Housing code violation haunt Lynchburg City Council candidate

By Alicia Petska
Lynchburg News & Advance
Published: April 4, 2008

City Council hopeful David Johnston is embroiled in what building inspectors say is their longest-running case of code violations in a house still being lived in.

Since 2003, when inspectors first visited his Park Avenue home, Johnston has been in court nine times, paid more than $2,000 in fines and spent a week living in a tent on his front lawn while his house was temporarily condemned.

City officials have cited him for a total of 32 housing code violations ranging in severity from exposed wiring and lack of any primary heating system to an absence of handrails along the back steps.

Johnston, who’s running for the Ward II City Council seat against incumbent Ceasor Johnson, has been convicted three times of misdemeanor charges of failing to correct “housing defects.” In each case, he appealed and lost.

Court records show his last hearing was in Circuit Court on Jan. 8, when a judge fined him $500.

His house has failed a subsequent re-inspection. Lynchburg property maintenance official Wayne Craig said earlier this week another complaint would be filed as a result.

The home, a circa-1916 structure that stands three stories tall, was first purchased by Johnston as a real estate investment 15 years ago.

Johnston, a restaurant server/manager, said the house at 1903 Park Ave. was one of several properties he bought with the goal of renovating and then reselling.

“I mistakenly thought I could do it quickly and efficiently,” he said. “That’s not been the case.”

Building inspectors were first called out to the site in November 2003, when a complaint was made about a boarding house being run under unsafe conditions.

At the time, Johnston was renting out rooms to four other people to earn extra money. City officials said the building didn’t live up to legal standards for rental housing in Lynchburg.

City files indicate inspectors found rotting floorboards in the house, as well as faulty plumbing and no smoke detectors. The heat had been disconnected and replaced with space heaters, and exposed or loose wiring was noted in some places.

Officials immediately condemned the house, but Johnston, who at that point had sold off his other properties to focus on the renovation, continued living there along with his tenants.

They were forced out on Christmas Eve. Johnston, as a means of making a “statement,” spent the next week living in a tent on the lawn with two of his renters. They celebrated Christmas Day with a cookout.

“What seems most absurd in my case is I was working on my project long before the building inspectors came, while other houses were sitting empty,” he says today. “But they seem to be taking the attitude I’m not doing anything.”

The city allowed him to return to the house by New Year’s Eve under the condition he stop taking renters. At the time, Johnston was quoted in The News & Advance as saying he thought the renovation could be complete in two years.

City records indicate he’s corrected 11 of the 32 original violations since then, although his own assessment puts him closer to “80 to 95 percent” compliance. He estimates he’s invested between $25,000 and $30,000, doing most of the restoration work himself.

“We’re talking about a total renovation, ripping down interior walls, plumbing, electricity. It’s absolutely a complete project,” he said. “… I wish I had the ability to bring in housing professionals to just get it all done, boom.”

The first criminal charge was filed against him in November 2004, followed by additional charges in September 2005 and November 2006.

Each time, Johnston appealed to the Circuit Court and was given extra time, as much as a year, to complete the work. Fines were levied against him when he missed those deadlines, reaching a total of $2,500 over the last 3½ years. An additional $485 was charged for court costs, according to online records.

Johnston said he’s been moving forward on repairs “a little bit at a time” when time and money have allowed. He referred to the city’s tactics as “strong-arming.”

“All I’m looking for is time, but they don’t want to work with me,” he said. “They just keep pushing me through, putting court dates on me.”

He said he’d like to see more consistency and cooperation in the inspections department, but reaffirmed earlier statements that his situation was not the motivation for his council run.

Public records indicate the city has re-inspected Johnston’s property 20 times in the last four years.

Number 21 occurred on March 14, when Craig evaluated the exterior of the home after attempting unsuccessfully to schedule an interior inspection with Johnston.

Craig, who’s worked on this case since the beginning, said the house again failed his review and a fourth court complaint will be made. He said he felt his office has been fair in its dealings with Johnston.

“I think the record speaks for itself,” Craig said. “He’s had adequate time to make these repairs.”

Johnston said he was confident he was close to resolving this situation. Inquiries made about properties owned by the other eight City Council candidates, including his opponent in Ward II, turned up no
history of housing violations.