Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DBI presents nationwide code‑enforcement survey as notices of violation decline from earlier highs
Summary
DBI staff presented a comparative survey of 24 U.S. jurisdictions, showing wide variation in enforcement tools. Commissioners heard that San Francisco applies many enforcement steps other cities do not, and staff reported increased director’s hearings driven by restored staffing and improved complaint tracking.
DBI staff told the Building Inspection Commission on Sept. 18 that a comparative survey of 24 U.S. jurisdictions highlights large differences in how cities enforce housing habitability standards, accept tenant complaints and pursue penalties. The survey was prepared by the Code Enforcement Outreach Program with vendor participation and targeted major U.S. cities.
"We have seen a variety of discussions over the last few months on housing code enforcement," said James Sembomatsu of DBI's Code Enforcement Outreach Program, who briefed the Commission. The survey measured whether jurisdictions accept tenant complaints by phone/Internet, issue notices of violation (NOVs) in response, hold director’s hearings, levy fines or liens, fund litigation and offer online complaint tracking. DBI staff said San Francisco performs many of those functions and that, in their review, most peer cities do not.
Key findings and staff recommendations: DBI staff said enforcement tools vary widely. Some large cities such as Chicago were described as lacking housing inspection services and notably limited in follow‑through. Staff emphasized the importance of director’s hearings and the ability to assess costs or liens, and noted that when those tools are absent tenants are often left to pursue private legal remedies.
Operational context: staff reported DBI recently filled seven housing‑inspector vacancies and restored clerical support, enabling more inspections and faster case processing. The department reported approximately 5,000 inspections performed in the period discussed, and a complaint response breakdown of 49% within 24 hours, 32% within 72 hours and 19% over 72 hours. Staff said the additional inspectors will allow more proactive routine inspections and better tracking of older NOVs.
Enforcement tools under consideration: staff discussed administrative penalties and cost‑recovery models to encourage compliance, and flagged automation (tablets and Exela configuration work) as a means to speed documentation and enable inspectors to spend more time on complex cases. Commissioners asked for additional data by ZIP code and for more analysis of how many director's hearings result in orders of abatement and subsequent compliance; staff agreed to provide monthly breakdowns and additional metrics.
Public comment amplified concerns about case backlogs and leadership: former or current DBI staff and residents said cases sometimes stall after director's hearings and requested historical data by ZIP code. Public commenter Spencer Gosh urged the Commission not to permanently appoint current DBI executives and alleged managerial misconduct; that accusation was made in public comment and is on the record as an allegation, not a finding.
