EDITOR’S NOTE: City Attorney Carmen Trutanich’s proposal to treat most building code and planning and zoning violations as infractions under the Administrative Code Enforcement laws (ACE) instead of misdemeanors has been locked up in a City Council Committee for a year. He argues the current system is costly, inefficient, subject to long delays and provides the city with only a small portion of the revenue generated by fines. Activist James O’Sullivan who supports the controversial ACE plan in concept but believes a number of safeguards need to be built into to protect the community from abuses by city officials.Here’s his recent analysis sent by email to other concerned citizens:
By James O’Sullivan
I
have been getting emails about the Administrative Code Enforcement (ACE)
Program that Councilmember Paul Koretz is supporting, that it needs some
help if it is to get out of the Budget and Finance Committee for a City Council
vote. It has been held in Committee for months and has just been posted
for Committee discussion.
After speaking to a few other activists I have concerns: First, it appears that
the ACE program applies to the entire LAMC, not just the list of offenses
described. This includes likely thousands of issues ranging from fence
height to setbacks.
MY CONCERNS ARE:
1.
The first
concern is that this process, in the hands of an insensitive bureaucracy or
malevolent future City Attorney (CA), has the potential to be used as a political
weapon. This is especially disturbing given the amount of discretion built in
to ACE and that the potential financial burden on those targeted is
substantial.
2.
It appears
to me that ACE would place a huge weapon/tool for intimidation in the hands of
some already power-hungry, authoritarian (and often incorrect/inconsistent)
building inspectors. They could make life difficult on a person that
doesn’t please them. It could open up a whole new cottage industry for
unscrupulous inspectors on a large and small scale.
3.
It appears
that administrative costs are levied even if the property owner is right.
Under this program, people are guilty until proven innocent. To reverse
administrative costs associated with an incorrect citation, property owners
would have to spend hours and hours – at each stage increasing their risk as
administrative costs and potential fines increase. Inspectors are often
wrong and in many cases, interpretations of the code can be tricky. A
financially strapped city would have every incentive to push every case to its
limits as most people will run out of time or money to defend themselves.
Even though the city is financially strapped, it has essentially endless
resources to pursue fines whereas those cited have highly limited resources and
would be forced to capitulate.
4.
The
opportunity for political retribution against a neighborhood/area by a
politician seems far too great. One call from a council office/CA to
LADBS “check” an area could be used to penalize/punish an area and to
intimidate other areas into submission. This is a real risk and no one
would know – maybe not even the CA’s office.
5.
The
opportunity to pit neighbor against neighbor exists. One neighbor could
call the city and get a citation issued for a perceived violation. The
targeted neighbor would then have to bear the full expense of defending
themselves. A simple argument about fence height between properties could
turn into a massive, costly issue.
6.
I see no
check/balance or accountability here. Why wouldn’t an inspector write as
many citations as possible if each one yields at least administrative
costs? What is the penalty for the city if they are wrong? Does the
city pay fines? The pressure on city employees to generate revenue
through citations would be substantial.
7.
Given the
potential size of the fines and the cost of the process for an alleged
violator, it would seem that less-advantaged residents would be unable to
defend themselves. This seems to be a real environmental justice issue.
What happens if a poor property owner can’t afford the repairs
required? Do they lose their home? Do they have liens put on their
property that, in some areas of the city, might represent a substantial percentage
of the value of the property?
8.
What
guarantee exists that enforcement will be equal among all areas of the
city? What would stop the city from going after the low-hanging fruit of
the more affluent areas where payment of fines is more likely?
9.
What
guarantee exists that well-connected property owners might not exert political
influence to get some future CA’s office to use their discretion to avoid
punishment?
10. If fines/fees are
property-based, I was under the impression that they could not exceed the cost
to the city of providing the service without a vote of the people. How
does this apply?
11. Imagine if the city
council transfers the duty of sidewalk repair/liability to property owners -
something they have been trying to do. This could result in absolutely
massive numbers of fines/violations with huge compliance costs for individuals
- including getting CITY tree roots handled that caused the damage.
12. I am disturbed by the
ability of the city to go back to require compliance on conditions that have
existed for years and years. The IRS can only go back three years.
It would seem that the city is seeking to go back some undetermined amount of
time.
13. What are the
implications for real-estate transactions if a current property owner is
penalized for the undisclosed actions of a past owner? How many lawsuits
will be created?
14. If the city cites a
property owner for some building code violation, how much will it cost for the
property owner to even research or hire experts to research the validity of the
claim?
15. Even with a trusted CA
in place, is it reasonable to expect that the CA will have the time to
personally intervene in hundreds of improper citations?
This
is just a partial list of questions. This seems to be a big deal and it
needs to be very clearly laid out and understood. The process needs to
have opportunities for property owners to cure or otherwise dispose of issues
without incurring cost. Fines/fees need to be consistent with
property-based fee rules. EJ issues and the possibility of selective
enforcement need to be addressed. The system must be designed such that
there is accountability for inspectors and a disincentive to write unwarranted
citations. There just seems to be so many ways that the process might be
gamed by inspectors and politicians.
I
understand the need for enforcement and also that people are building without
proper permits, etc. Unfortunately, ACE just seems way too ambiguous and
not quite thought out. We need to view this and all other plans/proposals
not in the hands of a trusted Nuch & Co. We need to project how each
new rule might be used by some future, possibly malevolent, inaccessible or
disinterested CA. It seems that this plan should be postponed until it is
fully-baked and safeguards are in place to prevent abuse/misuse.
The
cost of fixing a poorly thought-out process is generally accepted to be 10x the
cost of doing it right the first time. Additionally, it is highly
unlikely that a cash-strapped city is going to voluntarily cut off a
cash-generating program once it is in place. While it is true that “we
have to start somewhere,” this particular somewhere seems too extreme.
Lastly, if this program has taken over a year to get to this stage, how long
will a potential fix take?
An
enforcement program is a good idea, but only if it is well thought out, the
incentives are properly balanced, the rights of citizens are protected and the
opportunities for abuse are minimized. This doesn’t seem to be there yet.
