Clean yards matter—but so does how we treat the people who live behind them

Dear Editor,

I appreciate the perspectives recently shared in support of the City of Grant’s nuisance enforcement program. Civic dialogue is essential, and I welcome the opportunity to continue this conversation—not out of opposition, but out of a desire to define what meaningful progress truly looks like for our town.

Both Ed Dunn and Lisa Schmitt point to outcomes—cleanups, increased property values, and improved appearances. I don’t dispute that some benefits have occurred. But results alone don’t excuse the need for transparency, fairness, and basic respect. We must ask: At what cost? To whom? And how were those outcomes achieved?

Clean yards matter—but so does how we treat the people who live behind them.

In response to the “professional expertise” attributed to the third-party entity managing this program: Not even listing a valid address for the City of Grant on the official nuisance letters—directing residents to “921 Broadway,” which is not a street in Grant—doesn’t strike me as particularly professional. This wasn’t a one-time error; it appeared on more than one letter. Worse, last year’s postcards told some residents they “may have a nuisance” in the City of Imperial. In a world where fraud and scams are real concerns, these careless mistakes create confusion, undermine credibility, and raise legitimate doubts about how seriously this program takes its responsibilities to our community.

At some point, you have to ask: “Does the third-party entity even know where Grant, Nebraska is?” When residents receive official letters referencing the wrong city, with invalid addresses and no clear local context, it doesn’t inspire confidence. It suggests we’re not a community they’re invested in—we’re just a name in a database.

Even more troubling was a statement made at a recent City Council meeting by the program administrator—who also serves as Executive Director of the West Central Nebraska Development District. It was stated, “The presence of law enforcement is nonnegotiable during enforcement of the abatement process.” Meanwhile, the glossy “Nuisance Facts” fliers distributed on Facebook claim, “Remember: The goal is NOT to abate – it is to work together for a cleaner, safer, more prosperous community for everyone!” So which is it? If the goal is collaboration, why the need for a law enforcement presence as a nonnegotiable show of force? These contradictions paint a clearer picture: this is not a cooperative process—it’s a unilateral one. And it’s one that seems determined to eliminate oversight rather than invite it.

Progress should be more than enforcement driven by cameras and checklists. It should begin with conversations, not certified letters. It should recognize that real life sometimes looks like a project in progress—a lawn mower outside, a few bricks stacked for a weekend job. These aren’t acts of neglect. They’re signs of people living, working, and investing in their homes.

A city’s strength isn’t just in its curb appeal. It’s in how it balances aesthetics with empathy. That’s where this program, as it currently stands, has fallen short.

We’re told this third-party enforcement is neutral and professional. But when questions go unanswered, when similar violations appear on public or politically connected properties without response, and when residents feel intimidated rather than supported—people notice. Outsourcing enforcement doesn’t erase accountability. It only makes it harder to trace.

We all want Grant to thrive. But “True progress means more than appearances—it means building trust.” It means public service, not selective enforcement. It means governing with integrity—not with citizen disconnect and force disguised as professionalism.

Let’s move forward—but let’s do it the right way. Not with pressure or pretense, but with shared values and a community-first mindset.

Sincerely,

Marlin Wendell

Grant, Nebraska