Bill would let Jacksonville revoke business approvals over blight, crime problem

[coredumped]

How does jailing and or fining our small business owners help anyone? This is bigger government:

A city campaign against blight could lead to new rules to shut down Jacksonville businesses that regularly break the law.

Legislation filed this month spells out grounds city planners could use to suspend or revoke certificates of use the city requires businesses to have as proof they're operating safely and cleanly. People breaking those rules could face fines up to $500 and 60 days in jail.

"That legislation is going to make a whole heap of difference, because it has teeth in it," said Councilwoman Denise Lee, who chairs a council committee on neighborhood blight issues.

Seven members involved with that committee jointly sponsored the bill (2014-724) that backers cast as a tool to help enforce rules against a relative handful of problem businesses comfortable with breaking the law.

"We're not talking about shutting down Vistakon. ... These are very problematic establishments that are operating at the detriment of residential neighborhoods they are in or very close to," said Councilman John Crescimbeni, a co-sponsor. "We're talking about an extreme minority of businesses. It's a very small number."

Certificates of use have been mentioned in city law for years. But the new bill requires reviews by city planning, building inspection and fire officials before a new certificate is issued or one is changed when something about the business, such as the building size, is altered.

Lee has discussed legislation to simply rezone one company's property around 45th Street, effectively closing a store with a reputation for lawless visitors.

But she hasn't tried that yet, saying she'll leave time for the owner to correct problems a city official reported.

The bill filed this month would allow a certificate to be revoked if the owner "is engaged in conduct that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety of the city."

It also lays out other grounds for revocation, including if the owner has been convicted of violating state or local laws at the business three times within five years, or if the owner or an employee is convicted of committing a crime in connection with the company's operation.

A certificate could also be revoked if the property has been condemned or deemed a public nuisance or if the owner had been convicted in the past five years of a range of crimes including soliciting for prostitution or making or dealing in illegal drugs.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-11-29/story/bill-would-let-jacksonville-revoke-business-approvals-over-blight-crime

[strider]

The issue is simply that laws like this are very subject to abuse.  A bad business today and just a good one someone like Denise Lee doesn't like tomorrow.  The things a Code Compliance inspector writes up are very vague and very subjective often almost requiring mind reading capabilities to figure out what they expect done.  Much of what they write up is not reality based but prejudicial to insure the owner has difficulty in complying.  Especially when, as is most cases, it is complaint driven.

[strider]

I just went and read the proposed ordinance and frankly, this is a bad law.  It further erodes the property rights of all business owners and gives a lot of power to a few city employees that may or may not have a clue of what they are doing.  I know many will say "Well, if you do things right, you have nothing to worry about", however, like I have said and has been proven many times, so much of what MCCD, Planning and Development and even the fire marshals office ask for is very subjective and not always what the code says and requires.  Once in the system, if they want you screwed, you will be screwed. Even getting a new COU will be harder and puts the business owner at the mercy of what could be very subjective inspections. This ordinance changes the entire purpose, in my opinion, of the Certificate of Use process. Look at it this way.  As a business owner in Jacksonville, do you really want the likes of Denise Lee controlling your future?  That is what this ordinance will do.

http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2014-0724\Original%20Text

[sheclown]

It seems to me the change in the law is this.  Previous to the proposed ordinance, code enforcement needs a warrant to inspect the inside of a building.  The significant change would be that in order for a business to keep its certificate of use, it must allow code enforcement in to inspect.

The problem with this (other than the general mistrust that the public has with code enforcement) is that determining a "public hazard" has always been subjective.  There are no hard and fast rules and little training.  Buildings are condemned for a broken pain of glass or sent to the special magistrate for peeling paint (aka Mr. Foster). 

With the passage of this ordinance,  a business owner will be totally at the mercy of a system which as not proven to be fair or equitable -- certainly isn't well trained or transparent.

What a total catastrophe for a business and its due process rights.

Have we forgotten that there is already a law suit out there

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-10-22/story/jacksonville-consider-new-rules-surprise-inspections-settle-bikini-bar

regarding the overstepping of code enforement using DART?

[sheclown]

It already made it through committee -- looks like it is back to council.

[Noone]

It seems to me the change in the law is this.  Previous to the proposed ordinance, code enforcement needs a warrant to inspect the inside of a building.  The significant change would be that in order for a business to keep its certificate of use, it must allow code enforcement in to inspect.

The problem with this (other than the general mistrust that the public has with code enforcement) is that determining a "public hazard" has always been subjective.  There are no hard and fast rules and little training.  Buildings are condemned for a broken pain of glass or sent to the special magistrate for peeling paint (aka Mr. Foster). 

With the passage of this ordinance,  a business owner will be totally at the mercy of a system which as not proven to be fair or equitable -- certainly isn't well trained or transparent.

What a total catastrophe for a business and its due process rights.

Have we forgotten that there is already a law suit out there

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-10-22/story/ja

It seems to me the change in the law is this.  Previous to the proposed ordinance, code enforcement needs a warrant to inspect the inside of a building.  The significant change would be that in order for a business to keep its certificate of use, it must allow code enforcement in to inspect.

The problem with this (other than the general mistrust that the public has with code enforcement) is that determining a "public hazard" has always been subjective.  There are no hard and fast rules and little training.  Buildings are condemned for a broken pain of glass or sent to the special magistrate for peeling paint (aka Mr. Foster). 

With the passage of this ordinance,  a business owner will be totally at the mercy of a system which as not proven to be fair or equitable -- certainly isn't well trained or transparent.

What a total catastrophe for a business and its due process rights.

Have we forgotten that there is already a law suit out there

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-10-22/story/jacksonville-consider-new-rules-surprise-inspections-settle-bikini-bar

regarding the overstepping of code enforement using DART?

cksonville-consider-new-rules-surprise-inspections-settle-bikini-bar

regarding the overstepping of code enforement using DART?

+1 After 2014-724 then there is still active legislation 2014-471
Visit Jacksonville!

[Noone]

^Sorry for the double post.