The Neighborhood News Online

Does the City Attorney Have an Ace Up His Sleeve?

Details

Category: Community News

Published on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 23:34

Written by Laura Meyers

One of the biggest issues in West Adams and throughout the city is code enforcement. Or, better said, NON-code enforcement. HPOZ board members everywhere complain that neither Building & Safety nor the Housing Department takes seriously the responsibility of enforcing historic preservation requirements.  New developments are approved with no oversight or enforcement of conditions that were imposed.

Worse, in any neighborhood, try getting enforcement on unpermitted construction, paving over and parking in front yards, unpermitted window change-outs in historic districts, , noise violations and “party houses,” drinking in public, destruction of mature trees without license, and for that matter, unlicensed, barking and reproducing dogs.

There are too many violators all over town for city officials to keep up with their prosecutions. In 2009, according to Jane Usher, deputy City Attorney, some 17,000 unresolved Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) violations were referred by various city departments to the City Attorney for misdemeanor criminal filings. Half of those were indeed filed in court. But, says Usher, “The Criminal Courts abhor prosecutions for code violations.  Their patience and tolerance for code violations is low.”

That’s why many neighborhood activists were happy to hear, early last year, that code enforcement reform was in the offing.  In January 2010, CD5 Councilman Paul Koretz, working with City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, initiated an ordinance to create a new, administrative rather than criminal, procedure to avoid the courthouse and yet still go after violators and their violations.  “ACE” (Administrative Code Enforcement) if enacted by the City Council, would be used for LAMC code violations and to enforce orders issued by Boards and Commissions. “We can also use ACE to enforce the conditions of a project,” Usher noted.

As the City Attorney’s report to Council puts it, “The existing code enforcement system in the City of Los Angeles involves a complex and extended multi-step process that can drag out for weeks or months, with little hope for a prompt resolution of the underlying violation or abatement of the potentially harmful conditions. City enforcement officers struggle to keep up with the backlog of cases. Moreover, the few cases that warrant criminal prosecution by this Office are often times criticized by the courts as mere nuisances that unnecessarily clog the dockets”.

Under ACE, any department that deals with LAMC violations (from Animal Services to Planning, Housing, Building & Safety, the Fire Department, LAPD, and Transportation) will be able to issue a ticket, sending the violator into an administrative hearing process. The City Attorney staff would evaluate each situation to determine if the ticket is valid, or not. For those that are, the accused would be offered two choices: pay the fine and comply (and it’s then over). Or, appeal the ticket, pay the fine amount as bail into a trust fund, and ask for an administrative hearing.

The City Attorney is urging City Council to adopt the ACE proposal. In a statement, Carmen Trutanich said, “The proposed ACE program is a comprehensive and self-funding administrative citation, hearing and enforcement program that will capture a wide range of low-grade municipal code violations and free up scarce courtrooms and law enforcement officers for more serious crimes and civil actions. Many municipalities, including San Diego and Santa Ana (and more recently, Santa Monica), maintain and operate such citation enforcement programs.”

Unfortunately, in a report issued on March 7, City Administrative Officer Miguel A. Santana (who is charged with overseeing the City’s budget) wrote, “Although this Office recognizes the potential of this new program, it is not possible to determine at this time if this program will achieve full cost recovery given that additional unidentified costs have yet to be identified.”

“We recommend that a six month pilot program be implemented with the Department of Animal Services.  A pilot program will allow the City Attorney’s Office the ability to evaluate the initial framework, make adjustments as necessary and provides additional time to explore alternative technology options as needed. It is recommended that the City Attorney’s Office report back in six months on the status of implementation, program effectiveness and cost recovery. Thereafter, additional analysis by this Office will be conducted as to the feasibility of program expansion citywide.”

One is left to wonder if this approach will give a realistic picture of the effectiveness of this important program.

(reprinted with permission from the WAHA newsletter)

Share

Tweet

• < Prev
• Next >