San Jose leaders are raising the maximum daily fines for absentee landowners whose properties attract blight and crime — an aggressive signal that one official says makes the city’s penalties some of the highest in the state.
The City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved raising daily penalties from $2,500 to a maximum of $20,000 for each ongoing code violation in which neglected properties become breeding grounds for blight. This includes overgrown vegetation and other fire hazards, homeless encampments and elevated levels of crime and vandalism. Councilmembers also raised the total amount of fines a property owner can accrue from $100,000 to $500,000.
“These increases are designed to ensure that fines are not just the cost of doing business for wealthy absentee property owners, but a real incentive to comply with the law,” Councilmember Peter Ortiz, who championed the proposal with Councilmembers Pamela Campos and Anthony Tordillos, said before the vote. “Our residents should not be forced to carry the cost of someone else’s negligence.”
After the vote, Ortiz told San José Spotlight this makes the city’s blight fines “the highest in the state.” A review of several California cities’ municipal codes indicates administrative daily fines usually range from $1,000 to $2,500 per day. The city of Blue Lake’s maximum daily fines can reach $5,000, according to its municipal code.
The increases come after years of frustration with a spate of longstanding blighted properties. The Lawrence Hotel building in downtown San Jose stood in disrepair for three years after a fire in 2021. Meanwhile, the former First Church of Christ Scientist building near St. James Park has been vacant and decrepit for decades under real estate firm Z&L Properties — whose co-founder, Zhang Li, was arrested in 2022 for a bribery scheme in San Francisco. The collective deterioration of buildings downtown prompted city leaders to explore steeper fines for out-of-town landlords.
In light of the increases, city code enforcement workers said San Jose residents shouldn’t expect all property owners to get hit with the maximum every time.
“The way we approach these fines can be complicated,” Chris Burton, director of San Jose Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, said at the meeting. “Not everybody gets the full maximum of $20,000 per day.”
City code enforcers typically respond to neglected properties with a compliance order explaining the violation, how to correct it, a deadline to comply, potential penalties and the right to appeal. A property owner has 14 days to request a hearing to modify it — otherwise it becomes final. The City Appeals Hearing Board then determines whether compliance has been achieved and sets fines if not.
Once the violations are corrected, the per day penalties stop adding up. If not, they’ll continue up until the new $500,000 maximum. The city can place a lien on the property if penalties aren’t paid. The owner can appeal the board’s final decision to a court judge.
In most instances, property owners comply voluntarily before a compliance order is issued, code enforcement officials said. Last fiscal year, officials reported seeing 94% of their 3,292 cases resolved through voluntary compliance. The remaining 6% required citations or “compliance orders” before reaching compliance. Officials issued 249 compliance orders, held 12 appeal hearings and brought 14 cases before the appeals board for continued noncompliance.
Mayor Matt Mahan, who similarly pushed this idea two years ago, lauded the proposal for balancing stringency with reason.
“There’s still flexibility built in for staff to figure out the right approach at the operational level — you don’t feel your hands are too tied,” he said at the meeting.
Mahan supports hitting absentee property owners with the maximum fine “philosophically for the worst actors.” But he said the city needs to be able to defend its fines in court.
Vice Mayor Pam Foley said it can be frustrating to walk that line.
“Penalties in my mind can’t be high enough,” she said at the meeting. “I had a situation in my district where trees were removed illegally and a fine was implemented, but it was appealed and the appeals officer discounted it ‘in the reason of fairness.’ I find it unfair to have cut down mature redwood trees.”
Code enforcement cases brought before the appeals board typically involve single-family residential properties. But officials say businesses operating without permits are also common. Officials say the city issued $563,112 in administrative penalties last fiscal year — and 18% of those penalties, or $54,571, have been collected so far.
“(This proposal) is not about penalizing small homeowners or businesses struggling to fix their roofs while working hard to maintain their properties,” Ortiz said at the meeting. “This is about absentee owners who repeatedly fail to act while our neighborhoods pay the price.”
Contact Brandon Pho at [email protected] or @brandonphooo on X.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.