He still paid the $500. If he was keeping current on his taxes, and the house was not an attractive nuisiance, there is no reason they should be demolished. If they were condemned, he should have been compensated for them.

There is no reason he should have to make the house "nice", it should simply be habitable. It shouldn't leak, the walls should not be structurally unsound (in my town that is among other things defined as more than 30* out of plumb), there should be adequate egress, and in the winter months working heat.

The only thing he seemed to have a problem with was working heat; but was going to have a professional come and fix it. The town then prevented him from fixing it before the hearing; pretty much ensuring that the tenant couldn't live there and he would lose.

There should be a much higher burden of proof on the governments part, before someone is relieved of their property or its productive use.