Land-Fraud Case Giving Obscure Agency Key Role

An obscure agency with a controversial record of enforcement is emerging as a key player in Los Angeles County’s drive to tighten and reform its regulation of land developers.

Thrust into the spotlight by the Marshall Redman land-fraud case, the county Department of Regional Planning is part of a task force devising new ways to detect and prevent illegal land subdivisions and real estate fraud.

Redman was charged in May in connection with a massive land fraud that authorities say victimized as many as 2,500 low-income Latinos, some of whom still live on remote high desert land lacking promised water and other utilities.

While officials say they monitored Redman, the regional planning department has been repeatedly criticized by its own employees and observers for abandoning proactive enforcement against rogue developers who ignore state laws requiring that utilities and roads be provided before land can be sold to home buyers.

The agency cited Redman’s firms at least two dozen times for illegal subdivisions, records show, but there was no follow-up to assure the developer’s compliance with land laws--a result that agency officials defend.

Most subdivision developers are legally required to file plans and maps with the agency, and to obtain the agency’s approval before selling lots to prospective homeowners. But despite a court order mandating vigorous enforcement, the Department of Regional Planning moves against land purchasers in cases involving illegal subdivision. The department, however, almost never moves against the developers.

“We don’t really go after developers themselves,” said Rudy Lackner, regional planning department supervisor. “We decided long ago that the best way to serve the public was not by spending time and money when all we could hope to get was a minimal penalty against the illegal subdividers.”

Critics contend that the approach is “too little, too late.”

“The fact that Redman operated for so long and wasn’t picked up in a timely way certainly indicates that there’s a problem,” said Carlyle Hall, a Westwood lawyer who won the 1980 court order directing the agency to be more aggressive with rogue developers.

“He was a big-time operator with lots of things going on. He should have been spotted right off. So who knows how many other Redmans are still operating out there?”

In a recent interview, Supervisor Gloria Molina said the planning department’s handling of the Redman sales did not inspire confidence. “There seems to have been a lot of buck-passing,” she said. “Answers like ‘We only did this’ and ‘This is our area of control.’ Honestly, they weren’t demonstrating profiles in courage.”

As a result of the 1980 court order, the agency formed a new subdivision enforcement arm that at one time numbered 29 staff members. Today, only five people handle the same job--a move officials attribute to overall county budget cuts but that former employees say signals a quiet shift of priorities within the regional planning department.

A union that represents county workers says the cash-strapped agency now focuses only on projects that will bring it a financial return, including contracting planning work from smaller cities. That leaves no time for enforcement.

“This is a desperate organization,” said Blaine Meek, a lawyer with the California Assn. of Professional Employees. “They’re trying to survive. And so they have to recognize realities and that is to generate revenue. They know that if things get any worse, they could become an ineffective department, period.”

In a memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, James E. Hartl, director of planning, acknowledged that budget shortages have forced cutbacks throughout his agency, and not only in subdivision enforcement. Since the early 1980s, cuts have reduced overall staffing from 225 to 80.

Planning officials acknowledge that the skeleton staff remaining to pursue subdivision violations “have assumed a greater role in [other] planning functions.”

The result, county workers said, is a detection system that doesn’t work.

In the past year, planning officials acknowledge, no new subdivision investigations have been started. Also, there is no record of any case referred for criminal prosecution to the district attorney’s office in the 16 years of the unit’s existence. In the case of Redman, Los Angeles law enforcement authorities became involved after county consumer protection officials recognized a pattern of complaints about Redman businesses.

Neglect of enforcement has been endemic to the agency for years, according to former employees.

“In the organization’s mind, subdivision enforcement was a dead end--it always has been,” said Steve Buscaino, a former subdivision enforcement investigator who retired in 1985. “They always claimed it was a matter of resources and they had to set priorities. Enforcement of developers came at the very bottom of the list.

“Any change would take a commitment from the Board of Supervisors. All they have to do is tell regional planning that ‘this is your priority.’ It’s in their hands.”

Other critics disagree.

“County bureaucracy is so vast, to expect the supervisors to watch over the agency’s shoulder is not realistic, it’s not a good idea,” said Hall, the public interest attorney. “So who is going to watch them? Unless management is aggressive, there’s no one else to provide a backup or watchdog group. Unless the supervisors established a special county ombudsman.”

In the meantime, planners continue to collect fines from people who unknowingly purchase illegally split lots.

The agency is required by state law to cite with notices of violation properties known to be illegally subdivided. Once a property is served, building permits are impossible to obtain. But the statute of limitations is only one year, officials said, and they rarely catch developers within that period.

Consequently, the agency routinely pursues the purchaser, requiring the buyer to file for a $669 certificate of compliance to clear any title clouds on the property.

“To us, it doesn’t make any difference who pays, as long as the certificate is paid for,” Lackner said. “But we look at it this way, at least the innocent buyer is then able to go ahead and build on their property. So all is not lost.”