing Code Compliance Program. Where

the method of operation of another division adversely affects the operation

of the Housing Division, however, this is noted and in most cases,

uggestio are made for improvements.
s stions ar de f pr t


‘ - DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS

The Department of Buildings administers and enforces the
Zoning Ordinance, the Housing and Slum Clearance Code, the Housing
Demolition Ordinance, the Georgia Safety Fire Law and the Elevator
Ordinance. Its responsibilities generally regulate the private use of private
property. The manner in which the department does its job and works with
other agencies both in and out of the City government will be reflected in
the quality of total community development. Staffing, organization, and
records must be so developed as to have flexibility, comprehensiveness,

and sesnitivity to the needs and requirements of area action.

.

The Department of Buildings has been the subject of extensive
review and reorganization to better prepare it for its role. Implementation
of the reorganization is now in the final stage. It would be inappropriate

to attempt to evaluate performance.

Or ganization

In 1964, Public Administration Service prepared a survey report
relating to the consolidation of inspectional services in the City of Atlanta.
This report reviewed and identified all inspectional functions carried out
among several departments within the City government. The major attention
of the report was focused on the Department of Building Inspections. The

findings of the report led to recommendations for an expended department of




Page Two

Building Inspections to include plumbing inspection ivom the Construction
Department), electrical inspection (from the Department of Electricity) and
housing code inspection (from the Department of Urban Renewal). The City
adopted the full report. The Departments of Electricity and Urban Renewal
were abolished when their few remaining responsibilities were transferred
to other departments and agencies. No one lost his job or was reduced in

salary due to the implementation of these recommendations.

Consolidation began in July of 1964, In the beginning little more
could be accomplished than to effect a legal change. The various offices
were spread from the third floor of City Hall to the thirteenth floor. In late
summer 1965, one year later, major office realignments were made at City
Hall which resulted in the Department of Buildings occupying all of the eighth
and ninth floors. Further office assignments were made in 1966. Physical
provisions were made for a central records and statistical unit and the central
permits desk. Staffing for the Records Bureau was provided by clerical

personnel formerly assigned to each-of the inspection divisions.

Staffing

The Department has a technical staff of 72 and a clerical staff
of 16. The technical staff includes the department head (Building Official),

an assistant Building Official, two architect engineers, ten plumbing inspectors,








Page Three

ten electrical inspectors, two elevator inspectors, nine heating and
ventilating inspectors and engineers, sixteen building inspectors and

fifteen Batecks engaged in housing code enforcement. Six technicians are
either registered engineers or architects. Most of the specialized inspectors

are licensed in their trades.

Work Program

Inspectional services are provided to insure the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. Building inspections insure that
structures will be built, repaired and altered in accordance with accepted
standards. Plumbing inspections insure that water and sewer facilities
are installed in a manner that will protect the occupants health. Heating
and ventilating inspections assure that heating units are installed properly
and include provisions for smoke abatement in order to reduce air pollution,
Electrical inspections insure that wiring installations will reduce fire
hazards, Housing inspections differ from the above in that the housing
code is concerned with buildings that were built under former regulations
(usually these required lower standards of safety and sanitation). It is the
general purpose of housing inspection to upgrade the standard of living in
existing housing. Zoning ordinance enforcement activities support the
regulations of land use, control of height and bulk of buildings, establish area

requirements for yards and other open spaces.




Page Four

The volume of work undertaken by the department may be
measured by the value and number of building permits issued in the past

ten years.

Year Value of Building Number of Permits



(Millions of Dollars)



1955 76 10, 613
1956 59 9, 682
1957 59 7,791
1958 108 8, 327
1959 > pe 8,728
1960 91 8,311
1961 96 10, 158
1962 117 9, 357
1963 109 : 9, 168
1964 150 9, 142
1965

Building Codes

The City of Atlanta provides through these various codes a high
standard of construction. The National Building Code is basically used for
building In 1965 a revised National Electrical Code Win -be issued which
will be adopted by the City. ) Currently the City is using the existing National
Electrical Code with sone local amendments. The City is a leader in
developing a Heating Code. This code has received national acclaim and has

been widely adopted by other cities. The Plumbing and the Housing Codes

are not based after any model code, but do incorporate high standards,




Page Five

Generally, the codes provide for eight inspections to be made during actual
construction, A final inspection is made upon completion of all work to
assure conformance to land use, type of building, area of lot and other
requirements of the zoning and building ordinances and codes. A certificate

of occupancy is issued at that time.

Reven c
Budget and- Revue
The department collects in fees enough funds to cover all the
expenses of operation. A recent survey of municipal building inspection
practices indicated that 72 per cent of 101 cities spate 100, 000 population
receive 75 per cent or more of their operating budget from fees. Thirty-
two per cent of these cities receive 100 per cent or more of their operating

budget from fees.
Public Convenience

The consolidation of inspectional service and a central building
permits desk serves as a public convenience. A contractor or individual
can get all building permits at one location. He must, however, still go to
several other locations within City Hall for other basic information and
permits. Water permits, water meters and location of water facilities are
obtained from the Water Department; sewer permits, street opening permits,

sewer assessments, curb cut permits and location of sewer facilities are








Page Six

obtained from the Construction Department. hoeite seas for rezoning

and street numbers are provided at the Planning Department. Copies of the
Zoning Code are purchased from the City Clerk as are licenses to engage
in the construction business. Complete consolidation of these information
and permit issuing functions requires considerable study and would effect

changes that cross over departmental lines.




