Code enforcement hits community garden?

[sheclown]

I'm not for taking properties away from dead-beat homeowners for exactly the reason of this thread.  I don't trust the powers that be to decide whose house gets taken away and whose doesn't.

We need a community based code enforcement board like there used to be -- for zones -- instead of one person, one special magistrate who works for the city and is deciding how much a citizen should pay the city.  I trust average citizens more than bureaucracy.

I am for code enforcement mothballing a property, following the guidelines and supervision of the historic planning commission and then placing a lien on the property should the owner refuse to take care of his property.  This would help code enforcement go from a punitive entity to a helpful one and would make tangible strides toward saving valuable historic properties.  With code enforcement and historic planning commissioners working together, Springfield could vastly change in terms of blight and quality of life without increasing any budget as we have discussed many times, mothballing is cheaper than demolition.

[sheclown]

Problem with code is also the fact that it is "complaint-driven" .  It has been used by neighborhood organizations to attack those who oppose the policies of the organization as has been described many times on this forum. 

Complaint-driven agencies are ripe for abuse.  That is why if you make a false claim to Department of Children and Families or Immigration, there are stiff penalties.  Difference with code is that if you call and complain on your neighbor, the scope of code enforcement is so loose that anyone could find something wrong with any property.

So code becomes like this standing army. 

A standing army that can (most obviously) enter without due process.

[iloveionia]

The response from the city makes it clear that the letter of the law is all that matters, not the spirit of it. Code enforcement would better serve the community as a whole by going after the owners who willfully allow property to deteriorate, taking the property, moth-balling it and offering it at a fair price to someone who can and will restore it. Other cites do it, why doesn’t ours?

Yes!!!  Exactly!!! 

[Gonzo]

I'm not for taking properties away from dead-beat homeowners for exactly the reason of this thread.  I don't trust the powers that be to decide whose house gets taken away and whose doesn't.

We need a community based code enforcement board like there used to be -- for zones -- instead of one person, one special magistrate who works for the city and is deciding how much a citizen should pay the city.  I trust average citizens more than bureaucracy.

I am for code enforcement mothballing a property, following the guidelines and supervision of the historic planning commission and then placing a lien on the property should the owner refuse to take care of his property.  This would help code enforcement go from a punitive entity to a helpful one and would make tangible strides toward saving valuable historic properties.  With code enforcement and historic planning commissioners working together, Springfield could vastly change in terms of blight and quality of life without increasing any budget as we have discussed many times, mothballing is cheaper than demolition.

Sounds reasonable to me!

[strider]

I was going to do this long post quote the entire code to correct the idea that this officer had any right to breaking and entering on this private property, but I got bored.  The bottom line is that the code says the owner can refuse entry and then if they still want to enter, the chief (or her minion) must get a judge to agree to allow MCCD to step all over the owners property rights.  That right to refuse does not change because that bag of trash is left there.  It takes lots more paperwork for that to happen.  Besides, the right to entry is for abatement - did you see either of the offending officers pick up even one piece of trash?

This is a case of a city employee breaking and entering onto private property.  People often go to jail for that. 

Another thing is we have information from the owner that states someone else was dumping the trash and the police have been involved to some extent.  This implies the real possibility that the trash was dumped, cleaned up and dumped again so this it is not one continuous violation but several new ones.  Perhaps if MCCD's chief actually believed in helping not hindering, a line of communication would be there and this would have never happened.

But of course, from personal experience, she would rather forget that a person ever cooperated so that she can state that the owner just didn't try to work with MCCD when it comes time for those fines to be levied.  Change is needed and it is needed from the top.

[Springfielder]

This is the problem with people. They go off half cocked not knowing what the facts are and spin the facts to for their perspective. It is human nature to form reality around your world view so it should be expected. I will send Mr. Ashanta-Parker and THANK YOU note for fully explaining the situation but no doubt this will still serve as a boogey man. Change the policy and dont harrass the employees.

Nobody went off half-cocked as you suggest. As others have stated over and over, nobody has the right to forcibly enter a property without a warrant, and the video clearly shows those city employees entering the property by force...that's NOT legal. If it weren't for the citizen that videotaped this illegal act, then it would be only hearsay, the tape is proof.

The employees harass the residents, in fact, they seem to prey upon those that cannot pay those rolling fines, which results in the city taking down, yet another part of the historic fabric that defines the historic district. The city has the mothball legislation, which would properly secure an empty house, but they have yet to mothball one.

[carpnter]

I find it amazing that the code enforcement officer had no problem forcibly entering a piece of property over trash when in my neighborhood a few years ago there was a pool in a backyard that was basically a mosquito breeding ground and you couldn't go outside without getting numerous mosquito bites.  A woman whose yard backed up to the home called the city and the enforcement official wouldn't even look over the fence from the backyard of the person who filed the complaint and had the official gone around to the front of the home there was a section of fence that had decayed to the point where you could easily see through it and see the pool. 
Eventually the home was foreclosed on and someone bought it and fixed the pool. 

[John P]

Not to keep beating this horse but you all may not realize that Code Enforcement officers have right of entry under Fla Statute 518.123 (f). The Chief, or his authorized representative, shall have the right of entry upon real property while in the discharge of his duties in removing, terminating or abating a public nuisance under this Chapter.
And one more point. The officer was doing his job in an attempt to help clean up the neighborhood that those of you who live their obviously love. But yet when he is trying to help clean up the neighborhood, you spy on him, take pictures and report him for doing his job. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that thought process. You complain they aren't doing their job. Then complain when they are. Go figure.

