pages: OaklandRedevelopmentAgencyAndCityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf, 24
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 properties. The ordinances adopted by the City of Fresno and the City of Perris in Riverside County specifically and proactively target foreclosed properties by requiring lending institutions to conduct an inspection of properties in order to determine occupancy and clearly evaluate measures needed to secure the property. Evidence of the inspection must be submitted prior to recording a notice of default with the County recorder. I do not foresee banks lining up at Oakland's door to register their properties unless there is a mechanism that compels them to take action before they move to foreclose. As such, the city may not learn about the vacant foreclosed properties until a problem occurs at which point our blight and nuisance ordinances would be the most viable tools to abate the problem - not the proposed vacant building ordinance. There is also a high probability that most if not all of the fees assessed against banks will end up as liens. In many cases, the fees and liens we generate through the proposed ordinance are likely never to be paid because of, both, the City and the bank's interest in facilitating the sale of. foreclosed properties and having them occupied by responsible property owners as soon as possible. The failure by some private property owners to rehabilitate buildings and bring them into productive use requires not only punitive measures like the proposed escalating fee but other types of incentives to facilitate development of their properties. My concern is that the ordinance will have the opposite affect intended and actually serve as permission for these problem landlords to keep properties vacant and shut down as long as they continue to pay their fees. I do not see the ordinance creating an immediate shift in the disposition of these buildings or resolving the problems they create. Stuck in the middle of the City's efforts to implement the proposed ordinance would be ordinary law abiding property owners who will register their property, comply with a set of burdensome regulations and pay for a program that in my opinion will have no real effect. I am prepared to make a motion to reject the ordinance in its current form and request that staff return with a policy that directly targets foreclosed properties like the ordinance adopted by the City of San Jose and a separate program or ordinance that creates viable incentives for private property owners to restore vacant buildings to productive use and monetary penalties for inaction. Councilmember Kaplan Code enforcement is essential to the success of the program given that if the enforcement takes place and fines are assessed the program could be self-funding. The registration should include more than just foreclosed properties, there should be different regulations for residential areas vs. non-residential areas, program should also include an option for people that sign up to have the information be public, so individuals looking for vacant property can have access to the information providing a more functional City of Oakland Page 24 Printed on 2/20/09 | 24 | OaklandRedevelopmentAgencyAndCityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf |