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

[not2cleverRed]

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.

While OPs property *is* vacant, OP is asserting that it is not abandoned. A vacant abandoned residence is both vacant and abandoned.

Where OP went wrong was in saying that s/he wasn't at fault for leaving the trash cans out because the tenants had moved "months ago" - at which point the property certainly sounds abandoned, or at least neglected, and a potential eyesore. A responsible property owner goes to the place when tenants move out and makes sure everything is in order. If, in fact, OP had done this, OP could have confidently said, "I shouldn't have to pay a fine for trash cans being there because those aren't my trash cans... Someone else must have left them there."

 

[Zigner]

While OPs property *is* vacant, OP is asserting that it is not abandoned. A vacant abandoned residence is both vacant and abandoned.

I don't see the word "abandoned" anywhere in the code section from Vallejo. Of course, we don't know for sure that this thread involves Vallejo, but I think it does based on the amount the city is asking for.

 

[KelseyM]

While OPs property *is* vacant, OP is asserting that it is not abandoned. A vacant abandoned residence is both vacant and abandoned.

Where OP went wrong was in saying that s/he wasn't at fault for leaving the trash cans out because the tenants had moved "months ago" - at which point the property certainly sounds abandoned, or at least neglected, and a potential eyesore. A responsible property owner goes to the place when tenants move out and makes sure everything is in order. If, in fact, OP had done this, OP could have confidently said, "I shouldn't have to pay a fine for trash cans being there because those aren't my trash cans... Someone else must have left them there."

I argue it's being "used," therefore not vacant. It's not abandoned, meaning never visited. The garbage can was in the street along with other garbage cans from the condo complex, not directly in front of the unit. Since I cancelled garbage months ago, there is no reason for me to check out in the street for a garbage bin that I do not own or rent.

I called them to explain the garbage cans were not my fault. I have receipts showing the garbage bins were picked up by the garbage co. The owner is the garbage co. I am not responsible:

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.)

I don't see the word "abandoned" anywhere in the code section from Vallejo. Of course, we don't know for sure that this thread involves Vallejo, but I think it does based on the amount the city is asking for.

It does involve Vallejo muni code, as I mentioned. Chapter 7.62 covers vacant buildings. I tried to link, but it the software wouldn't give me a clickable link. It's the same link you posted. "Abandoned" is in ordinance 1672, which I posted an excerpt of. It is hard to link to, since it's a pdf.

Here are the other cities', in the same county, definitions of "vacant." To me, the other cities have a more clear definition of the word "vacant:"

1. Benicia
“Vacant building” means any building that is not legally occupied unless one of the following is true:

A. The building is the subject of an active building permit for repair or rehabilitation and the owner is progressing diligently to complete the repair or rehabilitation.

B. The building meets all codes, does not contribute to blight, is ready for occupancy, and is:
1. Actively being offered for sale, lease or rent; or
2. Actively being maintained and monitored by the owner as defined in BMC 8.50.050. (Ord. 09-02 § 1).

2. Dixon
"Vacant" means a building/structure that is not legally occupied.

3. Fairfield
"Vacant building" means any building that is not legally occupied unless one of the following is true:

A. The building is the subject of an active building permit for repair or rehabilitation and the owner is progressing diligently to complete the repair or rehabilitation.

B. The building meets all codes, does not contribute to blight, is ready for occupancy, and is:
1. Actively being offered for sale, lease or rent; or
2. Is actively being maintained and monitored by the owner, as defined in Section 27.1106. (Ord. 2008-11 § 1; Ord. 2008-10 § 1.)

4. Suisun City
"Vacant" means a building/structure that is not legally occupied.

5. Vacaville
“Abandoned” or “vacant” means a property that is unoccupied, or occupied by unauthorized persons, for any amount of time. Conditions evidencing that a property is “abandoned” or “vacant” for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this chapter include, but are not limited to, overgrown and/or dead vegetation, accumulation of newspapers, circulars, flyers and/or mail, past due utility notices and/or disconnected utilities, accumulation of trash, junk and/or debris, the absence of window coverings such as curtains, blinds and/or shutters, the absence of furnishings and/or personal items consistent with residential habitation, and statements by neighbors, passersby, delivery agents and/or government employees that the property is abandoned or vacant.

