San Francisco’s “Amnesty” Legislation to Provide DBI’s Defrauded Victims Half a Loaf

Remember when members of the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) colluded with corrupt developers and signed off on thousands of shoddy, unsafe, and sometimes even life-threatening construction projects? Well, San Francisco would like to say sorry to a few of its victims, by way of the new “Amnesty” legislation currently making its way through the local powers that be.

What is the New Amnesty Legislation?

The Amnesty ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Mandelman earlier this year, is poised to create a “time-limited amnesty program” for specific properties on DBI’s own property “audit.” The properties on this audited list are ones identified as being inspected by DBI’s now-imprisoned head official Bernard Curran, and which are subject to Notices of Violation (NOVs) as a result of Curran’s and his associates’ bad acts. Under the proposed terms of the Amnesty ordinance, the audited properties may qualify for San Francisco certification as “noncomplying structures” and “nonconforming uses,” thereby relieving some of these unlucky owners from thousands of dollars in construction work to remedy the government-caused violations. The Amnesty ordinance would also provide a “streamlined” application process for qualifying projects, and would waive certain fees and penalties. For those owners on the list who have already paid Planning Department and/or DBI permitting fees to cure project violations, the Amnesty ordinance would allow them to apply for a refund.

While the proposed legislation could provide some well-deserved and overdue relief to the victims of the City’s corruption, it undoubtedly will fall far short of making most of the victims whole. For one, the list of audited properties with subsequently-issued NOVs—i.e., those eligible for the program—is reported to be miniscule in relation to the actual number of properties subject to DBI’s past corruption. Moreover, even the potentially tens of thousands of dollars saved in permitting fees and penalties for some owners won’t make up for significant financial losses as a result of being forced to remediate, for example, structurally hazardous buildings caused by DBI’s corruption. It’s also difficult to imagine how properties with current life-safety issues could qualify for “noncomplying structure” or “nonconforming use” certifications under the program.

But, assuming the Amnesty ordinance reaches final passage, only time will tell how successful the program will be in curing some of the pain inflicted by these owners’ local government. And as they say, something is usually better than nothing.

Contact a San Franscisco Real Estate Lawyer Today

For assistance with abating property NOVs or other issues, you may contact Emily L. Brough at Zacks & Freedman, PC for guidance. Contact us at your convenience to request a consultation.

Neither this website nor this post are intended to create an attorney-client relationship.