Nip it in the bud. A corrupt City Hall should not get more power to abuse.
Ron – you are a genius! Very effectove way to get us going on SOME CHANGES THAT MUST BE MADE. INCLUDING number and office of personnel. We
are not servants of government when we must pay the bills. We become victims of a dictatorship.
Don’t know about you all, but we sure could use some plain old code enforcement in my neighborhood!!!
Not that ACE guarantees that or anything….
The city has enough power now for Code enforcement. This is all about money grubbing. Read about the two honest cops who protested the ticket quota and how the city retaliated.
“A longtime Orange County judge accused of waiving traffic fines for friends, co-workers and even his minister has been ordered to appear before a statewide judicial panel that could recommend his removal from office” – LA Times. Such abuses are bound to happen under ACE.
Ron, thank you for bringing this to our attention. The dangers that this plan of Trutanich are clear, and much as I like and trust him, I am very concerned about what could happen in LA if Nuch becomes DA and someone like Weiss becomes City Attorney. Please help to stop this before it gets out of control.
Trutanich should be applauded for at least trying to come up with some solutions for the city and the code violators.
Right now many of these code violators would be charged with misdemeanors. If O’Sullivan thinks defending against an Administrative hearing is expensive, try defending against a misdemeanor.
Once someone is found guilty of these code misdemeanors, whatever fine they pay goes to the State treasury, not the City of Los Angeles. Is it any wonder why L.A. is broke and running such a huge defecit?
This program may not be perfect, and there may be some details that need to be ironed out, but at least it’s a solution that ultimately could be a win-win, for both the city and those that are actually violating the LAMC.
The city is broke due to mismangement and too many employees with high salaries and huge pensions. Finding a new source of revenue through fines is not the way out of bankruptcy.
Ron:
This is Noel Weiss. The reasons for my opposition to the current proposal are set out below.
While this law is supposedly based on Santa Monica and Culver City Code Enforcement Ordinances, there appear to be some significant differences between what the City Attorney is proposing and those ordinances.
In addition, the City Attorney was supposed to do a study of the issue – operational feasibility and challenges . . . Where’s the study? The CAO report shows that few departments gave meaningful feedback to how this approach would aid in their enforcement (could be turf-guarding). Those that did were unclear as to how it would work in addition to, or as a supplement to existing code enforcement systems. . . So here we have the first problem. . .
Supposedly, the ACE ordinance is to be voluntary with the Departments (the ordinance does not repeal the current administrative enforcement mechanisms that already exist). The voluntary nature of the ACE program is also missing from the proposed Ordinance.
The lack of data, analysis, and solid information makes this proposal more ‘knee-jerk’ and knowlegable. It’s based on ‘hype and hope’, and attempts to exploit the people’s legitimate anger at the failure of the system to work as well as it needs to.
But deflecting off of the people’s frustration is not a good way to make policy. This appears to be the essence of what Jim O’Sullivan is saying. It also reinforces my view that a Section 908 Commission of the N/C’s should be commissioned to undertake a more thorough study of this issue since the City Attorney failed to do so (as per the Council’s directive). What I would anticipate coming out of such a study would be a recommendation on how most of these problems could be resolved through effective use of the N/C’s (if only to use them as a mediator or fact-finding entity. . . For example, requiring that all violations be reported to the N/C and that the N/C’s be given the opportunity to hold a hearing to examine the issue and advise the City (be it the hearing officer or the relevant City Department) on proposed solutions. . . This is consistent with my general bias in favor of citizen empowerment (bottom-up) versus a ‘top-down’ approach and with the role the N/C’s are supposed to play under the Charter).
There is no evidence that better compliance will result from the use of the kind of ACE program contemplated by this proposal (keeping in mind there are already enforcement programs in place in each Department (Planning, for example, has nuisance abatement. . . Housing as Code Compliance. . . .). To the contrary, the report from Santa Monica (back in 2004) said that the number of complaints increased and that enforcement became more challenging due to the sheer numbers. That’s when (apparently) they initiated something like a ‘mediation’ program which appeared to work to reduce the caseload (I think this related to signs).
So this reinforces my initial thought that use of a mediation program as a prerequisite to enforcement is more cost effective and efficient and will more likely lead to the desired result. . . cure of the violation.
The City Attorney’s program does not involve a mediation component. . . that’s an important difference from the Santa Monica protocol (Culver City does not have a mediation component).
Nor is there any evidence that the City Attorney’s current proposal will result in cost-savings. . . To the contrary, a cogent argument can be made that all we are doing here is adding another layer of bureaucracy on to existing enforcement mechanisms.
Moreover, what is the City Attorney doing now? I’d like to know, for example, why the City Attorney can’t enforce the Ellis Act violations which pervade the City (where tenants were evicted to make way for new development. . . the new development did not occur. . . the landlord went back into the rental business in violation of his Ellis pledge. . . Landlords become scofflaws and the City Attorney does nothing. . . I have not complained about this much because it is providing housing to people who otherwise would not have it. . . . But enforcement here could involve an amnesty and some kind of relief for the people which still leaves the tenants in place. . . Regardless, neither Housing, nor the City Attorney have done much. . . Just one example of lax enforcement currently. . .So giving the City Attorney new powers when the City Attorney isn’t effectively using the powers he has now would not seem to be logical or competent governance).
The Santa Monica and Culver City ordinances do not give the City Attorney the power sought under this ordinance in terms of control over a ‘compliance fund’. . . That is an incredibly bad (and potentially dangerous) idea. . . No checks and balances. . . no oversight. . . .
As such, it is clearlysubject to abuse. . . Again, not a good idea. . . Under no circumstances should the City Attorney’s office administer any ‘compliance fund’. That should be done by the Controller. . .and running balances in the fund (if it exists) should be posted on the internet (by payer or alleged violator).
To be noted is that the Santa Monica law also provides for the recordation of violations and fines. . . This accords with my original thoughts. . . A law can be passed to do this apart from a formal ACE program. The City Attorney’s proposal lacks this viable enforcement mechanism.