CITY OF ATLANTA

HOUSING CODE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
POLICY AND PROCEDURE GUIDE

JANUARY 1, 1965




Mr. Landers
Page Two
October 14, 1966

CITY OF ATLANTA
HOUSING CODE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
POLICY AND PROCEDURE GUIDE
JANUARY 1, 1965

I. Goals:

A. "MAXIMUM EFFORTS IMMEDIATELY TO SECURE
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOALS AND
BENEFITS OF THE HOUSING CODE COMPLIANCE
PROGRAM THROUGH USE OF PERSONAL CONTACTS,
PAMPHLETS, PRESS RELEASES AND OTHER PUBLIC
INFORMATION MEDIA,"



Critique

The unfavorable publicity of the newspapers and the constant
delegations from various communities indicate little attention has been
given to this provision. While there has been considerable personal
contact on the part of housing code inspectors, and some handing out
of pamphlets, there have been no press releases issued and little or
no attempt to use other available press media to gain support and

understanding of the Housing Code Compliance Program,

Recommendation
I would recommend that provision be made immediately to

utilize the press media. Some positive steps could include:




Mr. Landers
Page Three
October 14, 1966

Get agreement of newspapers to run weekly court calendar
of code violation cases with names of defendents. Also run

follow-up report on court verdict.

Develop press releases on major Housing Code Division
responsibilities and goals to go to city editors, editorial
writers and other news media representatives who have

shown particular interest in the Housing Code program.

Request WSB-TV to prepare 30 minute documentary on
Housing Code Compliance. City could purchase copies

of the film for showing to clubs and groups.

Develop public service spot announcements for radio and TV
on keeping houses in repair. The Board of Education ETV

station could produce the spots.

B. "MAXIMUM COORDINATION IMMEDIATELY WITH
ALL OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHO WILL BE
AFFECTED BY, AND NEED TO ASSIST IN, THE
CONDUCT AND RESULTS OF THIS PROGRAM,"

Critique

Herein lies the major problem with the Housing Code Compliance


Mr. Landers
Page Four
October 14, 1966

Program. There is a general lack of understanding among City
departments of the goals and responsibilities of the program. An
even bigger problem is lack of proper cooperation among the various
divisions within the Department of Inspections. Some of the key

factors which contribute to inefficiency or confusion are:

Permit values through the years are used as the main

criterion for successful operation of the department.

Subsequently, new construction assumes major importance

and Housing Code Compliance is relegated to a secondary

existence.

The Supervisor of Inspection Service is a line supervisor
and coordinator of all divisions and units except the
Liaison and Architect Divisions. In practice, however,
this official is allowed supervisory authority only over

the Chief Housing Inspector, Codes Compliance Officer
and Rehabilitation Specialist. The result is lack of
cooperation among divisions, improper issuing of permits,

an almost total disregard of use of central records and less






Mr. Landers
Page Five
October 14, 1966

than vigorous prosecution of code violations. Specific

examples of lack of coordination and/or cooperation

include:

(a)

(b)

(c)

There are too many cases where the Godes Compliance
Officer has is sued ordess’ for demolition of an unsound
structure and the permit desk has subsequently issued
permits for repair of the same structures without the
knowledge of the _C aie. Compliance Officersor Housing

Inspector.

Pre-permit inspections are required before issuance

of a permit for rehabilitation of a sub-standard structure.
This is not being followed and permits are being issued
without consideration of the Housing Code Compliance

Program Policy and Procedure Guide.

Electrical Division Inspectors refuse to sign inspection
cards on H using Code Compliance cases, requiring
Housing Code Inspectors to spend considerable waste
motion obtaining required signatures. The Electrical
Division gives only token cooperation to the Housing

Division, The Water Department and Gas Company, on








Mr. Landers
Page Six
October 14, 1966

the other hand, cooperate to the maximum,

(d) The Central Records are not located near the permit
desk so they can be utilized whenever a permit is issued.
The Central Records are maintained strictly as files or
archives and no attempt is made to utilize them for permit

issuance,

Some of these points were touched upon in the Survey Report
"Government of the City of Atlanta, Georgia'' by the Public Administration
Service in 1965. The following quotations are found on page 34 of the

PAS report:

BUILDING AND HOUSING INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

"IN 1964 ATLANTA TOOK A LOGICAL STEP IN CONSOLIDATING
ITS VARIOUS BUILDING INSPECTION AND EXAMINING FUNCTIONS
INTO A SINGLE DEPARTMENT, FULL IMPLEMENTATION

OF THIS MOVE HAS NOT YET BEEN ACHIEVED AND PROGRESS ,
APPEARS TO BESLOW, FRICTION REPORTEDLY EXISTS
BETWEEN THE FORMERLY INDEPENDENT AGENCIES,
COOPERATION BETWEEN THE HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT
SECTION AND THE BUILDING CODE SECTION HAS NOT YET
BEEN FULLY REALIZED, THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN

THE HOUSING CODE SECTION CONDEMNS PROPERTY FOR
DEMOLITION OR FOR MAJOR REPAIRS, AND THE CENTRAL
PERMITS SECTION SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUES REPAIR PERMITS








Mr. Landers
Page Seven
October 14, 1966

FOR MINOR OR PARTIAL REPAIRS, INTERNAL
ADMINIS TRATIVE PROCEDURES TO INSURE THE
ENFORCEMENT OF HOUSING CODE INSPECTIONS

ARE DEFICIENT, THERE IS A BACKLOG OF SOME
4,000 NOTICES TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING CODE
AND AN AVERAGE OF FEWER THAN 10 CASES WEEKLY
ARE TAKEN TO COURT,

"THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT USES A MULTIPLE

PERMIT CARD FOR STRUCTURES BEING REPAIRED

DUE TO HOUSING CODE ACTIONS, THIS CARD PROVIDES

A RECORDING FOR ALL TYPES OF REPAIRS, WHEN REPAIRS
ARE INSPECTED AND APPROVED, THE INSPECTOR SIGNS
THE MUTLIPLE CARD, WHICH IS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY,
THIS FORM SERVES THE PURPOSE OF INSURING THAT ALL
NECESSARY PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND WORK HAS
BEEN SATISFACTORILY ACCOMPLISHED, SOME

INSPECTORS REFUSE TOSIGN THE CARD, IN ADDITION,

THE MULTIPLE PERMIT FORM IS USED ONLY ON REPAIRS
ORDERED BY THE HOUSING DIVISION BUT NOT FOR OTHER
REPAIRS, THEREFORE, SOME REPAIR JOBS HAVE CARDS
WHILE OTHERS DO NOT, THIS SITUATION CREATES
CONFUSION EVEN AMONG THE INSPECTORS,"

Recommendation:

1. Spell out the duties and responsibilities of the Supervisor of
Inspection Services and give this position the authority to coordinate
all Inspection Services as the job title and organization chart imply.
This would include authority to order cooperation among divisions

and changes in procedures of divisions to correct problems.








Mr. Landers
Page Eight
October 14, 1966

Transfer of the Codes Compliance Officer and the Rehabilitation
Specialist to the Housing Division, reporting to the Chief Housing
Code Inspector. These two functions cannot be separated from
the Housing Inspection functions and the coordination of the
Inspectors, Court cases and rehabilitation efforts are vital to

the success of a vigorous housing code enforcement program.

The Central Records Section should be near the Permit Desk to
provide maximum utilization of records in determining whether
or not a permit should be issued. The building records lend
themselves nicely to a computer application and should be

computerized at the earliest possible date.

The work done by the CIP at great expense to the City and

HUD in placing records of every parcel and structure on the

City computer must not be allowed to become outdated and

simply electronic archives. The Building Inspection Department
should be charged with the responsibility for updating computerized

building codes data,

A remote display station should be planned as a part of the
City's new IBM 360 System for ready access by the Permit Desk

from central computer records,








Mr. Landers
Page Nine
October 14, 1966

4, An agressive prosecution policy must be adopted and followed
if we expect to achieve even minimum compliance. The backlog
of pending Housing Code violations will require the services ofa
fulltime prosecutor if the Division is ever to hope to become

current. A fulltime Assistant City Attorney is recommended.








DEPARTMENT OF BULLDINGS
Supervisor of Inspection Services

In Rem Statistics, 1966 (Through November 1, 1966)







| July 27 August 24 September 28 October 26 November 30 December 21
| Item Hearing Hearing Nearing Hearing Hearing Hearinz Total
i
Source
Housing Code Division 23 31 22 15 20 20% 131
Codes Compliance Office 0 19 12 0 : 10 10* “) 250
In Rem Office 0 5 9 8 4 26
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total . 23 55 43 23 34 30 208
Not Scheduled
| Not qualified under current policy 0 4 4 5 1 14
| Other solution more appropriate 0 0 3 2 1 6
Postponed 4 4 0... 0 0 8
Total Notices Issued 30 47 70 65 212
(Owners and Parties in Interest) ie XN
Hearings conducted-Structures 23 28 40 40 32%* 131
S (Family Units) (43) (53) (56) (69) (221)
| Decisions Rendered ‘
Demolish 18 25 33 34 110
Demolish or Rehabilitate 2 1 6 6 ‘ 15
Rehabilitate 3 2 1 0 6
Total Orders Issued
(Owmers and Parties in Interest) 30 39s 62 72 a 203
Structures Complied
Demolished 2 2
Cleaned and Closed
Rehabilitated
Total 2 2
Families Referred for Relocation 5 i: 8 1 15
Note: *Requested by November 10
**S$cheduled












Remarks:

All properties are inspected, pictures taken and condition reports prepared prior to hearings. In addition to Notices
and Orders, mailed to owners and known parties in interest, properties are advertised legally. They are also individually ©
posted, both before and after the hearings. Upon completion of specified time for correction, all properties are again
inspected for compliance, before Ordinance is requested dixvecting the Enforcement Officer to proceed with Demolition or

Cleaning and Closing.

269 properties were contained on the Consolidated Master List of Buildings Unfit for Occupancy Revised June 15, 1966.
__85 additional properties have been added to the List as of November 1, 1966.
354 Total. |
It is estimated that an additional 300 structures are currently eligible for inclusion on the List.
The structural value (exclusive of land) before deterioration of the 153 structures scheduled for the first five hearings
is conservatively estimated to have amounted to $750,000 which has been completely lost due to neglect and lack of timely
maintenance. The estimated annual rental on these properties would have amounted to $180, 000 which has been lost to the

owners, due to neglect, and the annual City-County tax loss amounts to approximately $15,000.

Z alee E2T>
Malcolm D Jones /
Supervisor of Inspéction Services






THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C, 20410 ‘

| TOME NY ie

OCT 31 1966 ,
Niscacare ia
Dear Public Official: BO.C.A.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development wishes to announce
the initiation of an annual Awards Program for outstanding con-
tributions to intergovernmental relations in the field of urban
development. This 1966 Intergovernmental Awards Program will
recognize superior, cooperative achievements between local govern-
ments and actions to improve State-local relations which further
the national objective of helping to improve the living environ-
ment of our citizens.

