Martinsville Condemns Two Properties; Davidson Abstains Twice

Martinsville City Council | September 23, 2026

Article Summary: The Martinsville City Council on Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2026, approved two ordinances declaring properties at 220 W. Kendall St. and 602 N. Ferral St. “Unsafe and Dangerous property.” Alderman Chris Davidson abstained on both votes, and the minutes record no reason and no discussion.

Property Condemnation Key Points:

• Ordinance No. 2026-09-01 condemns 220 W. Kendall St.; Ordinance No. 2026-09-02 condemns 602 N. Ferral St.
• Both passed 5-0 with Davidson abstaining — the only two non-unanimous votes of the meeting.
• Different members moved each ordinance: Alderman Travis Hill moved the Kendall Street ordinance, seconded by Alderman Chris Perry; Perry moved the Ferral Street ordinance, seconded by Alderman Harley Craig.
• The minutes record no discussion, no property owner, no cost and no next step for either address, and the ordinance texts were not included in the meeting materials.

MARTINSVILLE — The Martinsville City Council on Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2026, approved two ordinances condemning properties in the city as “Unsafe and Dangerous property,” with one alderman abstaining on both votes and the record offering no explanation for either abstention.

Ordinance No. 2026-09-01 declares 220 W. Kendall St. unsafe and dangerous. Hill moved its approval and Perry seconded. On the record vote, Davidson abstained. Perry, Craig, Alderman Wendy Isbell, Hill and Alderman Ashley Wilhoit each voted yes, and the motion carried 5-0 with one abstention.

Ordinance No. 2026-09-02 declares 602 N. Ferral St. unsafe and dangerous. Perry moved that one and Craig seconded. The record vote ran identically: Davidson abstained; Perry, Craig, Isbell, Hill and Wilhoit voted yes; the motion carried 5-0 with one abstention.

The two items were sixth and seventh of 10 numbered items on the agenda, and the agenda language for each was identical but for the ordinance number and the address: “Consideration and Action to approve Ordinance NO. 2026-09-01 that condemns 220 W Kendall St. as ‘Unsafe and Dangerous property.'”

The Only Divided Votes of the Night

Every other recorded vote at the Sept. 23 meeting was unanimous among the six aldermen — approval of the Sept. 9 minutes, payment of the bills presented, the Residential Enterprise Zone threshold, the city’s trick-or-treat date, an $11,000 snowplow purchase and the motion to close the meeting all passed 6-0.

Davidson voted yes on all of those, and was active in the business of the meeting on either side of the condemnations. He moved the motion to pay the bills, moved the Enterprise Zone motion, seconded the approval of the previous minutes and the trick-or-treat date, moved the motion to return to open session after the council’s closed session and moved the motion to close the meeting.

An abstention is recorded in the minutes as a vote entry alongside the yes votes, in the same table format used for every other roll call. No reason for Davidson’s abstentions appears in the minutes, and the record contains no statement from him, from Mayor Robert Lovell or from any other member about either property.

A Thin Record on Two Condemned Addresses

Beyond the ordinance numbers, the addresses and the vote lines, the public record of these two actions is close to empty. The minutes contain no description of either property, no indication of whether either is occupied, no account of any inspection, complaint or prior enforcement action, and no statement of what happens next at either address. No cost to the city, no demolition timetable and no notice to owners is mentioned. No property owner is named for either parcel.

The ordinances themselves were not distributed with the agenda or the minutes, so the text that would spell out the council’s findings and whatever obligations or remedies follow from an “Unsafe and Dangerous property” declaration is not available in the meeting materials. Nor does either document identify the official or department that brought the two properties forward.

That makes the ordinance documents the first thing worth obtaining from the clerk’s office. They are also the only route to understanding the sequence of the two votes — the council took them separately, with different sponsors, rather than together, and the agenda treated them as two distinct items.

Both ordinances were approved in open session before the council voted at 7:42 p.m. to go into executive session. The council returned to open session at 8:01 p.m. and adjourned at 8:08 p.m.