4f) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff on Modifications to the Code Violation Complaint System to Require Complainants to Provide Verifiable Contact Information While Continuing to Maintain Complainant Confidentiality in an Effort to Prevent Abuse and Protect County Resources
(Sponsor: Supervisor Haschak)
Dear Chairman, Hacshak; and other members of the Board of Supervisors as well as Directors; This is not at all about one person, group of people, of even a district. County Code Enforcement has become weaponized where anyone who has any issue with anyone feels they can anonymously call code enforcement, and get as many people as they want in a whole world of hurt with no repercussions, it’s become endemic. It’s a County wide issue. This in and of itself is unethical in the extreme, they are literally using the County for their personal vendettas. For simplicities sake I will says that structures, which I will apply to anything that code can “flag,” says that the burden of proof for structures that were built, incorporated before code laws came into effect (when there was not modern technology), is on the land owner, to prove grandfather status, I feel this is totally unlawful. The burden of proof should be on the County Code Enforcement Office, to prove that it wasn’t there, not the other way around. Furthermore, citizens with money, can simply pay while others are concerned of going bankrupt. Meaning the law is not at all effecting all citizens equally it has class, and financial implications. Code Enforcement flags items that benefit the whole community which Citizens are now being gravely penalized for, including things that are good for the environment. I ask for a Ye vote on Chairman Hacshak’s motion. I think it is a step in the right direction, but I also feel it needs to go much further, in future session.
THE BEGINNING OF LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: The Equal Protection Clause is located in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The exact verbiage of the clause states: "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This clause applies to state and local governments, ensuring that individuals in similar situations are treated equally by the law. Although the Fourteenth Amendment itself applies only to state governments, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to require Equal Protection from the federal government as well.
I BELIEVE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE UNJUST CODE ENFORCEMENTS THAT SOME INCLUDING MYSELF REFER TO AS THE NEW “MENDOCINO SHAKEDOWN,” BOTH THE ORGINAL & CURRENT “SHAKEDOWNS,” ARE PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION BEFORE THE LAW AND ARE SELF-EVIDENT WHILE OPENING THE COUNTY UP TO POTENTIAL CIVIL SUITS & ACTIONS. IT’S THE WEAPONSIZATION OF COUNTY-CODE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST TAX PAYING INDIVIDUALS AS PROPERTY OWNERS: PRIVATE-LANDED; HOMESTEADS; AGRICULTURE; BUSINESS, ETC., IS UNWARRANTED, DOES NOT EFFECT ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY & HIGHLY ILLEGAL.
I’VE GIVEN MUCH THOUGHT TO THESE MATTERS, I HOPE THAT YOU FIND MY CONTRIBUTION VALUABLE, I VERY MUCH LOVE OUR COUNTY AND PASSION PLUS VALUES EQUALS PURPOSE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE. I WILL COMPILE MY TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS INTO ONE WORD DOCUMETNT AS I DO HAVE AN INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC DISCOURCE MORE OFTEN NOW. RESPECTFULLY SIGNED; HENRICUS V. ROEHENSTART.
The root words of "politics" trace back to Ancient Greek. The term originates from the Greek word politikos, meaning "of citizens, pertaining to the state and its administration; pertaining to public life". This word is derived from polites, meaning "citizen," and polis, meaning "city". The Greek term polis itself is linked to the Proto-Indo-European root tpolH, meaning "fortification" or "citadel". The English word "politics" entered the language through Latin politica and Old French politique, ultimately stemming from the Greek tà politiká, meaning "public matters, civic affairs".
Modifications to the Code Violation Complaint System should not include a maximum number of complaints by one person because this would defeat the purpose of the complaint, especially in a complaint-based county of the size of Mendocino. IF code enforcement were able to be proactive, holding up the rule of law by itself, and correcting violations, there would not be a need for this service. I oppose this entire agenda item unless the detail in question is removed from the proposition.
This feels like another knee jerk reaction - a quick fix as a result of a complaint shared at the recent Laytonville MAC meeting. While I am sympathetic to the effects on this one landowner, we must ask ourselves how they ended up in this situation. Did they follow the law or did they choose to take short cuts to benefit themselves? Have they been paying their fair share? Have they created a situation that jeopardizes public health and safety and our First Responders?
The sensible course would be to spend more time developing long-term, effective practices that will benefit the entire County moving forward. While I understand the possibility of misuse an anonymous complaint could create, we must consider the entire issue.
1. Of the “one hundred [anonymous] complaints” that were filed, how many had valid violations?
2. If the complaint had a name attached to it, would it have changed the outcome?
3. Will the corrected violations increase the County’s tax base?
4. Who are we protecting here? The violators? Code Enforcement? The health and safety of the entire county?
5. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have the public involved in the process of discovering violations as much as possible?