This invitation to participate in the competition is being distri-
buted by. the Department in cooperation with the following organ-
izations:

The National League of Cities

The United States Conference of Mayors

The National Assotiation of Counties

The International City Managers’ Association

The National School Boards Association

The American Association of School Administrators
The Council of State Governments

Awards for the First Annual Competition will be made at the
National League of Cities' Annual Congress, December 6, 1966, in
Las Vegas 9 Nevada.

Submissions to this competition are invited. The deadline is
November 18, 1966. Applications should be submitted to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1626 K Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C. 20410.

Activities which have been initiated since January, 1965 are
eligible for this year's competition. More specific information
on eligible participants and criteria for making awards is
enclosed. Submission statements should be limited to two pages;
supporting documents will be accepted as enclosures.

Please accept this invitation to submit your recommendations
for these awards. We are eager to recognize and encourage those
outstanding contributions to intergovernmental relations which
increase our ability to meet urban needs.

Sincerely yours,

oe






Annual Awards Program for Innovations in Intergovernmental Relations



PURPOSE
This Awards Program is designed:

to identify outstanding cooperative efforts between
local governments and actions to improve State-local
relations, which too often go unobserved; and to
provide for these efforts a measure of the publicity
which they rightly deserve, and

to make available through publication, a selected
number of the outstanding actions reported each year
under the program.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE?



Any local governmental body, organization of elected officials,
units of governments acting jointly, school districts in coop-
eration with general units of government, regional bodies, or
State governments, may participate.

JUDGMENT CRITERIA

I. The "improved intergovernmental effort in urban devel-
opment" should involve areas of interest to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and organizations of public officials
(e.g., meeting slum problems, encouraging orderly urban develop-
ment, relating physical development needs to social, educational
and economic needs in an area, reducing the cost of providing
public services, etc.).

II. The activity should be innovative or precedent-making
and must have taken place in the period from January, 1965 to
the present.

III. The activity should be applicable in other communities,
regions, or States.

Examples might include such developments as these:

- the establishment, in many California counties,
of local area formation commissions, with regu-
latory power over the creation of new municipalities,
annexations, and special districts;




<-2=

legislation authorizing local governments to
cooperate in the collection of local taxes in
Michigan;

the establishment of a State-authorized metro-
politan area study commission in Portland, Oregon;

studies initiated by the State of California,
designed to apply aero-space technology to urban
problems;

the proposed vesting of regional planning and
continuing transportation planning process re-
sponsibilities in the Washington Regional Council
of Governments;

the proposed agreement by 13 municipalities in
Northern New Jersey, to establish a single regional
urban renewal agency, and to share property taxes
resulting from new industrial development within
the entire region.

WHO WILL JUDGE?

Distinguished persons in the field of intergovernmental relations,
including representatives of the various levels of government,
will be invited by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to evaluate entries and recommend awards.

GPO 914-632




five te Mayor

. TELEPHONE MESSAGE







To DEL

Name Deiihe.

Telephone No. K was

[2 Wants you to call (-] Is here to see you
{_] Returned your call {_] Came by to see you

[_] Left the following message:



Besoh fhact, st weputd
be QA book sia. 44,

OO
ele uated thes Vebevee













Date: fe l Time F'.30 a.m./ p.m.
By. f

FORM 25-5










CITY OF ATLANTA

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS






H | ae ry

ie

Atlanta, Georgia 30303








WILLIAM R. WOFFORD, P.E., R.A. J. S. BUCHANAN
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS CHIEF HOUSING CODE INSPECTOR

ELMER H. MOON, E.E., P.E.
ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS

November 21, 1966

Mr. Dan E. Sweat
Director, Governmental Liason

Room 209
City Hall
RE: 741 Pryor Street, S.W.
Camilla B. Stipe, Owner
Dear Dan:

The Housing Code Division has an extensive file on this
property dating back to April 2, 1963. The case has been presented
to the Municipal Court on two different occasions; and because of
age and infirmity, the Court did not choose to impose a penalty.

Miss Stipe lives alone in the property, and she does have
several dogs as pets. Miss Stipe is apparently two years in
arrears on her mortgage payments, The mortgage holder refuses
to foreclose although at one time he agreed to work with us for
the benefit of Miss Stipe. There have been numerous efforts to
assist Miss Stipe, and she has consistently refuted all attempts
to assist.

This property was a part of the "In Rem" hearing conducted
in City Hall on September 28, 1966 at which time it was determined
that the building is unfit for human habitation or occupancy, that
it should be demolished, and the owners and parties in interest
were so notified of those facts,

Mrs. Lillian Chancellor, addressee of the letter you received,
is Claim Supervisor for the State Department of Labor. In my

opinion, Miss Stipe needs to be removed from this property because
of the hazardous and unsanitary condition of the building; and she

is also the soul remaining white woman living in an all Negro
community, The December 28 date mentioned in Mrs. Chancellor's
letter is the expiration date of the notice forwarded stating the
results of the "In Rem" hearing. There is quite a bit of additional
information on file if it is needed,

Sincerely

J.S,. Buchanan
JSB:mse aoe hief Inspector
4 ore ia
CR:

ATLANTA THE DOGWOOD CITY




rv. 2, /96¢
a3, - Ce __
2

DO Khe qe Boa Are Hteecel— alrrY Ia, Mawes |
Te speed Ake — emt tthez oe Ceding! as gh L-eclrasrecacd _ |
ta, the

