Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blight Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owners, DPW clash over graffiti abatement notices; board accepts amended assessment list after 33 waivers
Summary
At a public hearing on blight abatement assessments, dozens of property owners raised missed mailings, language access and unsafe abatement problems. Department of Public Works reported staff waived assessments for 33 properties after on‑site conversations; the board accepted the amended list 10–0.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors heard more than two hours of public comment on May 13 about a Department of Public Works report listing assessment costs for graffiti and other blight abatement work. Property owners and managers complained of missed notices, inconsistent communications, and the cost and safety of abating high‑wall graffiti.
DPW staff described the process required by Chapter 80 of the San Francisco Administrative Code (Community Preservation and Blight Reduction Act): inspectors post a notice of violation, the owner has 30 days to abate, and if the work is not done the city may perform the work and assess costs to the property tax roll. The department said it sends posted notices, regular and certified mail, and includes photo documentation with each notice.
Many speakers told the board they did not receive timely mailed notices, that they had emailed photos showing they had abated graffiti but received no reply, or that required abatement would have been unsafe or prohibitively expensive (for example, graffiti more than 8 feet up or on porous brick). Several speakers requested notices in Chinese or Spanish; merchants and small‑property owners said monolingual notices left them confused.
After public comment, DPW reported it had met with property owners in the hallway and waived assessments for 33 parcels presented at the meeting. The board accepted the department’s amended assessment list and adopted the resolution to add the remaining assessments to the property tax roll by unanimous vote.
Why it matters: The hearing highlighted a recurring operational friction between city enforcement and small property owners: communication gaps, language access, and the uneven burden of costly abatement. DPW’s on‑site waivers resolved a substantial share of complaints in the room but left broader procedural questions for the department and the board.
Follow‑up: DPW told the board it will finalize the amended list and record liens on properties that remain assessed. Several supervisors urged DPW to consider pre‑vote workshops, better contact records, and translated notices to reduce courtroom‑style hearings and improve compliance.
Attribution: Department of Public Works presentation (Alicia Witt) and numerous property owners’ public comments are recorded in the hearing transcript.
