• 0
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Shopping Cart

GPAM
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Long Beach property owner challenges vacant lot fee

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Jon Coupal (LinkedIn, iStock)

An anti-tax group has joined a Long Beach property owner in a constitutional challenge to a city ordinance that requires residents be charged a monthly fee for letting their land sit vacant.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Frederic Sparrevohn have filed suit, seeking a declaration that the ordinance is void “unless and until it is properly noticed, properly substantiated, and properly approved,” the Long Beach Post reported.

Sparrevohn is seeking a $780 refund of the fee he paid for 2022 under protest.
A representative for the Long Beach City Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the suit, saying it had not been served and had not reviewed the complaint.

The city approved the fee in 2017, which aimed to discourage illegal dumping while encouraging vacant lot owners to join the city’s new Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone program.

The program’s goal was to provide opportunities for economic growth, community development, and to increase access to local organic produce, while reducing blight on vacant properties, according to the city. Vacant lot owners could link up with local growers to run ag programs.

Sparrevohn, who owns a vacant lot on Ultimo Avenue, appealed for relief to the city and was denied last month, according to the suit. He claimed to have bought the lot hoping to build a family home, but the city sought significant costs for plan review, geological investigation, police impact, fire impact, parks impact and more.

“I gave up on building for myself and decided it would be nice if I could save it for my kids so that someday they might be able to build there and not have to leave California for a more affordable place to live,” Sparrevohn, 78, wrote in a letter to the city.

He says he’s paid the annual property taxes, kept the lot litter-free and had it mowed about every other week at a yearly cost of $420, according to his complaint. He also claims the vacant lot fee, which pays for city monitoring of the vacant lots, requires proper notice to the public and approval by a majority of the affected property owners, or by two-thirds of the electorate.

“Having no such approval, the fee is unconstitutional,” his suit says.

His complaint alleges the charge duplicates the municipal code for weed and debris abatement, while targeting undeveloped property owners with a punitive fee that owners of other parcels don’t have to pay. It also alleges Long Beach hasn’t shown its code enforcement officers work any more policing vacant lots than monitoring other properties, for which it charges nothing.

“Without proof presented to the public that monitoring the selected parcels costs an extra $780 per year per parcel, the fee is void,” Sparrevohn alleges in his complaint.

[Long Beach Post] – Dana Bartholomew

[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]
Read more
  • Rexford buys 124,000 square-foot business park in Long Beach
  • Long Beach to accept 350 short-term rentals along coast
  • Tokyo-based firm picks up Residence Inn Long Beach

The post Long Beach property owner challenges vacant lot fee appeared first on The Real Deal Los Angeles.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • 14 April 2022
  • The Real Deal
  • Uncategorized
  •  Like
Google to spend $3.5B on offices, data centers in California this year →← West Hollywood luxury hotel hits market
  • Recent Posts

    • Is CEQA win first shot at a broader overhaul for resi market?   July 5, 2025
    • Hankey finances bargain-bin hotel buy near SF’s Union Square July 3, 2025
    • Industry group flails as CEQA adjustments hit California builders unevenly July 3, 2025
    • Orange County office tower sells for discounted $19M July 3, 2025
    • City to deploy $425M of “mansion tax” money in record spending plan July 3, 2025
  • Recent Comments

    • Archives

      • July 2025
      • June 2025
      • May 2025
      • April 2025
      • March 2025
      • February 2025
      • January 2025
      • December 2024
      • November 2024
      • October 2024
      • September 2024
      • August 2024
      • July 2024
      • June 2024
      • May 2024
      • April 2024
      • March 2024
      • February 2024
      • January 2024
      • December 2023
      • February 2023
      • January 2023
      • December 2022
      • November 2022
      • October 2022
      • September 2022
      • August 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
      • July 2021
      • June 2021
      • May 2021
      • April 2021
      • March 2021
      • February 2021
      • January 2021
      • December 2020
      • November 2020
      • October 2020
      • September 2020
      • August 2020
      • July 2020
      • June 2020
      • May 2020
      • April 2020
      • March 2020
      • February 2020
      • January 2020
      • December 2019
      • November 2019
      • October 2019
      • September 2019
      • August 2019
      • July 2019
      • June 2019
      • May 2019
      • April 2019
      • March 2019
      • February 2019
      • January 2019
      • December 2018
      • November 2018
      • October 2018
      • September 2018
      • August 2018
      • July 2018
      • June 2018
      • May 2018
      • April 2018
      • March 2018
      • February 2018
      • January 2018
      • December 2017
    • Global Property and Asset Mangement, Inc.
      137 North Larchmont
      Los Angeles, California 90010
      +1 213-427-1127

    © 2025 GPAM