Grand Jury and City Code Enforcement Abuse

John Locke talks about code enforcement tyranny

—John Locke, 1632-1704


This edition of Res Publica is not a typical VREG topic on City finances because it pertains to a recently published Grand Jury report; however, since the report addresses the aggressive collection of fees and charges by Code Enforcement, motivated by the need to raise more revenue, it is important to bring the details of that report to your attention as a citizen.  It is also extremely important for all of our citizens to know how others in our community are treated by the City Manager staff, who constantly remind us of their transparency, fairness and a sense of partnership with all citizens.



Bully is the byword of Ventura Code Enforcement officers.

The 2011-2012 Ventura County Grand Jury opened an inquiry into the practices and fee policies of the City of Ventura and its Code Enforcement group regarding second dwelling units and non-dwelling structures for the period of 2009 through the present time, and have issued a report condemning the Code Enforcement practices.


The investigation started numerous citizens complained of:

  1. Aggressive enforcement actions
  2. verbal threats from code enforcement officers
  3. unauthorized searches
  4. threatening documents
  5. preferential treatment
  6. unfair appellate system
  7. arbitrary enforcement decisions holding current or successive property owners responsible  for permits not obtained for work done prior to their ownership
  8. City Council and City Manager trying to raise more revenue through fines and higher permit fees to balance their budget


The backdrop for this started in 2008-2009, when the City began experiencing the financial impact of declining revenue, including revenue losses in Building & Safety and Planning.   Faced with reductions in sales tax revenue, like all cities, this council compounded our revenue problem with a spending problem.  Those spending decisions have come back to haunt us.  As a reminder here are a few examples:

  • $1,000,000 for a study to narrow Victoria Avenue
  • Council enacting a 911 tax that had to be reversed
  • A failed election effort to raise sales taxes
  • Council’s waiver of $1.5 million in payment of permit fees, which should have been paid to Building & Safety for the WAV construction project
  • Lending $2.5000,000 to the WAV developer, and then subordinating that loan to a CHASE loan on the same property. If CHASE elects not to extend their note again and forecloses on the 13 condos in this project that money is gone
  • Unfunded pension liabilities for police and fire of $42,288,412. That does not include the cost of the unfunded benefits for all other employees, which is approximately $20,000,000
  • In 2014 the City will have to pay CALPERS another $19,488,000, on top of payroll costs of $48,000,000, for a total of $67,488,000. That is 80% of our total annual general fund income


Intimidation is code enforcement's tool in Ventura

Ventura Code Enforcement officers use intimidation, according to the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury pursued an active investigation of interviewing citizens, government employees and reviewing historical documents.  The evidence and testimony of witnesses in such investigations is, by law, privileged and cannot be disclosed.  This report is an indictment of a system out of control. Here is an even dozen out of 44 facts which the Grand Jury found to be true:

  1. The Code Enforcement officers were aggressive and used intimidation to gain authorized and unauthorized access to properties in the City
  2. Code Enforcement badges are designed to look similar to the Ventura Police Department badges. Code Enforcement officers are not peace officers
  3. Code enforcement bullies Ventura residents

    Ventura Code Enforcement officers intimidate and bully property owners

    Code Enforcement officers claim to have more power than police officers relative to property matters

  4. Code Enforcement has acted on complaints that appear to be retaliatory in nature against neighbors
  5. The Chief Building Officer made recommendations and reports to the City Council to increase inspections, adopt regulations and programs to increase fees
  6. The City Community Development Department (Jeff Lambert) and Code Enforcement (Herr Stauffler) hold current property owners liable when no permit is found, for any work performed, even for work prior to ownership
  7. City permit and inspection record keeping responsibility is placed on the property owner by Code Enforcement staff.  There is no legal requirement for property owners to retain such permits or maintain records
  8. The City lost and/or misfiled permit(s) and inspection records
  9. The City has some damaged and unreadable permits
  10. The previous Code Enforcement fees are arbitrary and have little monetary relationship to the cost of services
  11. The City considers the new code enforcement fees are not a tax.  The Building & Safety Department permit and inspection process had been funded by the General Fund.  The same inspection activities are now performed, except the funding comes from the new permit fees — charged to property owners that build or modify structures
  12. The City stated that finding more code violations does not have a direct financial impact on the Code Enforcement group, but does significantly raise the permit fees for Building & Safety, and likely saves Code Enforcement jobs

Read the full text of the Ventura Grand Jury report here. For more, click here.



The City administration published the following response:

“The City of Ventura and its City Code Enforcement staff are committed to preserving and promoting the safety of all who live, work and visit our community. City Manager Rick Cole has reviewed the Grand Jury’s report and acknowledges their suggested policy recommendations.

It should be noted that the report includes no specific example of the problems cited, nor any new information beyond the complaints publicly aired before the City Council and the Safe Housing Collaborative going back several years. Those concerns have been the subject of extensive Council and staff discussion and action, which have already resulted in changes to the City’s approach in promoting and enforcing the health, safety and zoning codes. It should also be noted that despite the public play of a few complaints, the City’s approach to code compliance is compassionate and patient in working with property owners.”


Editors Comments:

The response by the City to this report clearly demonstrates their lack of understanding, or constitutes a brazen and irresponsible attempt to obfuscate the truth when they state “the report includes no specific example of the problems cited” –  in other words it is ”vague”.

