The city’s Blight Committee had an interesting discussion last week over whether a Hill Street property should be considered blighted.

The property is in a nice area of the city, has moss on the roof and had water service interrupted. Committee members ended up deciding not to issue a blight declaration — and in our mind made the right decision.

Legally the city has to have legal definitions that must be met before a house can be declared blighted. As committee member Denise Whipp noted, there wasn’t much to support a blight declaration other than the property being vacant. Ray Print said the property isn’t “the same situation as many of the properties we deal with.”

Blight designations come with serious consequences for property owners, as properties can eventually be referred to the city Redevelopment Authority to be razed or redeveloped. That’s why it’s good to see the non-government members of the Blight Committee take a moment before rubber-stamping a blight designation.

In our opinion, blight should be obvious to all. If there is a lengthy discussion over whether a property is actually blighted, that means it probably isn’t blight but instead in need of maintenance. There may be no difference in the terms used for neighbors who see a home that may be dragging down their property values, but the difference is important to the other property owner.

Declaring a property blighted should happen quickly, with little debate, because the property is so obviously blighted that anyone can see it and government has no option other than to issue a blight declaration. It truly should be a measure of last resort.