The relative simplicity of the Santa Monica and Culver City laws is stark when compared to the City Attorney’s proposal. Apart from the fact that the ‘fines’ would appear to be completely arbitrary and not fact based, the Santa Monica and Culver City laws set up a simple procedure for a hearing by a hearing officer. This law empowers the City Attorney to set up the protocol. . . Very bad idea because it is a clear conflict of interest. . . with the City Attorney acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
Thy absence of any real checks and balances is what appears to concern Jim O’Sullivan. . . Right now, for example, Planning has a nuisance abatement procedure where hearings are held. So instead of that, or in addition to that, we will have the City Attorney establishing the protocol and procedure, reviewing the evidence, and deciding whether to administratively ‘prosecute’ (again without a mediation component or N/C input. . . I would contend that given the volume of complaints and enforcement proceedings, that these matters be allowed to filter up through the system. . and give N/C’s an opportunity to review them and develop the facts and establish a way (voluntarily) to resolve these issues before they burden the higher level City bureaucracy.
Neither Santa Monica or Culver City does this with N/C’s because they don’t have a N/C system. We do. . . Why not take advantage of it? The other benefit is that if we can leverage technology, there can be a central website where all of these cases can be accessed by the public so that similar results can be obtained in similar cases throughout the City (by N//C’s) and N/C’s can learn from what other N/C’s have done.
The N/C’s could also spend some of the $45K on consultants (if needed) in given areas to educate them. . . and the N/C’s can then report to the City Council on their activities. . . giving the N/C’s a much more pro-active, problem-solving bent to their activities. It could also yield recommendations on possible solutions going forward. . .
We thus generate some true efficiencies here. . . from the bottom-up. . in a way which empowers the local citizen. . . . Meanwhile, the truly serious cases that can’t be resolved after N/C involvement and/or mediation, can then be referred to the Department who, in turn, can make recommendations to the City Attorney for prosecution. Then, if they want to hold an Administrative Hearing, with due process protections written in. . . fine. . . . Subject further to Council review and adoption. . . just like they do with other property liens or assessments. . . That would provide another level of protection. In short, include a provision which has the City Council exercising jurisdiction under Section 245.
Also to be considered is a requirement that no property gets sold or business transferred without a formal ‘Certificate of Compliance’ filed with the County Recorder which confirms that the property and/or business have been and are in full compliance with all City Codes and Ordinances. Again, this would resolve on a more cost-effective basis about 70%-80% of all of the problems (my surmise).
The City Attorney’s proposal is way, way too open-ended in terms of timing and protocol (how the hearings are conducted; the advance time for preparation, etc). This is also not good. . . The proposal, to be thorough and complete, should put everything out in advance. . .procedurally and substantively. Piece-mealing in this manner is not good governance; nor is it good lawyering.
I am not for giving this City Attorney or any City Attorney a blank check (for example, the City Council just did this with the CRA property transfer (one that I contend was a de facto fraudulent conveyance (the City paid nothing for these properties). The Council gave the City Attorney carte blanche to pass out (in $500,000 increments) contracts to outside lawfirms to defend the City against all claims related to these (what I contend are) unlawful transactions designed to circumvent state policy (not yet passed) to abolish the CRA. As we know, this money has a distinct tendency to come back in the form of campaign contributions to the politicians (which is why, I believe, the City Council allowed this kind of blank check. . . The Controller said nothing about this. . . same rationale. . .
Objection will mean less money for her Mayoral campaign. . . No accountability. . . Bad governance. . . The City Attorney should have required full openness and transparency (with the relevant legal advice reflected on the billings redacted. . . but the bills can be and should be made public. . . along with the core fee agreement).
So it is a bit of a ‘bait and switch’ to say that what the LA City Attorney is proposing is just a mirror image of what is being done in Santa Monica or Culver City.
Also to be kept in mind is the fact that it is unclear what other code enforcement mechanisms exists in those jurisdictions (for example, do either Santa Monica or Culver City have their planning departments engaging in nuisance abatement enforcement? If not, then it is logical why they would have this kind of a simple ACE program because it is their main enforcement mechanism).
This is clearly not the case in Los Angeles. . . The potential for bureaucratic in-fighting is very high. . . . What do we do in the case of fraud, abuse, or waste, should it be uncovered? This is also relevant because the City Attorney cannot go after fraud, abuse, or waste in the City (as he reads the law. . . I disagree – The City Attorney is the attorney for the people. . . beneficiaries of a ‘public trust’) But regardless, the solution is simple:
Enact (a) a whistle-blower protection law, and (b) create an office of Public Advocate charged specifically with the task of pursuing fraud, abuse, and waste.
Another alternative to criminal misdemeanor prosecution is the filing of small claims actions against violators. The small claims court can act as the ‘hearing due process protocol’ for enforcement. It is a civil remedy for claims under $5,000. The small claims court can award both monetary and ‘equitable relief’ (that is relief to abate what is alleged to be a public nuisance). This represents a civil remedy based on the fact that by definition, the violation of a city law or code constitutes a public nuisance.
There is no limit to the number of cases a City can file. Perhaps the City Council could even empower N/C’s to file these small claims actions after the matters were heard and informally adjudicated by the N/C’s. It amazes me that the N/C’s (who should be seeking to grow and empower themselves) would pass on this opportunity to become an even more relevant force for good within their communities. It would attract people and facilitate the resolution of problems. Maybe it is the air conditioning in City Hall. . . but I remain puzzled at why every solution has to always be ‘top-down’ instead of finding ways for an empowered citizenry to take control and responsibility for their neighborhoods.
To wrap this up, I would also throw out the fact that because the violation of an ordinance or a City Code is, by definition, a public nuisance, why not empower the private sector and citizens to pursue nuisance abatement actions by passing a law which gives legal standing to neighborhood organizations or individuals to pursue nuisance abatement actions in court. . .with the prevailing party given the right to recover attorney’s fees.
Also to be kept in mind is that under Section 217 of the Charter, subpoena power exists by the Mayor, Controller, Council and (it is specifically noted) the Zoning Administrator.