Thank you.
CHANGE THE POLICY BUT DONT HARRASS EMPLOYEES.

[Timkin]

Not to keep beating this horse but you all may not realize that Code Enforcement officers have right of entry under Fla Statute 518.123 (f). The Chief, or his authorized representative, shall have the right of entry upon real property while in the discharge of his duties in removing, terminating or abating a public nuisance under this Chapter.
And one more point. The officer was doing his job in an attempt to help clean up the neighborhood that those of you who live their obviously love. But yet when he is trying to help clean up the neighborhood, you spy on him, take pictures and report him for doing his job. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that thought process. You complain they aren't doing their job. Then complain when they are. Go figure.

Thank you.
CHANGE THE POLICY BUT DONT HARRASS EMPLOYEES.

Are you saying, it is okay for them to harass us?  Enter our secured properties at will? just do as they please? but don't harass them.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[RexMontana]

I think that the Mayor should look into eliminating the Code Enforcement department as part of his budget cuts.

[strider]

Not to keep beating this horse but you all may not realize that Code Enforcement officers have right of entry under Fla Statute 518.123 (f). The Chief, or his authorized representative, shall have the right of entry upon real property while in the discharge of his duties in removing, terminating or abating a public nuisance under this Chapter.
And one more point. The officer was doing his job in an attempt to help clean up the neighborhood that those of you who live their obviously love. But yet when he is trying to help clean up the neighborhood, you spy on him, take pictures and report him for doing his job. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that thought process. You complain they aren't doing their job. Then complain when they are. Go figure.

Thank you.
CHANGE THE POLICY BUT DONT HARRASS EMPLOYEES.

Are you saying, it is okay for them to harass us?  Enter our secured properties at will? just do as they please? but don't harass them.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Here's the complete section that was refereed to above.

Sec. 518.123. - Right of entry; notice of inspection.

(a)
The Chief is authorized to enter any building, structure or premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of performing his or her duties under this chapter. If any owner, occupant or other person in charge of a building structure or premises subject to the provisions of this Code refuses, impedes, inhibits, interferes with, or obstructs lawful entry or access to any part of the building, structure or premises where an inspection authorized by this chapter is sought, the Chief may seek an inspection warrant pursuant to Florida law.
(b)
At the time of inspection, the Chief shall properly identify himself and shall advise the occupant of his right to refuse entry to the nonpublic areas of the building, structure or premises. He shall further advise the occupant that an inspection warrant may be obtained if entry is refused.
(c)
The Chief shall develop appropriate documents by which to serve notice in an area in which he intends to carry out a scheduled area wide inspection program. These documents shall include a notice to be delivered to each household or owner which shall include the following:
(1)
A summary of the requirements of this Chapter for which an inspection is being made to determine compliance therewith.
(2)
A statement advising the occupant or owner that entry for the purpose of inspection may be denied.
(3)
A statement that a notice of violation issued pursuant to the inspection may be appealed to the city's Special Magistrate.
(d)
At the time of inspection, the Chief or their duly authorized representative shall properly identify himself and shall advise the occupant or owner verbally of all the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section which were required to be included in the notice. Where the inspection is based upon a complaint or probable cause, a written notice of intent under this Section shall not be required.
(e)
In cases of emergency where extreme hazards are known to exist which may involve the loss of life or severe property damage, the limitations of this Section shall not apply.
(f)
The Chief, or duly authorized representative, shall have the right of entry upon real property while in the discharge of his duties in removing, terminating or abating a public nuisance under this Chapter.

Frankly, the city passes laws all the time that are not truly enforceable.  They give the chief the right to enter, but as you can see, the reality is they can not.

John P and aclchampion, both of you are the perfect resident in the cities opinion,  believe what they tell you and never question,  Believe that the employees can do not wrong and never question them.  Believe they have the right to break and enter your property anytime and for the smallest of reasons.

The truth is, if they are allowed to do things like this breaking and entering without question or consequences, they will be entering your home and making sure you are using approved sexual positions before you know it.

[avs]

I think that the Mayor should look into eliminating the Code Enforcement department as part of his budget cuts.

It certainly appears most of the money code receives is going just to Springfield, certainly not fair.

[avs]

[quote author=strider link=topic=15473.msg288933#msg288933 date=1342635952 The truth is, if they are allowed to do things like this breaking and entering without question or consequences, they will be entering your home and making sure you are using approved sexual positions before you know it.
[/quote]

Apparently this city council is fine with sexual positions as long as they are "hetero" and not of the "beasteality" type.  I do, however, forsee them entering without a warrant if there is suspicion of anything else. 

[Bill Hoff]

I don't have an opinion on this specific issue/case, but I think it's important to keep an eye on the ball.

The most important thing impacting this issue, and others like it, is the work that Councilman Lumb is doing, resulting from the Town Hall meeting he hosted several months ago.

Hopefully we'll have something tangible from his office this year. Fingers crossed.

[sheclown]

Yes, the answer lies in a change in policy.

CM Lumb is working on (with the help of our wonderful and talented Chris Wickersham)... a plan.

At the heart of it, lies mothballing.