pages: OaklandRedevelopmentAgencyAndCityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf, 23
This data as json
body | date | text | page | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OaklandRedevelopmentAgencyAndCityCouncil | 2009-02-03 | Concurrent Meeting of the Oakland Meeting Minutes February 3, 2009 Redevelopment Agency / City Council with vacant properties. Councilmember Kernighan: Two proposed changes to the proposed Vacant Building Registration Ordinance as follows: I/Section 8.54.030-Scope The requirements of this Chapter shall be applicable to all residential and non-residential buildings that have remained unoccupied for their intended and authorized use for more than one-hundred twenty (120) consecutive calendar days. 2/ Section 8.54.040 - Definitions Vacant non-residential building shall mean the physical absence of an approved occupancy by the legal or equitable owner or a legally authorized occupant or tenant in a building or portion thereof for more than one hundred twenty (120) consecutive calendar days. Occupancies located above or below the ground floor of a Building shall not be considered as vacant for the purposes of this definition. Vacant residential building shall mean the physical absence of an approved occupancy by the legal or equitable owner or a legally authorized occupant or tenant in a building for more than one hundred twenty (120) consecutive calendar days. In addition Councilmember Kernighan stated that the "Perata Bill" $1,000 fine should go to the person that owns the building vs. the land owner. The enforcement fees collected could then be used toward dedicated staffing for the program Vice Mayor De La Fuente The nuisance and blight problems created by vacant properties are a drain to city resources and compromise the overall safety in our neighborhoods and commercial corridors. However, I do not believe that the proposed Vacant Building effectively addresses the mounting vacant building problem and, in my opinion, creates a bureaucratic burden that would be difficult for Oakland residents and businesses to navigate. Oakland has two very distinct vacant building problems that should be approached on separate tracks to address 1) bank owned foreclosed and abandoned properties, and 2) buildings owned and held by private individuals that have been shut down and left to decay. Each problem has a unique set of circumstances that will require specific solutions to trigger the appropriate action. Combining the two problems casts the net too wide and potentially affects law abiding property owners who maintain and care about their City of Oakland Page 23 Printed on 2/20/09 | 23 | OaklandRedevelopmentAgencyAndCityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf |