Imagine this scenario: You have listed your home for sale and understand the market has been slow. There are many other Pasadena homes for sale in your area. However a buyer loved your home and made a quick offer that was accepted. Escrow has been opened. The Pasadena City Occupancy inspection has been ordered, but you have been told your property has sidewalk damage. Sidewalk damage?

The City of Pasadena has a couple of ordinances that cause some consternation among its property owners. Most homeowner’s are not aware that it exists until it comes time to sell their property. As you can see from the picture, tree roots are often responsible for uprooting and destroying the city sidewalks, creating a safety hazard. Throughout the city, this is a common concern. However, the city has decided it will no longer pay to repair the buckled sidewalks. Someone has to pay, you the homeowner, the last line of defense now has the privilege of repairing the city’s infrastructure. Congratulations!

Double Down

There are a couple of issues involved here (1) the policy of requiring property owners to pay and (2) the manner in which it is enforced.

First of all, requiring property owners to pay is an excellent example of shifting the responsibility from the public sector to private individual. The City of Pasadena maintains the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street as evidenced by their policy of planting and removing diseased trees. This indicates at least to me an implied covenant of maintaining the structure, free from defects.

My situation involved these two pictures with the yellow outlines. When I applied for the occupancy inspection I was informed the property had sidewalk damage in the amount of $380. I discussed this with the homeowner and we agreed that we would ask for a review.
I spoke with the gentleman in charge of the department and he agreed to meet me in a couple of weeks. I called a week later to inform him we had the occupancy approval, we were just waiting to resolve the sidewalk issue. He placed a call to his assistant to let me know that he would be calling me to arrange a meeting.

I have an issue regarding the manner in which this department conducts its business. I was called only after the inspector had been to the property. Then he informed me that the original inspection was old and invalid and that the new damage assessment was not $380, but was now $765. So you want to question the inspection, do you? “No Soup For You”

There you have it. No chance to question the elitist inspector. No documentation offered as to the doubling of the repair cost. Then to add insult to injury, he implied my seller should be thankful they are selling their home in this market.

A review of this policy should be implemented. Property owners need to know and understand what the allowable variance is before they have to pay to correct what should be the responsibility of city government.