RETHINKING LA - When it comes to obeying the law, ignorance is no excuse, but in Los Angeles, when it comes to those who enforce the law, ignorance is bliss.
LA’s City Hall is a Byzantine morass of departments that all come with their own unique history and traditions. They fall into three categories.
These departments have their own gravitational pull.
Departments such as Police, Fire, Planning, Public Works, Recreation & Parks, and Neighborhood Empowerment are all Charter departments, created and organized as dictated by the city charter, “the supreme law of the city, subject only to conflicting provisions in the federal and state Constitutions and to preemptive state law.”
These departments are controlled by the Mayor and the City Council, typically with adjustments to their operating budgets.
Theoretically, the third tier of LA’s departmental hierarchy is the Ordinance departments, created by City Council with a simple legislative act. These departments include Transportation, Housing, and Building & Safety.
Ordinance departments have no charter guarantee and must justify their existence through “cost recovery” measures that perpetuate a vicious cycle of predatory fees, fines, and penalties.
One might argue that the enforcement of laws, rules, and codes are all part of the delivery of city services and is an integral element of a commitment to public safety.
This is true, but the application of the law should be even, based on public safety commitments, and not simply on the potential for the creation of revenue.
It has been 87 years since Building & Safety was first given the authority to enforce all ordinances and laws related to buildings and structures in the City of LA. It has been 33 years since Transportation was given responsibility for traffic control and other transportation issues. Is has been 22 years since the Housing Department came into existence with the mandate of preserving and promoting good housing.
Somehow, along the way, the commitment to public safety, smooth flowing streets, and quality housing has shifted to a commitment to the Mayor’s “cost recovery” mandate, one that puts revenue generation ahead of a standards driven application of the law.
To make things worse, it is apparent that the fine line between the law and the tradition is getting progressively blurred to the point that councilmembers and department heads are unclear on the difference.
Councilman Rosendahl, when discussing the City Attorney’s ill-fated ACE program, contended that the City of LA “has a legal mandate to enforce the law.” This position was echoed by Councilman Koretz, the sponsor of the ACE legislation.
When challenged to produce the legal reference that requires the City of Los Angeles to enforce municipal code, council staff were unable to find any. The reality is this, municipal code is unevenly enforced, typically based on complaints and revenue potential.
Council staff for CD13, when discussing Fence Height citations, contended that the City of LA “has a legal mandate to respond to complaints.” This position was echoed by Dr. Grace Harper of the Department of Building and Safety.
Again, when challenged to produce the legal reference that requires Building & Safety to respond to complaints, Dr. Harper, Code Enforcement Bureau Chief with 34 years of service to the City of LA, came up empty.
The simple fact is this, hundreds of millions of dollars are generated each year through code enforcement tactics that have long ago ceased to be about public safety and the uniform application of the law, they are now simply revenue generation. Much of it is complaint generated which makes it even more efficient for the departments and empowers “code bullies” who manipulate the system and unleash department after department on their neighbors.
One resident in East Hollywood is responsible for a 515 page file of email complaints on his neighbors, a record that does not include his website generated complaints or his phone complaints. From Transportation to Housing to Public Works to Planning to Building & Safety, this “code bully” harangues city staff into enforcing his agenda, demonstrating the liability of a complaint driven system.
Dr. Harper, when challenged on the efficacy of enforcing the code through a complaint driven system instead of a standards driven system, simply argued that it was the law. She is incorrect. It is simply an internal policy, one that was put into practice several years ago when her department reorganized.
At one time, code inspectors would be responsible for a territory and they would inspect that territory. They would investigate and they would respond to situations that they encountered. They would apply the law, the rules, the code according to public safety standards. Ideally, it would be applied evenly and consistently.
Those days are gone.
Now, LA’s policy of monetizing code enforcement has become a tradition, one that is being treated as if it is the law. It isn’t.
It is bad business.
Homeowners who invest in their community should be encouraged, not preyed upon.
Property owners who invest in housing should be encouraged, not threatened with liens, garnishments, and legal actions for code enforcement strategies that fall far short of due process.
Good intentions were responsible for the laws and code that addressed LA’s need for smooth flowing and safe streets. Responsible governance was responsible for the standards that were implemented to ensure that our buildings are safe. Major reforms in LA’s approach to housing were responsible for LA’s commitment to quality housing.
Since then, good intentions and responsible governance have fallen by the wayside and the City of LA is churning out code enforcement activities with such a vengeance that property owners are losing their properties and homeowners are rethinking any investments in their homes.
Is the City of LA completely unable to distinguish between a slumlord and a landlord with a hostile tenant?
Is the City of LA completely unable to distinguish between a scofflaw homeowner and a resident with a “code bully” for a neighbor?
Is the City of LA completely unable to distinguish between the value of a standards driven system and the danger of a complaint driven system?
Most importantly, is the City of LA completely unable to differentiate between the law that governs enforcement and simple traditions that carry nothing more than an internal commitment to departmental organization?
When it comes to code enforcement , the City of Los Angeles has an obligation to know the law, after all, ignorance is no excuse.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: [email protected]. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)
–cw
Tags: Stephen Box, Rethinking LA, city departments, Building and Safety, Planning, Transportation, Housing
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 27
Pub: Apr 3, 2012