 

[Zigner]

I argue it's being "used," therefore not vacant.

Then make your argument to the city through the appeals process, as laid out in that code section. As I mentioned previously, I hope you're within the time frame for appealing. Good luck.

 

[KelseyM]

Then make your argument to the city through the appeals process, as laid out in that code section. As I mentioned previously, I hope you're within the time frame for appealing. Good luck.

The letter and form they sent me does not say anything about the appeal process. It only gives a number to call, if you have questions.

I called the number asking how to appeal. Code Enforcement told me I can't appeal registration fees, only fines. I have to not pay registration fee and wait for fines. Then, I can appeal by paying $450 appeal fee. Per CE if I win, I will get my fine back, but not the $368 registration fee or $450 appeal fee.

Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

The letter and form they sent me does not say anything about the appeal process. It only gives a number to call, if you have questions.

I called the number asking how to appeal. Code Enforcement told me I can't appeal registration fees, only fines. I have to not pay registration fee and wait for fines. Then, I can appeal by paying $450 appeal fee. Per CE if I win, I will get my fine back, but not the $368 registration fee or $450 appeal fee.

Thanks.

The appeals process is outline in the code section that I gave the link for. Review and follow it. If you DON'T, then you are totally out of luck (and money.)

 

[Shadowbunny]

You say that the letter you received states: "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)."

So according to the code and your own admission, the property is vacant.

 

[KelseyM]

You say that the letter you received states: "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)."

So according to the code and your own admission, the property is vacant.

No. The ordinance reads, "or used." I am using the condo.

 

[not2cleverRed]

No. The ordinance reads, "or used." I am using the condo.

What are you "using" it for?

 

[KelseyM]

What are you "using" it for?

For it's permitted use(s).

 

[Zigner]

For it's permitted use(s).

I've given you your option...anything further here is just banter. File your appeal.

 

[not2cleverRed]

For it's permitted use(s).

You are not living there. You are not renting it to someone else to live there. You are not pursuing having someone rent it. The tenants did not leave the place in a state that required massive renovations to make it habitable. It seems to be a residential property, not a vacation home.

So, what are you using it for?

This is not a vastly personal question - you inability to share what you are using it for is why you are having a problem, because I strongly suspect that you have been equally evasive when speaking to others.

When you are evasive, people will conclude that you are hiding something and act accordingly.

Sell the property. End of problem.

 

[Zigner]

You are not living there. You are not renting it to someone else to live there. You are not pursuing having someone rent it. The tenants did not leave the place in a state that required massive renovations to make it habitable. It seems to be a residential property, not a vacation home.

So, what are you using it for?

This is not a vastly personal question - you inability to share what you are using it for is why you are having a problem, because I strongly suspect that you have been equally evasive when speaking to others.

When you are evasive, people will conclude that you are hiding something and act accordingly.

Sell the property. End of problem.

I *think* that he OP considered his occasional stopping by to gather the mail to be "using" the property. Of course, if he doesn't properly appeal it, then it doesn't matter if his interpretation is right or wrong. It's too bad he doesn't want to acknowledge that fact.

 

[KelseyM]

I *think* that he OP considered his occasional stopping by to gather the mail to be "using" the property. Of course, if he doesn't properly appeal it, then it doesn't matter if his interpretation is right or wrong. It's too bad he doesn't want to acknowledge that fact.

It was a hypothetical situation only. The hypothetical included etc., meaning and other things, not limited to. I posted to see what others opinions are on the meaning of "used."

I argue "used" does not mean "occupied." If we agree "used" is ambiguos, courts would look to the legislative intent of the ordinance.

Thanks for mentioning appeal process, which I am aware of.

 

[Zigner]

It was a hypothetical situation only. The hypothetical included etc., meaning and other things, not limited to. I posted to see what others opinions are on the meaning of "used."

I argue "used" does not mean "occupied." If we agree "used" is ambiguos, courts would look to the legislative intent of the ordinance.

Thanks for mentioning appeal process, which I am aware of.

And this, folks, is why we don't DO hypotheticals on this forum

Best of luck in your appeal.