The Abridged version:<\/p>\n
The Sacramento City Council\u2019s Law and Legislation Committee will weigh in on a proposed enforcement program aimed at vacant buildings and storefronts deemed a \u201cpublic nuisance.\u201d<\/p>\n
The proposed program would place more scrutiny on vacant properties, and landlords could face up to $600 in monthly fees.<\/p>\n
A separate effort for a vacancy tax is losing favor and does not appear headed to the ballot anytime soon.<\/p>\n
Landlords with vacant lots or empty storefronts could face more severe penalties under an enforcement program the city of Sacramento is considering.<\/p>\n
The city aims to add more teeth to its vacant property ordinances that could add up to $600 in monthly fees for properties considered a \u201cpublic nuisance.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Sacramento City Council\u2019s Law and Legislation Committee will weigh in on the proposed enforcement program on Tuesday. If approved, it would go before the council in April for a full hearing.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, an idea for a tax on vacant properties has lost favor.<\/p>\n
Sacramento has more than 5,000 vacant lots<\/p>\n
Sacramento has some 5,115 empty lots scattered across the city. Under the city\u2019s current vacant lot program, only about half of those properties have registered with the city, and about 149 are considered a \u201cnuisance,\u201d with overgrown weeds or rubbish filling the site.<\/p>\n
Under the proposal, the city will substantially increase how often it monitors those empty and overgrown sites, and all landlords with a vacant lot or empty storefront would have to register with the city. From there, they would be required to monitor their properties biweekly and provide documentation that they\u2019re complying with city codes, according to a draft of the proposal<\/a>.<\/p>\n The program would be aimed at helping the city identify nuisance and dangerous properties earlier and would \u201creduce repeated responses to chronic properties\u201d by fire, police and building code staff.<\/p>\n Vegetation, fencing regulated<\/p>\n The proposal would limit how high vegetation could grow on the properties and impose new requirements for fencing. Vacant, boarded up buildings would also be deemed a nuisance property as well as any buildings with signs for an inactive business.<\/p>\n Parking lots, community gardens, farms and sites with an active building permit would be exempt from the monitoring program.<\/p>\n Steep fees for nuisances<\/p>\n Properties declared a nuisance would face an initial $1,079 fee for lots and a $2,146 fee for buildings. The city would then monitor those properties and charge monthly monitoring fees of about $600 aimed at clearing any violations on the site. Properties would have to go 24 months without any violations before they could be taken off the monitoring list, according to the draft proposal.<\/p>\n To accommodate those additional inspections, the city would have to add between 10 and 25 new city staff positions. Fees for the program would fully cover the cost of more staff, according to the draft proposal.<\/p>\n \u2018Ineffective\u2019 approach, opponents say<\/p>\n Wayne Winegarden, an economic researcher with the Pacific Research institute, said that the policy was an ineffective way of dealing with vacant properties. He warned that such penalties could make it harder for landlords to sell their properties or build on them.<\/p>\n \u201cThis strikes me as the wrong approach,\u201d Winegarden said. \u201cWe know that the big problem in terms of building is the fees, the time, the administrative burden \u2026 that drives up the cost of building.\u201d<\/p>\n City continues to explore vacancy tax<\/p>\n The council committee will discuss the vacancy tax on empty properties, which would result in thousands of dollars in penalties. But city staff recommended that the idea be shelved to pursue the enforcement program. <\/p>\n