Neighborhood services?

Michael Evans has been refurbishing and renting out derelict properties for some time. So when he and his wife bought a bank-owned fourplex near Monroe Avenue and H Street in old West Las Vegas, he thought he was prepared for whatever was likely to come up.

But he soon received a letter from the city of Las Vegas, informing him that a previous owner had racked up more than $60,000 in fees and fines because the city had to hire someone to board up the building and pick up trash.

Mr. Evans says the title company advised him he had a clear title to the property when he bought it from the bank. It seems the city simply neglected to file its $60,000 lien -- nearly twice the auction price of the run-down property -- until after Mr. Evans' title cleared.

But the city argues the charges stay with the property.

The buyers can be at least partially at fault if they fail to check the property's history with the Clark County recorder's office, explains Devin Smith, neighborhood response manager for the city.

"I probably get a phone call a day from someone who bought a property, and now they want their fees waived," he said. "People are just showing up, they're buying properties and then they're saying, 'I didn't know about this.' "

Mayor Oscar Goodman says he recently sent a letter to local title companies urging them to be vigilant and warning of potential legal liability.

"I feel sorry for these folks who are sort of being middled here," Mr. Goodman said. "But they certainly, in my opinion -- and that's the reason I wrote the letter -- have a potential cause of action. The title policy should pick up any kind of liens or any kind of notice that's properly recorded against the property."

It's an interesting question -- but hardly the kind of unsettled legal rat's nest that's going to invite more people like Michael Evans into investing their hard-earned dough to renovate derelict local properties.

In the end, the City Council dropped the tens of thousands of dollars in civil fines for Mr. Evans' Monroe Avenue fourplex. They did not waive their "hard costs" for boarding up the property, though. The city still expects the couple -- not the bank that allowed the property to fall into disrepair -- to pay $2,416.

That's the approach the council most likely will take with future cases, according to Mr. Smith.

This is a fine example of a government program which has taken on a monstrous life of its own, functioning at times in diametric opposition to what it was set up to accomplish.

The threat of fines was supposed to frighten neglectful property owners into fixing up their properties, reducing blight. Mr. Evans is busy fixing up the property in question -- precisely what the threatened fines were supposed to accomplish.

So now the city will charge thousands of dollars extra to Mr. Evans, who played no role in allowing the property to become an unhealthy eyesore, as a punishment for wading in and cleaning up the joint.

The fines and charges were not accrued by Michael Evans. Charging him these sums because he's currently the easiest guy to find is equivalent to letting a police detective "solve his case" by strolling out to the sidewalk and arresting the first pedestrian to pass by.

After all, the only goal is to make sure someone goes to jail ... right?

Fines which were intended to prevent blight are now transferred to the new owner, thus becoming a disincentive for others who might contemplate rolling up their sleeves and doing the neighborhood the big favor of making some other boarded-up eyesore habitable again.

That's some "neighborhood response," Mr. Smith. What do city officials plan to do next -- fine people for adding porches, awnings and carports to their homes?

Oh, wait ... they already do that, don't they?