  A grand jury’s historic function, serving as a quasi-judicial body is to determine if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and to protect citizens, including the obligation to “investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of a city’s officers, departments and functions…”   They also have the duty to “inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description”.

Code Enforcement Sheriff of Notingham

Alan Rickman as the Sheriff on Notingham

The specific evidence and the identity and testimony of witnesses during a Grand Jury investigation are privileged and cannot by law be disclosed to anyone unless and until an indictment is issued.  Their proceedings are conducted in private, and their reports are reviewed by County Counsel, or the District Attorney.  For the City to now suggest that the report is without merit because it does not mention specific examples of wrongdoing or names of witnesses interviewed is ludicrous.  Does the City staff really believe they are entitled to know the names of the people they are accused of intimidating, or whose properties were the subject of an illegal search?

City government and Code Enforcement officers serve a valuable and important service to our community, until they start acting like the infamous Sheriff of Nottingham, of Robin Hood fame, who was notorious for his use of force, intimidation, abuse of power and excessive punishment of the citizenry.


B. Alviani          K. Corse          T. Cook

J. Tingstrom    R. McCord       S. Doll

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.



10 replies
  1. Guillermino
    Guillermino says:

    This is exactly the problem I am having with code enforcement in the city of ventura now , everything that is depicted in this article is exactly what’s going , from what I just read nothing has changed , as a matter of fact it has accelerated, this corruption needs to stop, the code enforcement has too much power and needs to be re-evaluate and investigated , unfortunately I have to now take legal action against the ventura code enforcement so if you have any similar situation with code enforcement specifically in the city of ventura or directly with senior code enforcement officer Sonia Nims , and would like to help fight the abuse of power by these officials , please feel free to contact me , we are gathering information for a possible class action suit

    • billfrank
      billfrank says:

      Guillermino, thanks for your comment on our blog. It’s a shame that you are experiencing the same problems today that were present in 2013. You even call out Sonia Nims, the senior code enforcement officer. Ultimately, its the City Manager who must control the Code Enforcement officers. There have been three City Managers and several City Councils since 2013. None of them have addressed the problem. What’s more, there’s no indication that anyone on the Council desires to change anything. If you’d like to tell me your story, you can email me directly at:

    • Tracy Cortez
      Tracy Cortez says:

      We are experiencing this with the County right now. I own the historic Billiwhack Ranch, purchased in 2018, and have been unable to restore it. Guillermo, I would love to speak with you even though we are dealing with the county and not the city. My email is

    • Jim Harris
      Jim Harris says:

      I’m experiencing extreme issues with Ventura County code enforcement and I am lost on what to do any info would surely help thank you

  2. Tom Cahill
    Tom Cahill says:

    The County Building and Safety departments are putting us through what seems like extortion to bring in more money in permits, variances, etc. We bought a home in Silver Strand that was built in 1974. We wanted to do the right thing and pull permits for the work we wanted to do (despite some of our neighbors advising us not to). They began at that point to attempt to expose anything they could in order for us to pay more money. Things like- We don’t show stairs to the second floor living area in the front of the house (it’s the only way to get into the house from the street). We need to get a Variance for parking because the County approved a previous owner to reconfigure the garage doors (Our neighbor spent close to $14K on this same thing and then was denied after all that money was spent). We don’t have proper egress on the first floor (even though this is how the house was approved and built). We agreed to put back the original double garage door to appease the Planning Dept but now we have to go through their Plan Check Engineers and provide them with calculations from a structural engineer (we are not making any structural changes at all). Each time they look at something we will be getting charged. We managed to debunk each issue they came up with as we go but are now stuck with hiring a structural engineer so that they can look at the “calculations”. Mind you no one has blueprints with the exception of a preliminary blueprint (NOT the final building blueprints) that the Building and Safety came up with. They knew darn well they weren’t actual building blueprints but they used them for their agenda until we proved them wrong after almost a year. I never thought a government agency would do something like this until we experienced it for ourselves.

    • billfrank
      billfrank says:

      Tom, thank you for sharing your story. I can’t imagine how frustrated you must feel about the way in which your case is being handled. We’ve done extensive research into the City of Ventura’s Building and Safety departments (now called Permit Services). We cover citywide issues, not countywide issues. I have no advice to share with you on how to deal with the County or who within the County you should contact. One thought is to write your Supervisor for District 1, Matt LaVere. He may be able to offer some help to you. Best of luck to you as you continue your fight.

    • Tracy Cortez
      Tracy Cortez says:

      Tom, I posted directly above you. Please feel free to contact me about my interaction with the county for the past 2.5 years. -Tracy

    • Tim Farris
      Tim Farris says:

      Any suggestions on where I go to get some help I am experiencing abusive, denial, aggressive and unprofessional style comments and reactions from code compliance Doug Leeper‘s office. Seems you talk to those people down there or send them a letter the message goes right over their head like they don’t even hear or listen to you and it’s gonna cost me a lot of money if I can’t find somebody to help dealing with these Ignorant Asshole people at the county government center

      • billfrank
        billfrank says:

        We focus on the City of Ventura primarily. We don’t deal with countywide issues. I’m afraid I can’t be much help. I have heard bad things about the County code enforcement. Still, the County is better than the city. You may have already tried this, but contact your supervisor for help. Beyond that, I can’t be much help.

  3. Joseph
    Joseph says:

    Just got a $150,000 lien place on my Oxnard property by the County of Ventura Cod Compliance Division after abating all violations for which I incurred debt. The shakedown is real!


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *