Chair Sanchez questions special enforcement strategy: 7A, ERP, criminal charges, and COPA sequencing

So moving to special enforcement programs like emergency repair, 7A, the plan lists a number of strategies for being more aggressive for buildings with unsafe conditions, which is a welcome change.

But I think we should drill down on the overall strategy here, specifically what is your explanation for what will be used when.

So how will the various enforcement programs named in the plan fit together into an overall strategy for tenants living in neglected buildings?

What is the ideal use case?

for 7A versus when we finish Safer Homes and the Intro 657, the third-party transfer reform, that legislation versus COPA versus criminal charges, when does each program get used?

So I'm going to answer and then also give space for Director Weaver to weigh in here.

But generally speaking, our first goal is always to force compliance.

So where we can get an owner to make repairs and do them quickly, that is the ultimate goal.

That said, we are aware that there are some historic small portfolios or individual buildings owned by landlords that have just repeatedly over the years refused to gain compliance.

And sometimes our litigation unit at HPD is bringing cases.

Sometimes DOB is bringing cases.

Sometimes we're both bringing cases.

And so what we are talking about under Fix the City is a really focused effort, which may include things like layering litigation, a 7A on top of an AAP, on top of ERP with DOBs.

I'll let Commissioner Tagani talk about their legal authority.

But then also working with the law department on new litigation strategies, including some that we think will be very helpful towards pushing for compliance, as well as the initiative

I talked about earlier in my testimony regarding the agreement we reached with OCA to expedite litigation for these very serious cases.

We do think time is...

actually the biggest frustration.

I know you've had frustration with vacate orders in your own district where you can just adjourn these cases indefinitely.

Tenants are literally displaced.

Often HPD is housing them in an emergency shelter.

So I think these tools sort of layered together with a very clear focus on either finally forcing compliance

or where we can't, really pushing to force a change in ownership.

The only thing I will add is that part of the strategy is also figure out where the right jurisdiction is.

So whereas HPD is bringing things in housing court, we work with the law department and maybe bring things in Supreme using criminal summonses and nuisance complaints and maybe team up together.

And then we'll strategize the sequencing of it to make sure that we don't conflict but actually push for change.

Yeah.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

And the other two factors that I think we'd consider, in addition to everything that my colleagues have shared, is, one, the level of tenant organization in the building or the portfolio.

We really want to make sure that we are following the lead of people who live in the buildings and pursuing a strategy that works both for the building and for the people who live there.

Secondarily, the level of financial distress in the building and working to sort of smooth the relationship between our enforcement programs and, again, the financial health of the building and really making sure that

owners who want to work with the city have access to the preservation tools and owners who are unwilling to comply have access to the preservation tools.

us to the litigation tools that we know can encourage compliance.