So technically, if the Planning Department had more resources, and an investigative division (which I would put in the office of Public Advocate), the ZA can (right now) hold formal hearings, examine witnesses under oath, obtain documents to be used to examine violations. So for the City Attorney to say there are no alternatives short of criminal misdemeanor prosecution is not accurate.
We already have a mechanism to deal with this issue of code enforcement. If it is not working, let’s find out why!
Why not make more effective use of the system we have rather than create a new layer of bureaucracy in a City Attorney’s office who has not done a good job (to date) except with billboards, of enforcing the existing codes and ordinances?
Looking further into Charter by a Section 217. . . A Board of Examiners can City Commission to investigate matters relevant to the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. . . also with subpoena power. So this creates the option and opportunity for a more simple approach. . . consistent with the checks and balances built into the system. . . Have the investigation undertaken by the relevant Board or Commission (perhaps in concert with N/C’s) which has jurisdiction over the matter. So, for example, the City Planning Commission can be empowered to conduct an investigation into building code violations (which can include N/C hearings under Section 908). The Board of Examiners would be given subpoena power (subject to City Council review) and as a result of that investigation, code violations would be found; the problems with current enforcement could be uncovered and identified; solutions recommended; and the system made to work better (possibly with needed City Council action)./
Based on those findings, efforts could be undertaken to cure those violations by way of the mediation and citizen empowerment protocol I have generally outlined.
Full reports can be made to the City Council, the Controller, the Mayor, and the City Attorney and appropriate action taken by way of legislative change and/or City Attorney prosecution (civil or criminal) or citizen nuisance abatement actions (civil) could occur.
That, it seems, would be a much better way to resolve these code enforcement issues. . .consistent with the social contract between the people and their government and between each citizen. The problems relative to selective enforcement could be resolved. . . there would be full openness and transparency (itself a mitigation factor). . . . and, most importantly, better compliance. . . . .
If the City Attorney’s office wants to administer a mediation program combined with a modified ACE. . . fine. . . But that can come after the N/C’s have an opportunity to facilitate a resolution on the lowest level possible (operating solely on openness and transparency and peer pressure).
Lastly, the comment by Bill Carter that the City Attorney’s office can undertake this program without any added cost to the office’s budget is simply not credible. Also to be considered is the fact that to administer the program will require that the Deputy City Attorney refrain from doing other activities and functions. That represents the opportunity cost of the program.
What is the nature of that cost to the City Attorney’s office? We don’t know. . . It has not been discussed or evaluated. . . It needs to be so that the program will be effective.
A great idea, poorly executed is worth zero.
An average idea, well executed is worth a lot.
More review and thoughtfulness is needed here.
So Ron, here is a simple protocol involving (a) mediation, (b) civil small claims, (c) enforceable liens, (d) business license revocation for scofflaws, (e) N/C Empowerment, (f) community nuisance abatement, and (g) mandated owner certified compliance in the event of a sale of a business or a home (in fact, the City could require a Certificate of Compliance to accompany every business tax license application. . . or just limit it to those previously found in violation).
While well intended, this ACE idea is an incredibly poor proposal, not well thought out. It seems only to satisfy bureaucratic requirements, consolidate power in the City Attorney’s office (without decent checks and balances), and, as Jim O’Sullivan notes, will inevitably lead to selective enforcement and many, many adverse unintended consequences.
Many more cost-effective, less bureaucratic, efficient alternatives are available and should be explored before we put more power in the City Attorney’s office.
Let’s find out what’s wrong first. . . why our system is not working, and then tie in a better, competent, comprehensive, and thoughtful solution. If an ACE program under the auspices of the City Attorney’s office fits into that approach, then fine. . . .But let’s be more thoughtful about this idea. . . . .as Jim O’Sullivan suggests.
Noel Weiss
Last week StudioCity Patch reported that Trutanich told the Studio City Chamber of Commerce that he’s looking for a storefront on Ventua Blvd. as a campaign HQ for his run for District Attorney, so he’s already checking out of the City and leaving behing this stinker for someone else.
If it were not for James O’Sullivan who broke this scandal, and Noel Weiss who really did an excellent analysis of just how bad this ACE Program will be, we might all think that because it’s Trutanich’s idea, it must be a good one. It is obviously not a good idea, and I hope the people of Los Angeles realize that we’ve been sold out and betrayed.
Trutanich really must believe that the people of Los Angeles are sheep who will follow, unquestioningly, anything that has a catchy name like “ACE” and that comes with his approval. Since when was it a good idea to let someone be a prosecutor, judge and jury in any case? And how much more bizarre is that the judge’s boss (the City Attorney) gets to keep a piece of the action? Do I hear “Conflict of Interest” anyone?
The City Council is so desperate to balance the budget that they will probably vote for ACE unless the people go down to City Hall and tell them to solve the budget lawfully and fairly, and not on the backs of the middle classes who will be the biggest targets of Trutanich’s ACE.
No body understands the amount of corruption that exists, as those of us which have been victims of the so, called “systematic code inspection department”, and the existing city officials abuse. It is all clear to me, in my community it was all orquestrated by RICHARD A LA TORRE, followed by the rest. In Boyle Heights People are punished for investing their own money into the area. Now, we do not own apartments any longer but, can somebody explain to me why is it that MARIA CABILDO from ELACC, along with JOSE HUZAR, 15 years ago did not own a penny to themselves now monopolized housing?
Sounds like the city attorney is too lazy to do the job properly, so he’s looking for short cuts. This ACE program isn’t a short cut, it’s an abuse of office. Shameful, shameful.
Nuch is looking for a civil fine solution instead of misdemeanors which cause a glut on the courts and take costly City Attorney time.
The fines are already available for misdemeanors and every neighborhood has its own scofflaws who violate every known zoning and setback rule.
The rule of law is to avoid people shooting each other. We should not be reluctant to have meaningful rules and enforcement; it is a higher quality of life.
BTW Noel Weiss needs to go back to law school and learn what the word “brief” means.
5:29AM – You are basically saying that Nuch’s City Attorneys are too busy to do the job they are supposed to do, I don’t appreciate that argument. Will live in a civilized society and are all equally subject to the rule of law.