Seaseeee 41tt-Bt. es: hed On fy
Stee ttrtbed ee ply cee ge Foye Steel |

ic eee eg e- here ae -
Lie hme om fage SF J
Le as Bi. "Deed Cosas k Fy St ee asda |
Yo ca os Gah. Giles axe eZ the eke

meen chclakii on ae Cf
aaah WV hee Gay! es Gieiels I=
SA snp) he ae ere Vloen 29, Thai |

seerhet tL ee bent

S ee fool py ge tital & Be. |
eT eS 4? © Caccd Habe om hire _

oko, 2

oe a
} Cee ae
pee ee pidge ea”

a aha Bichon a ies

|

.






ele Cac i Pay a i oid has Sf Sippel
11 (Mian ch cre By. ype Aarectl, A

gk. WB secede 2 Li Dog aa Rehan : C— hez,

hal eben. (Fee ple tad. pf TR sseeree

he Mtee Men

A, oe Boss = x Py ne ae See

old y Botclcm 9 hop ¢ ~

Dee, oo F774, par eid

Merpant fesl syrrte
“Dwe oi ee 2 Clon iraLler.—

c | ; (2-¥ Cage Pe SHAM.
Le- Puae- Gant D Lepr
2¢f/ Foge 97. 0U/,



————
CITY OF. ATLANTA

DEPARTMENT of PLANNING
700 CITY- HALL

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 ; ow go

December 9, 1966 f).

WYONT B. BEAN
PLANNING ENGINEER

COLLIER B. GLADIN
ASSISTANT PLANNING ENGINEER

MEMORANDUM
0: Dan Sweat

FROM: Collier B. Gledin e B)\

SUBJECT: 1967 Housing Code Compliance Program

The following major changes ere recommended;

A. Policy and Procedure Guide
1, Goals
Addition of a new gosl of review and re-evaluation in anticipation

of oa need for basic changes in the program in 1968 and afterwards.
Observation from HUD and Atlenta's experience have indicated that

it will be necessary to repeat our rehabilitation effort in areas
previously covered several years ago. This feature is also
vecosmended for inclusion as a factor to be considered in determining
priorities. (Addition of F to Section L)

Orgenization and Administration

Changes in organizetion and administration are recommended to

reflect personnel additions in 1967. The Mayor's public statement

in favor of these increases provides the basis upon which the changes
were considered. (General changes as they apply throughout Section III).

Area Housing Code Compliance Policies

The abandonment of the specific objective of once « month sector
ter Inspector is recommended. Present heavy case
load requires this change. However, the objective is partially reached
the inspector in the course of handling his usual case load,
3 Section IV).

(Continued on Page 2)






Memorandum to Dan Sweat
Page 2

B. Housing Code Complience Prograw Mep - Mejor Changes For Consideration:

1. The ennexed Adamsville area has been added to the mep and a
program for ite treatment will be developed in 1967.

2. East Atlanta has been changed from rehabilitation end code clearence
to Title I Urban Renewal.

3. The Candler Perk area north of Mclendon Avenue, between Moreland
Avenue and the Park, has been changed from rehabilitation in 1967
to intensive conservetion.

4. In view of the city's current inability to initiate urban renewal
ection within the next five years in areas previously deemed suitable
for this type of treatment, the following adjustments have been meade:

(e) Howard High eree (old Fourth Ward) has been changed from
Title I Urben Renevel to Rehabilitation, 1967D.

(b) Cabbage Town (Sevanueh Street) hes been chenged from Title
I Urban Renewal to Rehabilitation, 1967B.

(c} Summerhill hes been changed from Title I Urban Renewal to
Rehabilitation, 1967A, |

5. Since present plans of Georgie Tech do not call for expansion north .
of Eighth Street in the near future, the area between Eighth end
Tenth Streets has been designated for rehabilitation action under
vesponsibility of the Sector Inspector.

6. Areas along Ormond and Atlanta Avenues have been changed from
intensive conservation to 1967 and 1968 rehabilitation treatment.

ce... Pierce
Williem R. Wofford
J. 3. Buchanan
Earl Lenders










HOUSING CODE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
Policy and Procedure Guide
January

Goals:

A. Maximem efforts immediately to BBeVee public understanding of the .sals
and benefits of the Housing Code Compliance Program throug
personal contact, pamphlets, press releases and other public informecicn
wedia. |

B. Maxirum coordination immediately with all other public agencies wio vill

be affected by, and need to assist in, the conduct and results of tric

C. Conservation of those residential structures in good condition to srevent
tue spread of blight and decay through encouragement of maintenance efforts
and protection from those conditions such as overcrowding and unascnorized

conversion which lead to blight.

D. kehabilitation of all substandard residential structures which are otis «2.

unsuitable for human habitation but where improvements can be mace ic
reasonable cost to bring them up to standard and where such reharilicaczuon

does not conflict with other community goals by 1971.

n

£. Remolition within the City limits of Atlanta of all residential strucctur
wnich are unfit for human habitation and where rehabilitation weule de
prohibitively expensive or would otherwise conflict with other conmunicy

foals by L971.

rr
'
¢
tn
fo

*, Revicw and re-evaluation beginning in 1967 on a continuing basis of

3




ET.

4

rehabilitation areas which have been treated in previous years to
determine their need for possible future systematic reinitiation of

total rehabilitation effort.

Areas and Priorities:

A.

The Housing Conditions Map reflecting the survey made in 1963 has been
brought up-to-date. In this revision, close coordination has been
developed between the Planning Department, the Housing Code Division

and the Director of Governmental Liaison. This has resulted in an

improved plan for a city-wide, systematic, comprehensive Housing Code

Compliance Program. The basic map of the revised survey indicates on

a block basis the following categories.

1. Conservation (Areas which principally require either no imprcvements
or only minor improvements with occasional rehabilitation).
Intensive Conservation (those areas which because of certain factors
such as age, transition in occupancy or use, or adverse fringe
influences, etc., require a greater amount of surveillance in order
to forestall blight and decay. These areas will normally requir
only minor improvements and spot rehabilitation).

Rehabilitation (those areas in which the majority of structures

require rehabilitation which does not exceed 50 percent of their

value; some spot clearance is anticipated).

Clearance - Code Enforcement (predominately smaller areas where
the majority of structures should be cleared and the area rede-

veloped. It is anticipated that these areas would be cleared






through code compliance with emphasis on demolition. The oniy
other corrective actions to be taken are those to alleviate
hazards and to protect the health and safety of residents in the
area).

5. Clearance - Title I Urban Renewal (those areas in which the majority
of structures should be demolished, with some rehabilitation, and
where the size and cost of the contemplated action justifies the
use of Title I federal funds).

The map also shows division of the city into halves, for supervisor

responsibility; each of these halves is sub-divided into five Sectors.

Each of these Sectors is assigned to a Housing Code Inspector, as his

area of individual responsibility.

The map also has on it areas of various sizes outlined showing the

neighborhood designation with numbers ranging from ‘65 to '69. These

areas indicate where and when an intensive program of systematic housing
code compliance is to be undertaken on a house to house basis. The

target date assigned to a particular area indicates its relative priority.

Those with a high priority have an early date; those with a lower priority,

a later date.

Priorities for the areas have been based on:

1. The number of compliance inspections which the Housing Code division
can undertake in one year, while maintaining full city-wide coverage,

2. The relationship of rehabilitation areas to surrounding or internal

community activities, community facility development or Title I

Urban Renewal Projects.








3. General conditions in the particular area. Those with the most
skevciae rehabilitation needs will be undertaken first,

4. The long range goal of complete housing code inspection of substandard
dwellings by 1970 and compliance in all designated rehabilitation areas
by 1971.

5. An additional consideration in subsequent revisions will be the need
in the future for more treatment in areas previously covered as blight

reoccurs, This item represents the first step in the changeover from

program with a fixed completion date to one on a continuing basis.

fo

D. Proposed Community Facility Locations:
a map has been prepared which indicates the location of all proposed
community facilities and highways (exclusive of urban renewal projects)
in the City of Atlanta. The locations have been indexed and color coded
to identify them and to indicate the agency responsible for their execution.
Ill. Organization and Administration
A. Organization and Personnel for Housing Code Compliance, Department of
Buildings
1. Supervisor of Inspection Services
2. Personnel, Housing Code Division
a. Chief Inspector (1)
b. Field Supervisors (2)
c. Housing Code Sector Inspectors (10)
d. Housing Code Inspectors General (6)

e. Housing Code Inspector II (1) (assigned to Codes
Compliance Officer)

Concentration Area Inspectors (10)

Fh
®








g. Clerical Personnel (8)

3. Related Personnel
a. Rehabilitation Specialist (1)

b. Codes Compliance Officer (1)

Duties and Responsibilities:

L. Supervisor of Inspection Services. Overall supervision of ail
forms of code enforcement such as plumbing and building with
primary emphasis on Housing Code Enforcement, including
coordination with other Departments,

2. Personnel, Housing Code Division:

a. Chief Inspector
(1) Overall supervision of inspections,
field work and administration.
(2} Coordination of relocation efforts
with Atlanta Housing Authority.
(3) Pursuit of resolution of difficult cases.
(4) Direct supervision of clerical personnel
(5) Goordinatton with Codes Compliance Officer;
Rehabilitation Specialist.
(6) Training program for new Housing Code Inspectors.
(7) Coordination with other Divisions of Department of
Buildings.
b. Field Supervisors
(1) Direct supervision of five inspectors and their sectors

comprising one-half (%) of the City.








Ce

(2)

(3)

(7)

Supervision of intensive program teams and Inspectors
General when operating in their one-half (4%) of the City.
In-Service training for inspectors to include principles
of Housing Code Enforcement, selection and scheduling of
work, and standardization of requirements and acceptances.
General conduct of housing code compliance program within
their one~half (%) of the City.

Assistance in resolution of difficult cases.

Assistance in preparation of court cases when requested

by Code Compliance Officer.

Qther special duties as assigned by Chief Inspector.

Housing Code Inspector II

(1)

Assigned to Codes Compliance Officer to assist in preparation

of cases for Court.

Housing Code Sector Inspectors:

(1)
(2)

(3)

(4)

Conduct of Housing Code Compliance Program in their sector.
Primary responsibility for resolution of all cases and
compliants in their sectors,

Prepare cases for presentation before the Better Housing
Commission and City Attorney.

Assist in preparing court cases.

Housing Code Inspectors General

(1)

(2)

Investigate, document and prepare cases for presentation
to Court and appear as witness. at time of trial (three
inspectors and one Housing Code Inspector II assigned

for this purpose)
Preparation of cases for "In Rem proceedings and Derolitian

Grant Program (three inspectors assigned to these ‘unctions.

6 L-1L-67








intensive Program Housing Code Inspectors
(1) Operate as team members
(2) Conduct housing code compliance program in rehabilitation
areas according to scheduled priorities.
Clerical Personnel
(1) Process notices, letters, records and prepare periodic
reports.
(2) Receive telephone calls, prepare lists for Better Housing
Commission hearings, City Attorney hearings and Court.
(3) Record minutes of Better Housing Commission meetings.
Related Personnel
(1) Rehabilitation Specialist
(a) Public relations--(promoting good maintenance and
Housing Code Enforcement)
(b) Inspection of apartment developments (30 units and up).
(2) Codes Compliance Officer
(a) Responsible for preparation and conduct (including
attendance in Court) of Housing Code Court cases with
assistance from Housing Code Inspectors and Supervisory
Personnel,
(b) Advises Housing Code Division on requirements for
prosecution of cases in court, appropriateness of
specific cases for Court action and preparation of

charges.








