7 Comments
User's avatar
Neural Foundry's avatar

Really solid writeup on this ordinance. The Trespass Arrest Authorization requirement is probly the smartest part because it removes the biggest barrier to action. In my neighborhood we've seen property values drop around blighted buildings but nobody could do much because ownership was murky. Treating enforcement as an upfront requirement instead of an after-the-fact penalty changes the whoel game.

Empty Los Angeles's avatar

Exactly. One of the linked articles says that over 100 vacant buildings known to the County had the wrong address on file 😣 so this is a good workaround for quickly dealing with trespassers without having to first reach the owner every time it happens.

Duane Swierczynski's avatar

Wow, good on Santa Monica! I had no idea.

Mike Callahan's avatar

One refinement to your excellent post, Los Angeles already has clear regulations on the books regarding the need to secure vacant buildings, post vacate building signs and file a Trespass Arrest Authorization with the LAPD. Failure to comply is a fine of up to $1000 per day per structure, capped at $100,000 per year. It's not a question of regulation, its one of enforcement.

Empty Los Angeles's avatar

That’s certainly true. LA notoriously doesn’t enforce its own laws. Santa Monica, however, tends to run a much tighter ship, so I’ll be surprised if they don’t make an example of neglectful owners.

Gary Trujillo's avatar

The problem is that too few owns too much. That's why these properties are blighted. It's an economic disparity issue.

Empty Los Angeles's avatar

I think it might be a greed issue, first and foremost 😞