I urge every resident in Culver City to contact the City Council and let the members know that you are opposed to the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.04 of Title 9 of the Culver City Municipal Code in its current form.
The ordinance is scheduled to be on the agenda for next Monday’s Council meeting. meeting of the council.
I ask the City Council to reject the ordinance as currently written for the following reasons:
First, the language is too broad. The ordinance is written in such broad language that almost any private property can be found to be in violation of some portion of the ordinance. For example, “structure” is defined as “any piece of work composed of parts,” which could be construed to be almost anything.
Even Your Attic Is Imperiled
The ordinance will now be broadened to define “Public Nuisance” even in “interior portions of buildings or structures (including, but not limited to attics, ceilings, walls floors, basements, mezzanines and common areas) that have become defective, unsightly… as to result in, or tend to result in, a diminution in property values…”
So the city will now be able to tell us that what we have in our attics may be a public nuisance. The definition of “Overgrown Vegetation” includes “vegetation likely to harbor or promote the presence of rats, vermin, or insects.”
Do you have squirrels in your trees or aphids on your roses? You may be cited. I could easily go on for several pages highlighting the language throughout the ordinance. Basically, if someone wishes to find an area of your property in violation, he or she can.
Second, there is virtually no due process.
For an appeal, the hearing officer is appointed by the City Manager.
According to the ordinance “Appeal hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. The issuance of Notice of Abatement shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation…”
In other words, if you get the notice, that is proof that you were in violation. Standard legal proceedings are not followed. Once cited, you are guilty until proven innocent.
Your Troubles Only Worsen
The Code Enforcement Officer isn’t required to attend the appeal hearing. The proceedings are not required to be recorded nor held in public. There is no provision for appealing a ruling resulting from the hearing. You have more protection when fighting a traffic ticket than you do fighting this ordinance.
Third, the penalties and costs are too high. If cited, you’d be responsible for the costs of investigation and any incidental costs in addition to any penalties and fees.
Each and every day you are deemed in violation of the code can be a separate offense, subject to up to a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. That’s for each day of violation.
An ordinance like this with language so broad is ripe for abuse of process.
If you don’t like someone’s statements at a City Council meeting, send the city after them.
Someone wrote a letter to the editor you don’t like? Send the city after them.
Want to get rid of a business competitor? Send the city after them.
Unscrupulous persons could easily find some part of your property in violation of this code. Any disgruntled neighbor now has a powerful weapon to wield just by “dropping a dime.”
This ordinance does not promote neighborly behavior.
This ordinance should not be approved as written.
If the Council feels the existing code that has served for decades needs improvement, put together a process with real input from the citizens on how the language should be modified.
This current ordinance goes too far in broadening the power of the City over its residents.
Sincerely,
Greg Valtierra
Culver City
(310) 204-1338
gregvalt@pacbell.net