(c) Prepares Court calendars and reports on results of

Housing Code Court hearings.

Notices and Follow-up Action

Inspectors will use standard methods and prescribed time intervals as

4
a

guide for their processing of cases. Written procedure is on file

in the Housing Code Division.

Coordination

Ie

Relocation:

Inspectors will fill out slips (on AHA standard form) to be signed
and forwarded by the Chief Inspector to the Housing Authority for
relocation assistance to the families threatened with displacement
by Housing Code Enforcement, such as placarding occupied units, when
a directive is issued to reduce the number of occupants and/or units,
when demolition is imminent, and for other reasons.

Community Facilities

Chief Inspector will consult map showing Location of proposed and
scheduled community facilities; will determine agency responsible
for execution; and consult and coordinate with that agency to
determine exact extent and status of project and the appropriate
Housing Code Compliance Program for the areas at that time.

Public Housing

No Housing Code Inspections required. (Existing units 8874; under
construction 650; planned 1140).

Municipal Services

In conduct of the Housing Code Compliance Program, Inspectors will

8 L-1-67








be alert for needed improvements in municipal services and
other such problems. Need will be recorded and referred by the
Chief Inspector to the appropriate governmental agency.
Possible referral agencies are:
a. Sanitary Department
b. Construction Department
c. Traffic & Street Lights Department
d. Police Debereuene:
e. Water Department
f£. Fire Department
g. Parks Department
h. Board of Education
i. County Departments of Family and Children Services
j. County Health Departments
5. Data Bank
The Housing Code Division will participate continually in furnishing
certain types of information, obtained in connection with its normal
activities, to be placed in the data bank,
Complaints
{11 Housing Code complaints received will be recorded on forms provided
and investigated within,.one week and appropriate action initiated imme-
diately. Written procedure is on file in the Housing Code Division.
Handling Unresolved Cases
At the end of each quarter, Sector Inspectors will thoroughly review their

unresolved case files and determine what positive action should be taken,

9 L-1-67








IV.

Procedure for handling unresolved cases is on file in the Housing
Code Division.

Area Housing Code Compliance Policies
A. General:

1. Placard promptly vacant substandard units and structures
considered unfit for occupancy and cause utility services
to be discontinued.

2. Promptly report to the Better Housing Commission and to the
Atlanta Housing Authority Relocation Housing Office (for
relocation of families) those occupied units and structures
considered unfit for occupancy.

3. In order to keep abreast of changing conditions conducive to
deterioration and blight, each Inspector will endeavor to
observe his entire Sector and initiate corrective action as
needed,

4. It is anticipated that each Sector Inspector will process a
minimum of 20 new Housing Code major improvement cases per
calendar month, and comply an equal number per month outside
of rehabilitation areas in which teams are working. Effort
should be made where feasible to keep each Sector Inspector's
workload of uncompleted active notices to approximately 200.
All Sector Inspectors combined should comply at least 3500
units per year.

B. Conservation Areas (See Housing Map):

1. Inspector will encourage maintenance and conservation

10 L-1-67








4

verbally where early signs of blight appear but no valid
code violation exists.
Housing Code inspection to be made primarily on a complaint

basis.

Intensive Conservation Areas (See Housing Map)

Ls

Housing Code inspections to be made based on an apparent need.
Accent to be conservation rather than waiting until rehabilitation
is necessary; Inspector will give more attention to details to
discover any significant changes conducive to blight in these
areas,

Inspector will encourage maintenance and conservation verbally
where early signs of blight appear but where no valid code
violation exists.

These areas will be closely examined for consideration as possible
future federally assisted code enforcement projects under the 1964

Housing Act.

Rehabilitation Areas (See Housing Map)

These areas have been designated according to priority of need

and placed on a schedule. (See Map) —

These areas will be intensively covered house by house by

inspectors of an intensive program team (2 - 4 men).

Conduct of Compliance Program

a. All Housing units in rehabilitation areas will be inspected
and necessary compliance notices issued or statement issued

that property is in satisfactory condition.

il L-1-67




b. It is anticipated that three large areas (approximately
7000 units). .. and three small areas (approximately
1900 units) ' will be covered this year (approximate
total 8900). Any cases remaining unresolved at the end
of this year will be assigned to Sector Inspector for
resolution,
ce. it is anticipated that each Team Inspector will make
approximately 7 new inspections or 7 first follow-up
inspections per day.
These areas will be closely examined for consideration as possible
future federally assisted code enforcement projects under the 1964

Housing Act.

E, Clearance - Code Enforcement Areas (See Housing Map)

kL.

Enforce Code only to:

a. Placard where warranted and seek demolition.

b. Correct hazards.

c. Reduce overcrowding.

d. Vacate unfit units.

e, Clean up premises,

Discourage rehabilitation action in industrially zoned areas,
especially in marginal cases.

Seek maximum coordination with other divisions of Building
Department to discourage improvements other than to correct

hazards of any housing units and structures in areas,

12 L=1-67




Clearance - Title I Urban Renewal
1. Proposed and Planning Stage Projects (See Housing Map):

Enforce Code only to:

a. Placard where warranted and seek demolition,

b. Correct hazards,

c. Reduce overcrowding.

d. Vacate unfit units.

e. Clean up premises.

