LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY CARMEN TRUTANICH ANNOUNCED (02/09/12), THAT HE IS RUNNING FOR L.A. DISTRICT ATTORNEY. But, after promising voters, not only that he wasn't going to run for D.A., but that he was going to crack down on L.A. City corruption, THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED BY L.A. SUPERIOR COURT in October 2011, that highlights HOW CORRUPT L.A. HOUSING DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO OPERATE UNDER HIS PERVUE!
AND, THE LAW BREAKING OF LAHD, CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, AND ZUMA DOGG IS PREPARING A REPORT, BASED ON REAL PEOPLE'S STORIES TO TURN OVER TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES, WHICH I GUESS ISN'T CARMEN TRUTANICH:
AND TO HERB WESSON, ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA & L.A. CITY COUNCIL: YOU KNOW THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST DEVASTATING COURT RULING AGAINST THE CITY, EVER! (Though ZD still likes to think his Venice Beach one was. BUT, he MUST digress to the #2 spot for this one!)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
BARBARA DARWISH, Plaintiff
CASE NO. BC 398784
1. Pursuant to LAMC Section 151.05B (LAMC), Petitioner (Plaintiff) is entitled to writ of mandate because the City has a ministerial duty, under its Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), to register or renew registration of Petitioner's four rental units on Petitioner's property, upon payment by Petitioner of the fees required to register four units and upon compliance with the requirements of LAMC Section 151.05B.
2. The requirement of registration under LAMC is a revenue measure, not a regulatory measure, the purpose of which i to fund the enforcement costs of the RSO by levying a tax or fee upon a landlord for each unit that the landlord wishes to rent.
3. The City does not authorize its Housing Dept (LAHD) to use the ministerial provisions of the RSO to force a landlord to comply with the City's building code. The building code is to be enforced by utilizing the enforcement provisions contained in that code.
4. LAMC has not been amended, remains in full force and effect, and still requires that the City issue to a landlord, upon the payment of proper fees and the furnishing of an emergency phone number, the registration of rental units.
5. The City cite no legislative enactment that permit City officers or employees to use the RSO to enforce building code. The building code itself has adequate enforcement provision for its enforcement. Nothing in this court's ruling deprives the City of its right to enforce its building code using the legislation enacted to enforce the code.
SUMMARY: Los Angeles Housing Department has been ILLEGALLY denying property owners registrations and renewals of their properties, for BUILDING & SAFETY CODE REASONS, when the court had to remind City that the ONLY issue LAHD may concern themselves with is the fee itself. Adding that if the city wants to bust people on Building & Safety code, they have to have the Building & Safety Department do that, since B & S Dept has their own enforcement system.
LANDORD STORY #1
East Regional Office
2215 North Broadway
Los Angeles, CA 90031
In September 2011, this month, I have received a number of documents related to the case specified above that concerns my property at XXXX Street, Los Angeles 900XX. These documents are:
1. Received on September 16, Statement #XXXX dated August 31, 2011, Invoice Id XXXXX
This document is a service statement with a payment coupon requesting the amount of $201.50 be paid by September 30, 2011.
2. Received on September 29, 2011, Statement #XXXX, dated September 23, 2011, Invoice Id XXX. This is a service statement with a payment coupon requesting that the amount of $400. be paid by October 24, 2011. Why am I being charged this $400. AIF fee on the same date that Jack Meijer inspected ?
3. Received on September 29, 2011 in same envelope as above, a Failure to Comply notice. This document bears the East Regional Office telephone number, 323-226-9819. I left messages on this number on Sept. 19 and earlier today on Sept. 30. I also attempted to reach Ruby Gonzalez, 323-226-9809, who was referred by the voice message I heard when I called the number above today.
No one has called me back, so I am writing this letter to explain my situation, and to dispute these charges.
Chain of events re this case #XXXX:
1. I received an Inspection Notice announcing an inspection on May 23. The inspection by Inspector Jack Meijer took place on June 9, 2011. The outcome of that inspection was that On June 10 I received a " Notice and Order to Comply " citing several minor violations including replacing smoke detectors that had been disabled by tenants, replacing a missing screen, and replacing 4 GFI receptacles. The notice also requested that I open a stairway in Unit #1. The notice requested that I complete the work cited by July 17. A re-inspection was scheduled for July 21, 2011 and I made sure to correct all the items noted.
2. I met Inspector Meijer on the property on July 21. He did not inspect to assure my compliance. Instead, he gave me a new order to comply, dated July 21, 2011, listing the same violations that appeared on the Order to Comply of June 10 plus listing "unapproved construction" and "unapproved use or occupancy" for Unit #1. Please note that unit #1 was not occupied at this time. Further, this Order listed "unapproved construction approved use 6, current use 8." This order also requested that I secure a "department letter from building and safety" determining the "number of approved buildings and useage". The re-inspection date was noted as August 30, 2011.
3. During the following week I went to the LA DBS on Figueroa St. I was informed that the process to obtain a zoning letter was slow and that I would not obtain it by the re- inspection date of August 30.
4. On August 30, the scheduled re-inspection date, Inspector Jack Meijer inspected the property and signed off on all the minor violations that I had corrected by July 21. During this inspection, Unit #XX and Unit #XX were not occupied. I informed Inspector Meijer that I could not obtain the letter from DBS because of the time constraint.
5. In August I met with Kai Newkirk In the office of Councilman Jose Huizar of the 14th District where my property is located. Mr. Newkirk arranged a meeting between LA DBS Inspector Mark Van Slooten and me. I met Inspector Van Slooten at his office on September 8. On the afternoon of Sept 8 I met Inspector Van Slooten at the property, where he determined that my documents relating to the number of registered units on the property coincided with what he observed on his inspection. On Sept. 9 Inspector Van Slooten issued a Field Report headed case # 428113 verifying these observations. I presented these notes to LAHD to James Heiberg in his office on Sept. 15 because he told me that he was not satisfied with Van Slooten's determination, and suggested that I get a letter from Mr. Dakarai Smith of DBS Office of Engineering determining the actual number of units. Mr. Heiberg also informed me that I was in a queue to acquire a hearing date that could take at least two to three weeks and
maybe more. Mr. Heiberg further added that if I received a letter from Mr. Dakarai Smith before I received a hearing date that no hearing would be necessary.
6. I spoke with Mr. Smith on Sept. 15. Mr. Smith advised me to file a zoning application with his Department. I did so on September 21, 2011. Included in my application were maps, building permits, property tax bills, and statements of registration for seven units, statement of annual bill from the City of Los Angeles for seven units, and other documents. Even though I paid an expedited fee of over $300., I was informed that a determination could take months. I have yet to receive a response.
After reading the above, I am sure you will appreciate my frustration in attempting to resolve the matter. Not only have I paid considerable money, but also I have expended much time and effort in appearing for inspections, traveling from office to office and making follow up calls to numerous people. In face-to-face meetings with various officials, I have been treated very
respectfully. I am peddling as fast as I can in an attempt to meet your demands but I don't feel that I am being heard. The stress of this activity is wearing on my health. My income as a landlord is negatively affected. In over twenty years as owner of this property, I have complied with numerous inspections without a citation. This matter began with a complaint by a (allegedly clinically disturbed)tenant, in retaliation for an eviction. Now I am being punished unfairly for offenses that I am guilty of in the eyes of this former tenant. As a property owner, tax-payer and small business man, I am shocked and disappointed by this treatment.
At the request of Mr. Kai Newkirk, I will keep the Office of Councilman Huizar informed of my progress.
Zuma Dogg Fan!