[joinrespecgt]

I bought a property in Joliet, IL, that had been sold at a tax auction. It had an illegal metal garage on it. The property had been abandoned for many years and despite neighbor complaints the city did not take down the illegal structure or remove the garbage on the property. I cleaned up the property and removed the dilapidated garage and now the city wants to fine me for not obtaining a demolition permit. The city wants me to do all their work for them and on top of it, pay them to do it! Why didn't the city remove the building when it was in their possession? Why is the city hassling the one person with enough interest in the property to clean it up? Do they have the right to do this to me? How can I fight back?

[ScottGem]

Let me get this straight. You removed a structure without obtaining the proper permits and you are complaining because the city is enforcing the law?

There are reasons that municipalities require permits for construction and demolition. They are required to make sure these things are being done properly, so that further damage or injury does not occur.

You ask why the city didn't remove it. I can't answer for sure, but some of the possible reasons are a) they didn't own the property, and b) the structure did not pose a danger to anyone.

The bottom line is that the law required you to obtain a permit and you didn't. The penalty for not doing so was a fine. So yes, they have the right to do this and no you can't fight back.

[AK lawyer]

... You ask why the city didn't remove it. I can't answer for sure, but some of the possible reasons are a) they didn't own the property, and b) the structure did not pose a danger to anyone.
...

Evidently the city owned it for back taxes. But there is a difference between that, and owning and using it for public purposes. If it was owned by the city simpy because of a tax foreclosure, chances are that no one from the city had a duty to even look at it.

In any event, unless a hazardous condition is called to the attention of the city, it would have no duty to demolish the building.

[ScottGem]

Evidently the city owed it for back taxes.

Not necessarily. Selling the property at a tax sale doesn't mean they took ownership.

[AK lawyer]

Not necessarily. Selling the property at a tax sale doesn't mean they took ownership.

Maybe. Maybe not. But the point is that such ownership, or other tax-related interest in the property (whatever you want to call it) on the part of the city, probably doesn't give the city a duty to clean it up.

[Fr_Chuck]

The city sold it at a tax sale, so assuming there is not a waiting period, many states have them, you took possession with a tax deed.

At that point you have to follow all zoing and code laws. So yes of course you have to get a permit and have to pay a fine for not getting one. You merely refused to follow the law. That would be like fixing up the other building without a permit because the city did not fix them up.

I will give you a silly city example. I opened a new business last month, moved into an existing building and was not gong to make any changes what so ever.
So I had to get all the code, safety, fire marshal and zoning inspections. But they made me get a building permit ( I am not doing any building) but I had to get a building permit so they could inspect to see I did not build anything.

Pay your fine , you can't win