I appreciate that it is sometimes frustrating and time consuming to have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that it the cornerstone of our free society. What Nuch is trying to do is cut out the inconvenient legal system and create his own one that will deliver swift justice with minimal effort.
That sounds like a Police State to me, and to millions of others who are nervously looking at Los Angeles to see if this country is slipping into the kind of dictatorial leadership we otherwise condemn. If Nuch hasn’t got the skill set to fight according to the rules, the answer is not to change the rules, but look to the leader and change him.
I had concerns. No more, no less. I supported Nuch so my concerns shouldn’t be taken as an attach on him or his office. My concerns are about unintended consequences. There are always unintended consequences and it is better to address then before, not after the fact.
I second Noel Weiss on his excellent analysis. ACE should be AXD.
From this our City Attorney has a new name,
from now on he shall call himself:
DARTH GAGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As someone who had to contact Building and Safety about a code violation – a property line and fence dispute, I can tell you that our City does not have enough inspectors to handle the load if everyone found out their true property lines, and the real setbacks for their houses from the property lines. etc.
The City Attorney already can hold hearings for violations of unfenced swimming pools, etc. But who should the burden be put on if a property line is not marked by a surveyor’s X or a pin?
Who should bear the burden if a developer did not put fences or block walls on the property line, or did not put the house on the property in a manner that meets the required setbacks?
Everyone should have their new purchase surveyed before escrow closes.
Building and Safety Code Enforcement is Ignored and
Building and Safety Code Enforcement Ignores.
There are obvious and reported violations that relate to safety and B&S just passes them on and the homeowner in violation ignores the inspection. The inspector is ok with that.
Isn’t this like the police department saying you don’t have to have a license to drive, or a registration or insurance because we’ll just call someone to drive you home instead of impounding your car?
Take 14902 Valley Vista and the rest of Valley Vista, these homeowners are busy with their land grabs, putting up automatic gates without permits.
They place the gates at the curb, with no regard for the City recorded easements. The gates require that all street traffic stop for the homeowner vehicle which stops in the middle of the street waiting for their gate to open.
Someone in the neighborhood reported this gate installation for safety as the stopping will occur just after and before stop signs at Kester/Valley Vista and the two cross walks at that location will be also be involved in this middle of the street stopping while waiting for my gate to open – the council office has also received the report of the violation IN FEBRUARY. The homeowner had this gate completed last weekend- mid APRIL. The name of the contractor is also known – see http://www.permitla.org/ipar/index.cfm enter in the address – no permit for electric gate -
How about all those property tax assessments for street lighting? go see the hedges a block west of 14902 Valley Vista, http://www.permitla.org/ipar/list_csr.cfm?STRNO=14957&DIR=W&STRNA=VALLEY%20VISTA&SUFF=BLVD this homeowner grew a hedge against zoning violation- this hedge is so tall it blocks the street light on the west side. this hedges roots are at the curb and in fact it is so tall they cannot keep it trimmed. Is it on a corner or isn’t it? Can the cars rounding the bend see pedestrians. There is a city easement where the hedges were grown, but does the homeowner own the land now?
What about the carports converted to living space? enclosed and electricity installed?
If building and safety cannot even stop unpermitted building or cite non permitted conversions there is no hope for quality in a neighborhood. What about the street that removed their red flag day signs? They didn’t want to be inconvenienced by not parking where they wanted on high fire hazard days.
5:57 a.m. The problem is with Buidling & Safety Code Enforcement headed by a Mayor crony, Bud Ovrom. Call the Mayor’s office.
I will give you the actual “Truth” on someone who has been with the City of Los Angeles Dept. Of Building and Safety for a very long time.
The Inspectors do not always agree with what they are “directed” to do to get compliance. They are understaffed, over worked, not underpaid ( we have a good salary and benefits ). That being said it has become a matter of numbers. The Inspectors are given “expectations” of how many “Inspections” they are to make and how many “Complaints” they are to address. The emphisis being on “Complaints” ,now, because it generates a “Code Violation Inspeciton Fee” actually $325.00 per site if a violation is found. The fee is the same regardless of the violation. So you can have a senior citizen with overgrown vegetation or an inoperable vehicle parked in their driveway, or an LLC or Developer who buys a commercial building and illegally sub divides it into multiple units and gains $8-9-10 thousand dollars in rents each month. The senior citizen is made to pay the fee no matter how minimal the violation is, and the LLC or Developer pays the same fee dispite the fact that they are deriving income from their violation.
So you talk about “Unfair” it already exist. As far as gaining compliance on violations the fact is that most violators will not come into compliance until it cost them money. If that comes in the form of paying “Fees” to consultants, lawyers, contractors or penalties to the Court.
The process of gaining compliance for violations is long and compicated. If there is a way to address lesser violations thru an infaction it would help in gaining compliance on lesser violations. This would also hold the perpetrator of the violation responsible rather than dumping “ALL” violations onto the onwer who may not be creating the violation.
There are no easy answers. But there needs to be balance. Make fees and fines relative to the violation. Give people an opportunity to comply. It would cost very little to remove an inoperative vehicle from a driveway or get the overgrown vegitation removed. So imposing a “Code Violation Inspection Fee” does not allow for this and ,in some ways, does not punish the ones that “Knowlingly” violate the laws in order to profit from doing so untill caught.
In light of the “Abuses” by some “Inspectors” by taking bribes this happens and will always be the case no matter what things are in place to prevent it. You will always have in any entity or business those who will take advantage of the situation. But to be perfectly honest with you I can say that 98% of the Inspectors are doing the best they can in a difficult job, especially in dealing with “Violations” of the Codes. So pleasd dont beat up the people we send out to do this job. When one does get caught abusing the system or public or taking advantage of his position to gain financially or political position or favour with others, they should be punished. Their acitons taint the others who have no fault in this.
So if this “ACE” program is done correctly it can benefit both the public and the city by streamlining the difficulty of trying to maintain this City.
I withold my name for obvious reasons in that some how “Truth” has become a liability and those who bring it to light become a liability to be dealt with.
