Some vacant buildings in Minneapolis sit empty and weather away for years, perhaps decades. As the time piles up, according to those who live next door to them, so can the nuisances and safety hazards.

Chimney bricks fall into neighboring yards. Rodents and birds congregate. Fires, fireworks, vandalism, drug use and overdoses ensue.

The Minneapolis City Council, at its regular meeting on Thursday, unanimously got behind an ordinance amendment that could more than triple the financial penalties — up to $24,000 a year — for owners of residential or commercial buildings that are designated as vacant and condemned, unless the owner restores it within a two- or three-year period.

Several council members praised the changes as offering important tools for fixing up hazardous properties. Council President Elliott Payne relayed an example of an elder-care facility that has been "sitting vacant since COVID" near a school and a park in the city's Windom Park neighborhood.

"It's been a real problem in my community," Payne said. "It's boarded up with squatters coming in on occasion."

Minneapolis' collection of 311 vacant and condemned properties is small in comparison to that of other American cities, which can number in the thousands. But more than half are clustered in the city's predominantly Black North Side, driving down nearby property values and aggravating a shortage of affordable housing.

"Our residents know that those are homes that could be used by families or individuals who are in desperate need of housing or shelter," City Council Member Robin Wonsley said at a recent committee meeting. "We know many of these properties are in Black, brown and working-class neighborhoods. This is a tool that would definitely help us reach some of our racial and economic goals as a city."

In Minneapolis, all vacant and condemned buildings are placed on a registry. Property owners pay a flat fee of about $7,100 and the city boards them up and monitors them for trespassing and other issues.

Owners are also required to state a timeline for when the building can either return to code or be demolished. But the city has never required a deadline for doing so.

The proposal, written by Wonsley and Council Member Jeremiah Ellison, would require owners to restore buildings to code in two years, with a third-year option for those who have made headway but need additional time. Afterward, fines can quickly pile up before they total $24,000 a year.

"This is just a really, really great way for us to do something tangible that will impact the daily lives of residents in our city," Council Member Aurin Chowdhury said.

The number of vacant and condemned Minneapolis buildings is down from the 1,500 that were empty at the outset of the Great Recession in 2008, according to Bryan Starry, who manages vacant and condemned buildings for the city. But the number of properties sitting in that condition today, now 311, is roughly unchanged over the past six years.

Of those properties, more than 130 have been on the list for three years or more. Some stretch as far back as 2001, and one was first condemned in 1998.

There is a range of reasons why owners let buildings sit empty to deteriorate, according to city officials and residents who spoke at the July 9 public hearing. Some owners may not have the funds for rehabilitation. Others may be waiting for an opportune time to make a move on their building as property values increase.

"The problem is that the current fine system provides no incentive to change anything," Daniel Suitor, a tenant's rights attorney, said at the hearing. "Seven or eight thousand dollars a year — if my property taxes say anything, the property's appreciating more than that every year. Much more."

That leaves problems for everyone else. After three years, vacant properties can reduce by about 1% the value of neighbors' properties within 250 feet, and those within 500 feet by about 0.27%, according to a study by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

The same study found that vacant properties can increase safety issues, fracture ties among neighbors and leave communities vulnerable to gentrification.

"It's a stress on the neighborhood," Ellison said in an interview. "When you have these inactive houses and the neighbors feel like they don't have any influence over the condition of those houses, it really erodes the spirit of the block, which has ripple effects."

Star Tribune staff writer Dave Orrick contributed to this story.