The city of Fairmont is looking toward the future with its plan to raze dilapidated houses. The goal is to remove ugly and hazardous buildings and get the properties back on the tax rolls and serving a useful purpose. This worthy goal comes with some pitfalls.

The city ran into one of them this week when it approved a $5,000 payout to a property owner who held four blighted houses hostage, in effect, by threatening to fight the city in court rather than allow the vacant homes to be torn down. The city had deemed these four the worst of the worst on its list of houses that should be razed. With the settlement, the city takes possession of the properties.

"Personally, I feel like we might be rewarding this gentleman for his behavior," Fairmont's city administrator said of the settlement. (He added that he still thought the city's goal is important.)

But it's not only the current situation the city has to worry about. Now, other landowners with dilapidated structures will take note that they can cause delays and earn some cash. After all, the city has budgeted $75,000 annually toward the removal of rotten housing.

The city can avoid such problems by taking a longer-term approach, in which it outlasts the landowners in court. However, this approach is not without costs in terms of time, money and the ongoing hazards of the dilapidated homes.

Recognizing this pickle, we approve of the city's approach, tackling these cases one at a time. It seems to us citizens can and should be more cooperative in this process. Of course, the landowner in this case doesn't even live here; a fact that, again, complicates matters.