I agree with all comments regarding “potential abuse” by city bureaucrats in impletmenting ACE with this one caveat:
LAHD and politicians have generally lied, cheated and stolen properties to line the pockets of developer cronies.
The word “potential” does not apply in describing the abuse by L.A. city officials of all stripes. The abuse by alleged “Code Enforcement” is abundant and well-documented.
Real health and safety concerns are not what motivates the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats(redundant)to cite and enforce “code violations”.
LAHD routinely abuses owners in the following ways…not to provide safe premises…but to provide “targets” for rapacious and morally bankrupt pols and developers for “fun AND profit”:
1) LAHD cites owners for decades-old alleged lack of building permits that do not present safety risks and are outside of their authority,
2) Bureaucrats fail to properly notice owners, thus depriving owners the most basic rights to due process,
3) Inspectors and administrative staff ignore state and local ordinances that impart responsibility to tenants for damage tenants do,
4) They falsely prosecute owners based on spoliated or missing documents and refuse to honor 6th Amendment Rights to Counsel when owners have been stripped of funds,
5) LAHD impoverishes owners by siezing rent money, then prosecute them for not correcting violations,
6) L.A. courts use “strict liability” standard (i.e. no defense available)to prosecute and persecute owners when tenants have caused safety hazards and should be cited…not the owners,
7) LAHD and REAP have destroyed more affordable housing than they have created by building new housing developments when rehabilitation of existing structures is MUCH more cost-effective,
9) LAHD forces owners to give tenants exhorbitant “relocation fees” (up to $17,500) when owners need the units for themselves or family members. A card-carrying COMMUNIST LAWYER must have thought THAT one up!! He needs to have HIS income redistributed to “the poor”…that HYPOCRITE!
Eliminating many departments is what is needed…not just futile and ineffectual “reforms” and abusive revenue-generating scams, i.e. ACE. Government does NOT create jobs…the private sector does. Government merely gets in the way, overtaxes and over-regulates, thus causing revenue-generating and legitimate businesses to flee.
Carol
One inspector told me of an inspector who wrote up property owners, and his wife, a Deputy City attorney who worked together to force sale of the properties to their strawmen. According to the inspector, the husband was fired. The wife remained employed by the City Attorney.
As for the voice of the little guy– the homeowner, I voice one concern. When a residential code compliance complaint is registered, it is basically up to the Code Enforcement Inspector responding to that complaint to make a determination regarding violation and compliance. In my area– Slum Valley– comprised of the Northeast San Fernando Valley (North Hollywood, Pacomia, Sun Valley, Arleta, Van Nuys, Panorama City), or what I have in the last five years began to label Felony Flats, enforcement is sketchy at best. Specifically, one neighbor may have the same or similar code and zoning violations, and have a complaint lodged against them, but the compliance required by both may differ greatly. I am begining to suspect it may be cultural in nature. (Spanish speaking and non-Spanish speaking residents are treated differently– as in cash cow versus broke cousin). In particular, and verifiably, I know of one instance where garage conversions were done to two homes that were being rented out. Not an uncommon violation in LA given the housing crisis and economic climate. A complaint was lodged against one homeowner, who was subsequently required to pull the proper permits, undergo additional inspections, upgrade the electrical service, certify the garage conversion was not a sleeping area(a bedroom),install smoke detectors, obtain an occupancy certificate and a Business License, because being a landlord is considered a taxable business in LA, as well as erect a carport and widen the driveway. That homeowner was an Anglo. The second homeowner, who is located directly adjacent, undertook the same exact type of garage conversion a little while afterwards. He also rented the residence out– with the addition of a tenant living in a garden shed in the rear yard– complete with phone line, electrical extension cord, and bucket toilet. A complaint was filed with LABS. It contained a letter detailing the nature and dates of the construction, including vehicle license numbers of unlicensed contractor’s, photos of workers– none covered by Workman’s Compensation– as well as photos of the actual construction process, including the debris generated by remodeling. The work commenced on Friday afternoon and concluded on Sunday evening for four consecutive weeks. This obviously corresponds to the off-hours of LABS. There could be little doubt that building permits were not pulled and business licenses were not issued. The same inspector was dispatched. After his inspection, the phone line and the extension cord were removed. The garage conversion remained, without certification of use, no carport was required to be constructed in spite of the same amount of parking space as the adjoining “cited” property, no occupancy permit was required to be obtained, no smoke detectors were ever installed, the electrical sevice remains obsolete, and my guess is no Business License was ever obtained to operate the business of being an LA landlord. On the LABS website “Property Activity Report,” the investigation was signed off as unfounded (no corrections issued) and completed. The renters and the homeowners are of Mexican descent– as is the inspector, or at least his surname denotes as much. In essence, we have two complaints generated by the public with exactly the same violations present– located side-by-side– but only one homeowner is cited and compelled to comply with the regualtions. In light of the FBI charging two of LABS inspectors with accepting bribes, this is not too surprising a development. Maybe one of the checks and balances initiated in any attempt to alter or to improve city services for the constituents, with regard to code and zoning enforcement, might be for the Office of Integrity to conduct stings. Uncover and catch the inequity and then assign proper cupability. Afterall, honesty and accountability are cornerstones of fiscal responsibility.
I presented a 15 page Analysis of the ACE ordinance to the Council Budget and Finance Committee along with a 4 page Summary. Only Councilman Rosendahl read it and commented on it. Basically, the ACE ordinance will not solve any of the existing enforcement problems because it does nothing to fix them. It just creates another layer of enforcement on top of the four existing methods. What it does do is get the City Attorney off the hook of going to court and trying to enforce the Municipal Code which is difficult to do, because most of the violations of the are misdemeanors involving minor offenses, which Trutanich, rightly or wrongly, does not want to criminalize. The answer is not to enact the ACE ordinance but to either (1) convert the minor offenses to infractions which are a $150 fine; or (2) amend the Municipal Code to give the City Attorney the discretion to charge a violation either as a misdemeanor (in more serious cases and with repeat offenders) or as an infraction.
