To whom it may concern,
We, as community appointed representatives, have come together to express our concerns in regards to the San Antonio Property Maintenance Code meetings that we’ve been participating in since April 2022. The SAPMC undergoes an update every three years, coinciding with updates to the International Property Maintenance Code. The SAPMC governs residential and commercial buildings and structures, establishing minimum building standards aimed at ensuring the public health and safety of city residents.
Code Enforcement has been a divisive issue for years in San Antonio, with community groups frequently calling for change to practices that often harm working class homeowners. The Development Services Department has received increased scrutiny since the publication of the Ousted report, which pointed out how code violations and demolition orders disproportionately affect low-income communities of color in San Antonio. Similarly, a city-funded report, Treasure in the Walls, concluded, “Code enforcement can also impact housing stock, and in San Antonio, it disproportionately impacts certain neighborhoods.” Understanding the context of how city staff interact with policy, and how their decisions have real-life implications on San Antonio residents is vital in understanding where we, as appointed members of the SAPMC Board, are coming from.
The amendment process, originally intended for five meetings, took a total of nine meetings at three hours a session. As appointed members, we volunteered our time to ensure the concerns of our community were heard. We were told that we were to serve in an advisory capacity and that we would not have the ability to vote. Therefore, we were under the impression that our input would be taken under careful consideration. Of the 87 amendments that were presented to the Board, 24 of them were internal amendments proposed by City Staff and the other 63 were proposed by the community. At the conclusion of committee work, 96% of the internal amendments were approved and only 11% of those submitted by community members were approved. The proposals that were disproportionately disregarded were submitted from public comment and community organizations concerned about the safety and accessibility of their fellow neighbors.
The concerns brought forward included, but weren’t limited to: the ability of code officers to order people to vacate their homes without a prior hearing, the failure of code officers to inform residents of their right to appeal violation notices or provide direction to the process for doing so, the failure of staff to help residents access city assistance programs, the failure to provide translation services, arbitrary decision making by code officers, and dozens of concerns related to confusing or vague language.
All of these concerns brought forward have merit. However, throughout these nine meetings, almost every amendment proposed to address these concerns was shut down by a representative from the City Attorney’s Office (CAO), Development Services Department (DSD), and the Building Standards Board (BSB) members. We have attached those amendments we feel were not carefully considered to this letter. It was extremely concerning to see the majority of community-backed amendments be ignored by the staff and voting board members. Therefore, we are writing this letter to publicly state that a majority of the decisions made throughout the SAPMC process were not supported by the appointed non-voting members of the board and that our voices, along with community voices, often fell on deaf ears.
Beyond the Board’s refusal to listen to concerns of community members, the Board’s rules and procedures were confusing and ever changing. Not only were these rules unclear to the community appointed members, who received no training and assumed their positions immediately upon appointment, but also to the members of the BSB and City Staff. For example, the community appointed members were originally told we would be allowed to make motions, but that ability was rescinded by the CAO in a later meeting. At times, motions were made, seconded, voted on, only to be rescinded after, as the Board seemingly had no comprehension as to what was being voted on or even discussed. For example, in one instance the Board had voted to accept a motion in which the CAO had advised against only moments prior. A non-voting member then commented: “You do realize that you just voted for something that legal counsel advised against.” Counsel then broke the Board out into an executive session to clarify what had just happened. Even accessing the list of updated amendments week-to-week proved to be difficult. Repeatedly, the staff did not timely update the amendment list on the City’s website which led to constituents being misinformed on the outcome of decisions made by the Board.
In addition to the general disorganization, City staff inappropriately interjected themselves into committee discussions repeatedly. On several occasions, DSD staff argued that the proposed amendments, aimed to make the code more clear (for example, amendment #80, #32, #33, etc.), were unnecessary changes as they were already part of DSD standard operating procedures (SOP). On the other side of the coin, legal counsel frequently advised against codification, claiming the new language would create further legal obligation for the City. At times, the CAO advised against proposed amendments due to the fact that it would create “more work” for them. This is not an acceptable reason to avoid codifying an amendment that has the potential to direct and clarify processes that many San Antonio residents will experience in their lifetime.
The refusal to codify best practices shows that DSD and the CAO were committed to protecting their own interests above community interests. For example, the non-voting members asked if notices of violations could be issued in Spanish as many residents are monolingual, noting the City has clear metrics on households that speak Spanish primarily. DSD explained the change was unnecessary since it already gave notices in Spanish. But then, confusingly, the CAO claimed it was illegal to have official notices of violation issued in languages other than English. When non-voting members asked if the Code could include that translation services would be provided for residents receiving notices, the CAO inappropriately advised that the City didn’t have the money to put resources into translation services. Another example of when clarification could’ve been codified was when the notices to vacate were being discussed. City staff told the Board that notices to vacate are simply notices. But, on the form provided by City staff the phrase “ordered” is repeatedly used. Our group explained the confusion this creates for residents who are often scared and dealing with a litany of additional issues at the time they receive said document. We advocated for amendments that could help with this confusion. But the CAO found no issue with the process and allowed for further confusion throughout the SAPMC at the expense of our residents.
Another situation of utmost concern occurred during a discussion at the final SAPMC meeting that took place on July 29th, during the voting on amendment #79. The Board took some time to read the amendment, which was followed by a board member making a motion to accept it “as-is” into the SAPMC, prompting the board members to call the vote. Granted, many of the board members seemed to not know how to use their microphones, but the appointed community members, City Staff, and members of the audience heard the “yays,” with the “yays” definitely having the votes. Before the “nays,” were called out, the CAO interrupted and provided a personal opinion demanding to know the reasoning behind the amendment and asking who wrote it to step forward. After a lengthy discussion, which interrupted the vote, the members of the Board seemed to have forgotten what they were voting on and tried to make a different motion. Fortunately, they’re not allowed to do this until the vote is rescinded, and even then the vote could only be rescinded by those who had previously voted “nay.” Unfortunately, all these concerns were not taken into consideration and the Board then decided to ignore the fact that they had voted “yay,” despite everyone in the room being able to hear. The Board proceeded with the notion that not enough people had voted prior, and then went back to rescind the vote despite our protests. Amendment #79 did not pass. Not only was it inappropriate for the members of the Board to disregard our concerns on amendment #79, but it was inappropriate for the CAO to derail committee work. The CAO was one of the biggest barriers to ensuring that community voices were heard, and unfortunately it was an uphill battle that the community representatives lost during these discussions.
Lastly, it is important to note that three members of the Building Standards Board are serving terms in violation of City Code. The San Antonio City Code clearly states that members of the BSB are meant to serve no more than four years: “Appointment shall be for terms of two (2) years. A member may serve no more than two (2) consecutive two-year terms for a total of four (4) years.” SAN ANTONIO, TEX., CITY CODE ch. 6, art. VIII, § 6-155.2(g). The City’s Boards and Commissions page currently states, incorrectly, “Members serve overlapping two-year terms of office and there is no limit on the number of terms that may be served.”
Three members have been on the BSB since its inception: representatives of D2, D3, and D9. If their positions cannot be filled, the positions are to remain vacant, not to be occupied by the previous members during this time. It is of the utmost importance that the BSB operates transparently and in accordance with city law.
The non-voting community members have spent so much time trying to do right by our neighbors, and it felt like our efforts were mostly ignored, if not entirely. We ask those who are responsible for moving this amendment adoption forward to reconsider the amendments presented (see file attached), and to prioritize community need and safety over maintaining the status quo.
Sincerely,
Appointed non-voting community members
Uel Trejo-Rivera
Ray Morales
Neftali Rodriguez
