Moratorium needed for bail bond operators
| Posted on: Sat, 09/12/2009 - 9:19am | |
  |
Moratorium needed for bail bond operators
Mercury News Editorial Posted: 09/11/2009 06:39:49 PM PDT San Jose's proposal for a 22-month moratorium on new bail bond establishments is a gift to the businesses that now dominate the city's North First Street corridor near the county jail. But you'd never know it from listening to their lobbyists, who unfortunately have had the ear of a number of city council members. On Tuesday the council will vote on extending a temporary moratorium, enacted three months ago, to give it time to figure out how to regulate the businesses — currently around two dozen near the Hedding Street jail and 50 citywide. A moratorium is the least the council can do. In fact, there's a good argument to simply start shutting down the bail bond businesses that are out of compliance with current ordinances. That appears to include a majority of the operations that are altering the character of the largely residential North First area — and not for the better. Neighbors have every right to be outraged that the city hasn't enforced its current codes, especially when businesses operate out of residences or stay open 24 hours without a permit. The moratorium is appropriate because bail bond businesses provide a necessary service. Putting a number of them out of business all at once would lead to crowding at the jail and hardship for people who otherwise could get out and back to work to support a family. But the businesses should not be allowed to overwhelm a neighborhood. It shouldn't take 22 months for the planning staff to talk to all the players and craft a reasonable ordinance, but it's required by California's law on moratoriums of this type. In the meantime, current operations could stay in place, but further proliferation into neighborhoods would be barred. District 3 Councilman Sam Liccardo, who represents the North First area, proposed the moratorium in response to neighbors' concerns. A huge lobbying blitz opposed the temporary moratorium, and several council members made it clear at the time that they were sympathetic to the bail bond businesses. Lobbyists say San Jose already is too restrictive, but compared to other cities, it is not. Liccardo points out that in Las Vegas, bail bond operations must obtain a special permit even for commercial areas and must win council approval to be open 24 hours. Los Angeles restricts them from locating on the ground floor in the downtown area. Long Beach, Santa Ana and Riverside all restrict where the businesses can locate, including how far away they must be from residences. San Jose's general plan for the First Street area indicates that they shouldn't be allowed on the ground floor even in retail areas and should instead be located in offices on upper floors. Since many buildings around there are one story, the city may need to explore exceptions to keep enough operators near the county jail. Some now in residences may win permits. But the answer cannot be to continue allowing them to operate outside the rules and to spread into neighborhoods. That's why the moratorium is so important. |
San Jose City Council passes extension on temporary moratorium for bail bonds operators
By Tracy Seipel
tseipel@mercurynews.com
Posted: 09/16/2009 12:00:00 AM PDT
Assuaging both neighbors and bail bonds businesses for the time being, the San Jose City Council on Tuesday night quickly passed a proposed extension on a temporary moratorium on new bail bonds businesses throughout the city.
The vote, 10-0, with Councilman Pete Constant absent due to illness, came after comments from almost a dozen neighbors, all of whom urged the council to agree to the proposal so that residents and bail bonds companies could come up with a reasonable land use policy.
"If you approve this, we can move ahead with the real work,'' said Erik Schoennauer, a resident of the Vendome neighborhood.
Councilman Sam Liccardo, whose downtown district includes most of the city's bail bonds companies, had proposed the extended temporary moratorium. Late Friday, he also added a key amendment that sought to allow bail bonds businesses, particularly those located in residential neighborhoods in violation of city code, to be allowed to relocate during the moratorium if they agreed to move to areas where current code allowed them to operate.
That was a big concern for several bail bonds companies whose operators feared that if the moratorium extension was passed, they would be prohibited from moving until the city decided where bail bonds businesses could be located. In some cases, it meant they would be trapped if their landlords chose to raise their rents in the interim.
"Several bail bonds businesses are located on residential parcels, and we don't want them on residential parcels," Liccardo told the council Tuesday night. "But simply not allowing them to move means we'll have a fight. So it seems to be the path of least resistance to get to the goal.''
The controversy over how to regulate where and when bail bonds outfits can operate in San Jose surfaced after residents in the North First Street area, only blocks away from the Santa Clara County Main Jail, began complaining about the noise, loitering and activity they claim surrounds some of the bonds businesses, especially after midnight. The problem has worsened, they say, as more bonds businesses set up shop in the area.
Bonds shops dispute those accusations, but neighbors want the businesses — some of which have been operating 24 hours a day, to comply with city permitting codes that don't allow bail bonds businesses to stay open all night. Some of the businesses, such as those located in residential neighborhoods, are not allowed under the city's zoning codes.
Liccardo said there are different beliefs about the appropriateness of 24-hour bail bonds businesses, but that he's pressing forward in talks with all the parties involved and is confident that "we'll find some solution."
The issue had divided the council, which had voted on a temporary moratorium in May. While some had sided with neighbors, others said they were concerned that if bail bonds businesses were not allowed to stay open all night, it would lead to crowding at the jail.
The 22-month, 15-day moratorium will allow the city's Planning Department to have time to hear from all sides, including Santa Clara County officials, bail bonds businesses and residents and come up with new zoning rules for bail bonds companies. The almost two-year-long time period is the maximum allowed under state law.
Under the extended moratorium, the Planning Department said it will allow the current businesses to continue operating during the moratorium, even after midnight, providing their customers are not creating problems.