What does "a building or structure which is not occupied or used" mean?

[KelseyM]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My city has a Property Registration Program that reads "vacant and foreclosed residential buildings" are required to register. The city sent me a notice requiring me to pay a registration fee.

The city ordinance under definitions shows:

“Vacant building” shall mean a building or structure which is not occupied or used for more than thirty days, whether made vacant by voluntary action, fire, or other damage, or as a result of enforcement action by the city.

My condo (not in foreclosure, no code violations) is not occupied by a tenant. If I visit (e.g., check on condition, pay HOA fees, etc.) a few times a month, does this mean the property is not vacant under the city ordinance definition? Also, I am not sure of the meaning of "or" (inclusive or exclusive).

"Use" is ambiguous to me.

The intent of the ordinance is for residential properties that are in the foreclosure process to register. The registration program and fee is not intended for properties that are vacant, only.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My city has a Property Registration Program that reads "vacant and foreclosed residential buildings" are required to register. The city sent me a notice requiring me to pay a registration fee.

The city ordinance under definitions shows:

“Vacant building” shall mean a building or structure which is not occupied or used for more than thirty days, whether made vacant by voluntary action, fire, or other damage, or as a result of enforcement action by the city.

My condo (not in foreclosure, no code violations) is not occupied by a tenant. If I visit (e.g., check on condition, pay HOA fees, etc.) a few times a month, does this mean the property is not vacant under the city ordinance definition? Also, I am not sure of the meaning of "or" (inclusive or exclusive).

"Use" is ambiguous to me.

The intent of the ordinance is for residential properties that are in the foreclosure process to register. The registration program and fee is not intended for properties that are vacant, only.

Why don't you contact the folks who run the program and explain your situation? They will be able to provide appropriate guidance.

 

[xylene]

Why don't you contact the folks who run the program and explain your situation? They will be able to provide appropriate guidance.

One reason not to do this: They've already deemed the property vacant and are trying to collect a fees (tax) and they are going to take any questions as an admission the property is vacant.

You need a lawyer an/or a strategy for skirting the requirments of this law, perhaps by 'actively' marketing the property for lease at a high rate or something or creating a tenant entity to prove occupancy.

Get creative.

Don't expect that the taxing agency who has already sent you a due bill along with a threat of an enormous fine to tell you how to avoid paying.

 

[Zigner]

One reason not to do this: They've already deemed the property vacant and are trying to collect a fees (tax) and they are going to take any questions as an admission the property is vacant.

You need a lawyer an/or a strategy for skirting the requirments of this law, perhaps by 'actively' marketing the property for lease at a high rate or something or creating a tenant entity to prove occupancy.

Get creative.

Don't expect that the taxing agency who has already sent you a due bill along with a threat of an enormous fine to tell you how to avoid paying.

I disagree about that being a reason to not contact them. The fact that they'e already decided it's vacant means that the OP isn't going to be in any worse of a position by inquiring. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that, once they are aware of the situation, the city will reverse their position. More-furthermore, we have no idea of the amount of the fee. It's entirely possible that the fee is small enough that it would make more sense to simply pay the fee than to try to implement some contorted plan costing many times more. Lastly, I'm a bit surprised that you would suggest creating a fraudulent entity simply to avoid paying a few bucks.

 

[xylene]

Per cursory research of typical municipal CA laws on this, the fee is no doubt several hundred dollars, with penalties in the thousands.

Creating paperwork to establish 'use' and be in compliance with a law without paying an onerous fee is not fraud.

 

[Zigner]

Per cursory research of typical municipal CA laws on this, the fee is no doubt several hundred dollars, with penalties in the thousands.

Creating paperwork to establish 'use' and be in compliance with a law without paying an onerous fee is not fraud.

It could easily be construed as such. However, creating paperwork isn't all that's required. All you're doing at that point is shifting the proof requirement from the OP to the OP's phantom tenant. In the end, the result will be the same (payment of fees), except that the OP would also be on the hook for the penalties, as you pointed out.

At this point, perhaps it would help if the OP would tell us the name of the city.

 

[KelseyM]

One reason not to do this: They've already deemed the property vacant and are trying to collect a fees (tax) and they are going to take any questions as an admission the property is vacant.

You need a lawyer an/or a strategy for skirting the requirments of this law, perhaps by 'actively' marketing the property for lease at a high rate or something or creating a tenant entity to prove occupancy.

Get creative.

Don't expect that the taxing agency who has already sent you a due bill along with a threat of an enormous fine to tell you how to avoid paying.

I got a city notice of violation stating my garbage can was left in the street. However, I called and told them my tenant moved out months ago, garbage service was cancelled (months ago), the garbage bins were picked up by the garbage company and my account was fully paid (I have receipts from garbage co.). The man told me since my condo is vacant, I need to register and pay a $368 fee. He will be sending me a notice.

I received the letter and form requiring me to register in to their program. Here it states the reason I have to register and pay the $368 registration fee:

For the purposes of this program, a property is "vacant" If It is not occupied or utilized consistent with the property's permitted use(s) for thirty or more days. (Vallejo Municipal Code § 7.62.030(G).) . . .

Code Enforcement has determined your property is vacant or foreclosed; therefore, you must register and monitor your property consistent with our laws. (Vallejo Municipal Code§ 7.62.035(C).

7.62.030(G) "Vacant building" shall mean a building or structure which is not occupied or used for more than thirty days, whether made vacant by voluntary action, fire or other damage, or as a result of enforcement action by the city.

I will argue that my condo is not vacant as it is being “used.”

 

[Zigner]

I got a city notice of violation stating my garbage can was left in the street. However, I called and told them my tenant moved out months ago, garbage service was cancelled (months ago), the garbage bins were picked up by the garbage company and my account was fully paid (I have receipts from garbage co.). The man told me since my condo is vacant, I need to register and pay a $368 fee. He will be sending me a notice.

I received the letter and form requiring me to register in to their program. Here it states the reason I have to register and pay the $368 registration fee:

7.62.030(G) "Vacant building" shall mean a building or structure which is not occupied or used for more than thirty days, whether made vacant by voluntary action, fire or other damage, or as a result of enforcement action by the city.

I will argue that my condo is not vacant as it is being “used.”

Your condo is meant to be occupied by a resident, not left sitting empty. It seems to me that your property is being properly assessed. Stopping by every now and then to check up on the place is not being occupied or used. Any actions you take to try and skirt this, as was suggested by another poster above, is likely going to cost you more than the $368 that is being requested.

ETA: Of course, you could find an actual tenant...

 

[KelseyM]

Your condo is meant to be occupied by a resident, not left sitting empty. It seems to me that your property is being properly assessed. Stopping by every now and then to check up on the place is not being occupied or used. Any actions you take to try and skirt this, as was suggested by another poster above, is likely going to cost you more than the $368 that is being requested.

ETA: Of course, you could find an actual tenant...

I am not trying to skirt this. I am trying to understand the word "used," per the ordinance.

The "Vacant and Foreclosed Residential Property Registration Program" and $368 registration fee legislative intent is specifically for those properties that are in the foreclosure process, not for properties that are only vacant. Ordinance 7.62.035 was added to the existing Vallejo muni code to address only those properties that are in foreclosure.

A few quotes from the proposers (former Asst. City Manager & former Code Enforcement Manager) of the ordinance, while presenting it to the board, which is on video on the city website:

This would apply to any vacant home that is in any stage of the foreclosure process. They would be required to register, identify the point of contact, for maintenance issues.

The $368 fee and program is for residential properties that are in the foreclosure process. So, it is a narrow application. It is a subset of all vacant properties.

It is specifically for properties that go into or have been in the foreclosure process.

If it is vacant and abandoned, it does not apply. It has to go into or have been in the foreclosure process.

Excerpts from ordinance 1672:

WHEREAS, the presence of vacant, abandoned residences can lead to neighborhood decline;
and

WHEREAS, the presence of vacant, abandoned residences can create an attractive public nuisance; and

WHEREAS, the presence of vacant abandoned residences can contribute to lower property values; and

WHEREAS, the presence of vacant abandoned residences can discourage potential buyers from purchasing a home adjacent to or in neighborhoods with vacant abandoned residences;
and

WHEREAS, many vacant abandoned residences are the responsibility of out of area, out of state lenders and beneficial interests; and . . .

I argue that my condo is not vacant, abandoned or in foreclosure.

 

[Zigner]

I argue that my condo is not vacant, abandoned or in foreclosure.

Your property IS vacant. Nobody lives there. As I said before, dropping by a few times a month doesn't mean the unit is occupied.

 

[KelseyM]

Your property IS vacant. Nobody lives there. As I said before, dropping by a few times a month doesn't mean the unit is occupied.

If "used" is synonymous with "occupied," why would the ordinance add "or used?" I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your view. I am just trying to understand the words "or used" better.

To me the words "or used" makes it ambiguos. To me it is unclear and poorly written. Courts look at legislative intent, when words are ambiguos in ordinances.

G. "Vacant building" shall mean a building or structure which is not occupied or used for more than thirty days, whether made vacant by voluntary action, fire or other damage, or as a result of enforcement action by the city.

 

[Zigner]

If "used" is synonymous with "occupied," why would the ordinance add "or used?" I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your view. I am just trying to understand the words "or used" better.

To me the words "or used" makes it ambiguos. To me it is unclear and poorly written. Courts look at legislative intent, when words are ambiguos in ordinances.

G. "Vacant building" shall mean a building or structure which is not occupied or used for more than thirty days, whether made vacant by voluntary action, fire or other damage, or as a result of enforcement action by the city.

Your unit is not being used as a rental/residential unit, as intended.

Sorry that I can't tell you what you want to hear. Best of luck to you.

 

[ShyCat]

A residential building would be occupied, as is its purpose. A commercial building would be used, not occupied. Thus, "... occupied or used...".

 

[xylene]

A residential building would be occupied, as is its purpose. A commercial building would be used, not occupied. Thus, "... occupied or used...".

The law applies to residential properties and is specifically titled as such.

 

[Zigner]

The law applies to residential properties and is specifically titled as such.

Not if this is Vallejo, as I expect it is.

https://www.municode.com/library/ca/vallejo/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7PUHESAWE_IIINU_CH7.62VABU

ETA: I mean, it's not titled as such...but you're right, it is for residential property only.



ETA Again: In any case, the OP's property has already been designated as vacant. The OP will need to follow the formal appeals process. Information can be found at the link I gave. If the OP has missed the appeals deadline, then the OP will need to pay.