The Summary of my Analysis is as follows:
Summary of Analysis of Administrative Citations Enforcement Procedure Ordinance
As a result of many complaints about the lack of code enforcement, the City Council is exploring new methods of improving enforcement. Currently, the City of Los Angeles uses at least four methods to enforce the provisions in the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). They are administrative processes, including Notices to Comply, civil penalties, and criminal process. None of them are providing effective code enforcement and haven’t for the past 50 years, resulting in hundreds of thousands of violations which have never been cited or corrected.
The attached Analysis of Administrative Citations Enforcement Procedure Ordinance examines the current code enforcement procedures and reveals that the principal reasons that code enforcement is non-existent for all practical purposes are (1) a severe shortage of code enforcement officers, including police officers; (2) the failure to have an efficient system for the collection of fines, fees, and penalties; and (3) many minor offenses are classified as misdemeanors rather than infractions, making them difficult for the City Attorney to prosecute.
If these shortcomings were corrected, the current system of code enforcement would probably be as efficient, and possibly superior to the proposed Administrative Citations Enforcement Procedure Ordinance.
Because of the current inability of the City Attorney and the City departments to enforce the LAMC, the City Attorney is proposing to add another method of enforcement to overlay the existing mehtods — the Administrative Citations Enforcement Procedures (ACE). Unfortunately, many see the ACE as a panacea for all code enforcement problems but unless the structural problems that plague the existing code enforcement procedures are corrected, the ACE will not be anymore effective than the current code enforcement procedures.
The ACE ordinance basically provides for a single citation procedure in which the person cited will have to either immediately cease the violation, or be given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violation. The person cited may request an Initial Review from the City Attorney. If the City Attorney denies the person cited relief, the person can appeal to an Hearing Officer. If the Hearing Officer does not grant relief, the person cited may appeal to a court.
If the person cited can correct the violation within the time prescribed, no fine will be levied. However, any person cited must pay the enforcement costs called the Administrative costs. These costs are not fixed and can vary from case to case..There are no standards set forth in the ordinance for fixing the costs If the person cited appeals and loses, that person must pay all the costs incurred by the City for the appeal.
` The fines can range from $250 to $12,000 for the first violation depending on the type of violation. For subsequent violations fines can range from $500 on a second violation to $24,000. Third violations range from $1,000 to $48,000. In certain cases where a permit was not obtained, the fine is multiplied by four.
The Hearing Officer has the discretion to reduce the fine but also has the discretion to increase the fine as much as $1,000.
Examining the proposed ACE ordinance, the following is a summary of the arguments for and against adopting the ACE ordinance. It should be noted that in the attached Analysis, the Analysis does not agree with either the City Attorney or the Chief Administrative Officer as to all the merits of the ACE ordinance.
1. ACE will create a consolidated and uniform system of code enforcement.
Pro: It will provide a uniform method of issuing citations for code violations and a uniform system for hearings on appeals from such citations in contrast to the different procedures each department has developed for enforcing violations of code provisions over which they have jurisdiction.
Con:
● Each department has an expertise concerning the code sections which the department administers and is better able to judge a violation than an Administrative Hearing Officer who is not familiar with the way the department administers the code sections within its jurisdiction.
● Violators would not have the opportunity to request variances, slight modifications, and other forms of administrative relief as a means of correcting the violation.
● Violators would not have the right of appeal to the Board of Building Commissioners, the Area Planning Commissions, or the Board of Public Works, as the case may be.
2. Implementation of ACE will result in greater efficiencies and faster compliance.
Pro: The current process of enforcing low level violations is labor intensive and time consuming. However, under the ACE program, enforcement officers, police officers and inspectors will have the ability to issue administrative citations for low level violations, while achieving real-time compliance. Issuance or an administrative citation will deter behavior and repeat violations thereby reducing the amount of time and effort spent on enforcement.
Con:
● The process of enforcing violations under the current procedures is no more intensive and time consuming than enforcement under ACE and may even be less. What is time consuming and labor intensive under the current procedures is the filing of misdemeanor complaints for low level violations. This can be corrected by making low level violations infractions rather than misdemeanors.
● The issuance of administrative citations will not deter violations since most violations result from the average citizen’s ignorance of the provisions of the LAMC. One cannot be deterred from violating a code provision that the violator is unaware of. ACE is no more effective than the current enforcement procedures in punishing repeat offenders.
3. ACE will result in greater revenue for the City during the budget crisis.
Pro: The ACE program will allow for the ability to charge administrative fines for any municipal code violation along with the ability to recapture enforcement and administrative costs for departments where none may currently exist.
Con:
● Unless the City creates an effective collection program, the amount of fines and fees generated by ACE probably not increase significantly and will not cover the costs of enforcement. Moreover, an effective collection program would also significantly increase the amount of revenue under the current enforcement programs.
● While it is true that ACE will permit departments to recapture enforcement and administration costs in the few enforcement programs that currently do not have or require them, there is a policy reason for not imposing fines and enforcement costs in many cases. The City Council in its wisdom, has waived fines and enforcement costs on Notices to Comply because the Council is aware that most violations result from ignorance of the Code and the Council is more interested in securing prompt compliance than punishing the violators.
● There are concerns that the ACE will become a “cash cow’ as it has in other cities, such as Bell, and other local agencies, and that it will be vigorously and arbitrarily and unfairly enforced to maximize the revenues from the program, similarly to the City’s parking enforcement program.
4. ACE will make better use of legal resources.
Pro: The Office of the City Attorney is mandated to prosecute all misdemeanors and other criminal violations within the jurisdiction of the City. This mandate ties up resources which might be used more effectively elsewhere. The ACE program would free up resources (city enforcement officers and city attomey staff) for more serious criminal and civil actions. Con:
● There are approximately a 1,000 sections in the LAMC which are subject to prosecution if violated. Most of violations are classified as misdemeanors. Most of the more common violations which are misdemeanors are minor such as failure of a homeowner to clean the sidewalk in front of a home. If these minor violations were classified as infractions, or the City Attorney is given the discretion to prosecute either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, the number of cases that would require prosecution would drop dramatically.