2. Urban Renewal Projects in Execution (See Housing Map):

a. Issue no notices unless instructed otherwise by Chief
Inspector (usually upon request of Atlanta Housing
Authority).

Community Facility Locations, including Public Housing (See
Community Facility Map):
1. Scheduled for construction or property being acquired

a. Chief Inspector will consult map showing location of
proposed and scheduled community facilities; will
determine agency responsible for execution; and
consult and coordinate with that agency to determine
exact extent and status of project and the appropriate
Housing Code Compliance Program for the areas at that
time.

b. Normally Inspector will issue no notices unless instructed

otherwise by Chief Inspector.








5

me

Planned - construction anticipated but not scheduled

Qe

b.

Chief Inspector will consult map showing location of
proposed and scheduled community facilities; will
determine agency responsible for execution; and
consult and coordinate with that agency to determine
exact extent and status of project and the appropriate
Housing Code Compliance Program for the areas at that
time.

Normal action will be to enforce Code only to:

(1) Placard where warranted and seek demolition,

(2) Correct hazards,

(3) Reduce overcrowding.
(4) Vacate unfit units.
(5) Clean up premises.

14








CITY OF ATLANTA
REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS OFFICE

FOR THE MONTH OF —__»ppepvpee te¢6—

NO. OF PERMITS CLASSIFICATION COST . NO. OF FAMILIES
re HOUSED
$ 135,000.00 6
Ce

—_____27____ Frame Dwellings, 1 Family. ......... S 491-190-007
+ . 27

—__ ls Condominum

Masonry Dwellings, 1 Family. ........ $



Frame Dwellings, Duplex .



Masonry Dwellings, Duplex .



Apartment Houses .





Churches & Religious Buildings .
—____ 2. __Add-Alter-Repair Churches .

Amusement & Recreation Buildings



—_____1_______ Stores & Other Mercantile Buildings . .
—___—__—]___ Service’ Stations .
—_______5 ___ Residential Garages & Carports .

4 Parking Garages .



Garages .



Hotel & Motel Buildings .
—____l1_ __ School & Educational Buildings .
—___] _Add-Alter-Repair Schools. . . 1.1...
—_ ___ 4_____ fice Buildings .

oo ES ities & Warehouse .

—__] __ Utility Buildings .



Industrial Buildings .

Swimming Pools .



Fire Escapes Elevators & Signs
Add-Alter-Repair, Residential .
Add-Alter-Repair, Business Bldgs... .. .

Demolitions-Business Buildings .




CITY OF ATLANTA
REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS OFFICE

FOR THE

MONTH OF —-—ykexmpkn,—1966—

NO. OF PERMITS CLASSIFICATION
1 Condominum



—___2]7_ ____ Frame Dwellings, 1 Family .
Masonry Dwellings, 1 Family .
Frame Dwellings, Duplex. .
Masonry Dwellings, Duplex . .
Apartment Houses .
Churches & Religious Buildings .
—__2 _Add-Alter-Repair Churches .
Amusement & Recreation Buildings
—_____i,_____ Stores & Other Mercantile Buildings .
Service: Stations :.. «
—_____ 5. ____ Residential Garages & Carports .
1 Parking Garages .
Garages .
Hotel & Motel Buildings .
—__ 1 __ School & Educational Buildings .
—_____]__Add-Alter-Repair Schools . .
—_____2__ Office Buildings .
a ee ee Sc Warehouse ai a 2 ey ake se
—____] __ Utility Buildings .
Industrial Buildings .

Swimming Pools .

87 Fire Escapes Elevators & Signs
280 Add-Alter-Repair, Residential .
40 : :
Add-Alter-Repair, Business Bldgs..... .
8 Demolitions-Business Buildings .
71

Demolitions-Residential Buildings .

Total Permits 534

FOPM NO, 4-2

COST

$ 135,000.00

NO. OF FAMILIES

HOUSED
6























$ 74,944.00
$ —__ 432,806.00 —
$317,259.00
$ —____11, 400.00
$ ___19,210.00 —

Total Cost $ __2, 179 364,99

Total No. of Families Housed



33

lf

W. R. WOFFORD



Inspector of Buildings






CITY OF ATLANTA
REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS OFFICE

NO. OF PERMITS CLASSIFICATION
1 Condominum



—_____27._______ Frame Dwellings, 1 Family. . .
Masonry Dwellings, 1 Family .
Frame Dwellings, Duplex .
Masonry Dwellings, Duplex .
Apartment Houses .
Churches & Religious Buildings .

/ 2 Add-Alter-Repair Churches .

Amusement & Recreation Buildings

5 Stores & Other Mercantile Buildings. . . .

a EE Service. Stations 2 if <i Go aire geke es Se

—_____5_____ Residential Garages & Carports . . .
1 Parking Garages .
Garages...

Hotel & Motel Buildings .

a School's Educational Buildings .
—____]_ __ Add-Alter-Repair Schools .
—__—__2______ Office Buildings .
oe 5 Serres & Warehouse .
pe es edlity Buildings. - 2

Industrial Buildings .

Swimming Pools .

87 Fire Escapes Elevators & Signs
280 Add-Alter-Repair, Residential .
40 ‘
Add-Alter-Repair, Business Bldgs......
8 Demolitions-Business Buildings .
71

Demolitions-Residential Buildings .

Total Permits 534 =

FOPM NO, 4-2

- $——421-190-00°

COST

$ 135,000.00

NO. OF FAMILIES
HOUSED
Sel 26

——_7-——





















Total Cost $—___2, 179,364.99

Total No. of Families Housed



34

, »y>—

W. R. WOFFORD



Inspector of Buildings