● ACE requires that the City Attorney conduct an Initial Review of any citation if requested to do so by the person cited, which the City Attorney is not required to do under the current procedures. It can be expected that a considerable number of those cited will request such a review which will seek such a review. Thus, any time saved by the City Attorney from prosecuting misdemeanors will be lost in handling Initial Reviews.
● Under the current enforcement procedures, most violations are handled administratively and the only court review that a violator has, is to seek a Writ of Mandamus which is very expensive. However, under ACE, the Government Code sets forth a simple and inexpensive means of appealing the decision of an Administrative Hearing Officer to the courts which probably mean that many decisions will be appealed to the courts because of the heavy fines and enforcement costs. Thus, the City Attorney may spend more time on defending appeals than was spent on prosecuting misdemeanors.
Other concerns:
There are a number of other concerns about the ACE ordinance. These are:
● The ordinance makes every day that the violation exists after the citation is issued subject to an additional fine and fees. What is not clear is whether this applies during to each day that the violation is not remedied, even if the violation is remedied within the time period given for compliance.
● Fines are draconian, particularly for violations involving improvements to, buildings, structures, or land where required permits were not obtained. The fines specified in the ordinance are multiplied by four so that the fine for an over height fence could be between $4,000 and $8,000 plus the enforcement costs.
● The Square Footage of the Improvement or Use in Violation Table is vague and needs to be clarified. Is the improvement or use include the entire property, or the entire building, or just the space in violation? How is it to be measured?
● What constitutes a Second and Third Violation? Is it any violation of the LAMC? Is it a repeated violation of the same Code section?
● The 15 day appeal periods are too short, especially for homeowners, who may need time to research the alleged violation and contact the enforcing officer, which often is hard to do, and to get professional help. Appeal periods should be 30 days.
● Administrative Costs should be fixed at certain amount, not more than $100 plus 10% of the fine. The ordinance leaves it wide open. Usually the fine more than covers the costs of enforcement so assessing administrative costs is overkill. Most violations require little more than a visit to the property and the issuance of the citation so costs are minimal.
● Hearing Officers should not be allowed to increase the amount of a fine. No court can increase the fixed amount of a fine so neither should a Hearing Officer. It smacks of trying to discourage appeals particularly in cases where the appeal is meritorious.
● Revenues from code enforcement should not go into the General Fund but should be used for code enforcement purposes. Putting these revenues into the General Fund gives the appearance that the only purpose of the ACE is to raise revenue.
● All misdemeanors that are minor offenses should be either reduced to infractions, or the City Attorney should be given the discretion to charge a violation either as a misdemeanor or as an infraction.
March 27, 2011
Guys this is certainly considerable. Nobody may be injure additional in such a credit crunch in comparison with Yellow metal Diggers. Because the united states manages to lose it is The big doggs along with Billionaires during the mind boggling price, gorgeous women via every single city location are increasingly being obligated using their condo rentals, still left in order to fend intended for independantly within the roadway without having their particular Mercedes, Louis Vuitton clutches, struggles to colour mild which has no Religious Dior eyeglasses. In addition, that distinct go up inside residence evictions will be flooding the judge method along with leading to substantial damages along with stress on the wives or girlfriends along with babies from the males exactly who earlier reinforced these types of Yellow metal Diggers.
When you uses a reputable along with deeply investigate that problem, merely subsequently can certainly you comprehend precisely how considerable that turmoil will be, intended for we all. Shockingly your salary had to help support your Yellow metal Diggers of your united states will be about $30Trillion/year, which is in excess of TWOFOLD your Major Home-based Merchandise connected with the location. More to the point they just don’t preserve the money, every single any amount of money that they acquire runs back towards the economic climate. There’re your DRENCHED Imagine any kind of OBAMA’S STIMULUS ARRANGEMENT. Bailing out and about your Yellow metal Diggers can provide an instantaneous supercharge in order to the economic climate. The truth is, considering that the Yellow metal Digger will certainly ordinarily expend a minimum of two to three moments just what exactly the girl is provided with, they have got your possible to obtain the economic climate totally outside that credit crunch. The location won’t be able to manage to reduce that amount of shelling out. To your reduced level, the better Chicago place won’t be able to manage to reduce Sun Plaza, Rodeo Medical professional. as well as the total connected with Beverly Mountains. We all have to have the countrywide Bailout plan connected with a minimum of $5Trillion to compliment the Yellow metal Diggers, recreate their particular shelling out, lastly educate the babies that people perform have a very dependable authorities.
More crucial compared to functional factors in order to bail out and about Yellow metal Diggers will be the MEANING REQUIREMENT. Certainly not possesses that world have the course connected with desperate additional desperate in comparison with Yellow metal Diggers. They have got zero fruitful power at all. As long as they won’t be able to trust in their health in order to change males, they’re going to easily deny your body food in order to passing away. This is certainly drastically wrong along with inhumane.
I determine what you might be pondering, when the authorities is already footing into your market thus to their shelling out spree, who’ll your Yellow metal Diggers be slumbering along with to the funds? You maybe additional gentle method for this issue that will is apparently common while using heart along with reduced course, NATIONALIZE THE MARKET INDUSTRY INTENDED FOR YELLOW METAL DIGGERS. Redistribute popular sexual intercourse to the who require that the majority of. Considering that Yellow metal Diggers haven’t any reverence intended for exactly who that they sleeping along with, rather than slumbering along with that will body fat bushy Armenian male inside Bentley,sunglasses sale, the authorities plan is going to be build to be sure that will she has slumbering using a bucktooth character on the midwest exactly who does not sometimes get access to porn, and also your pimply 45 season older Dungeons along with Dragons nerd exactly who continue to life together with his mommy along with stays her really like lifetime winning over off of in order to pc earned anime females, or it could be your Yellow metal Diggers is capable of doing the best proficient at the unsettled pound. Consider the best way delighted these types of folks is going to be. If you perceives regarding it,sunglasses store, the chances are generally infinite.
We have to have adjust. The most effective takes place the following along with you.
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink – bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.
Very revealing thanks, I do believe your current audience might probably want a whole lot more stories like this maintain the excellent work.