While I am not 100% against not allowing anonymous complaints, the restrictions outlined in your memo also raise additional concerns:
1. While working on the Redistricting Committee after the 2020 Census, I learned that a significant number of County residences do not have verifiable addresses. Your proposal would eliminate these residents’ right to file a complaint.
2. We also have a significant number of property owners of rental/vacation homes that live out of state. The language of this item would deny these taxpayers the right to file a complaint to protect their property.
3. With the private camping/micro business items currently being developed, the proposed changes limits those affected by these types of businesses on an on-going basis.
There are alternate solutions to issues raised here.
1. Redefine the Board’s limit on operating proactively. The Board should clarify this directive to mean that CED staff will conduct a comprehensive review of the property to ensure all violations are identified and addressed. This approach would result in significant cost savings for the County as well as reduce the need for multiple complaints.
2. You state that complaints have returned to previous levels now that cannabis has settled out. Maybe this allows the County to return to pre-cannabis practices. Reduce CED staffing to meet the needs of the Abandoned Vehicle Program and return the full responsibility of addressing complaints to the respective departments. Doing away with the ‘filter” that CED provides could result in cost savings.
The problem of unpermitted structures throughout the county, and the resulting threat to public health and safety and the negative effect on the tax role has been previously identified by this Board. The Board’s Mission Statement states that the Board will work to “[enhance]the quality of life of the people of Mendocino County…[and]…to deliver services that meet: Public safety, health, … and environmental needs of our communities”. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors Principals of Office state the Supervisors will “Represent the entire County of Mendocino…”. It is prudent and crucial for the Board to ensure that their actions are thoughtful, intentional, and truly for the greater good.
Dear Chairman, Hacshak; and other members of the Board of Supervisors as well as Directors; This is not at all about one person, group of people, of even a district. County Code Enforcement has become weaponized where anyone who has any issue with anyone feels they can anonymously call code enforcement, and get as many people as they want in a whole world of hurt with no repercussions, it’s become endemic. It’s a County wide issue. This in and of itself is unethical in the extreme, they are literally using the County for their personal vendettas. For simplicities sake I will says that structures, which I will apply to anything that code can “flag,” says that the burden of proof for structures that were built, incorporated before code laws came into effect (when there was not modern technology), is on the land owner, to prove grandfather status, I feel this is totally unlawful. The burden of proof should be on the County Code Enforcement Office, to prove that it wasn’t there, not the other way around. Furthermore, citizens with money, can simply pay while others are concerned of going bankrupt. Meaning the law is not at all effecting all citizens equally it has class, and financial implications. Code Enforcement flags items that benefit the whole community which Citizens are now being gravely penalized for, including things that are good for the environment. I ask for a Ye vote on Chairman Hacshak’s motion. I think it is a step in the right direction, but I also feel it needs to go much further, in future session.
THE BEGINNING OF LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: The Equal Protection Clause is located in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The exact verbiage of the clause states: "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This clause applies to state and local governments, ensuring that individuals in similar situations are treated equally by the law. Although the Fourteenth Amendment itself applies only to state governments, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to require Equal Protection from the federal government as well.
I BELIEVE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE UNJUST CODE ENFORCEMENTS THAT SOME INCLUDING MYSELF REFER TO AS THE NEW “MENDOCINO SHAKEDOWN,” BOTH THE ORGINAL & CURRENT “SHAKEDOWNS,” ARE PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION BEFORE THE LAW AND ARE SELF-EVIDENT WHILE OPENING THE COUNTY UP TO POTENTIAL CIVIL SUITS & ACTIONS. IT’S THE WEAPONSIZATION OF COUNTY-CODE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST TAX PAYING INDIVIDUALS AS PROPERTY OWNERS: PRIVATE-LANDED; HOMESTEADS; AGRICULTURE; BUSINESS, ETC., IS UNWARRANTED, DOES NOT EFFECT ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY & HIGHLY ILLEGAL.
I’VE GIVEN MUCH THOUGHT TO THESE MATTERS, I HOPE THAT YOU FIND MY CONTRIBUTION VALUABLE, I VERY MUCH LOVE OUR COUNTY AND PASSION PLUS VALUES EQUALS PURPOSE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE. I WILL COMPILE MY TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS INTO ONE WORD DOCUMETNT AS I DO HAVE AN INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC DISCOURCE MORE OFTEN NOW. RESPECTFULLY SIGNED; HENRICUS V. ROEHENSTART.
The root words of "politics" trace back to Ancient Greek. The term originates from the Greek word politikos, meaning "of citizens, pertaining to the state and its administration; pertaining to public life". This word is derived from polites, meaning "citizen," and polis, meaning "city". The Greek term polis itself is linked to the Proto-Indo-European root tpolH, meaning "fortification" or "citadel". The English word "politics" entered the language through Latin politica and Old French politique, ultimately stemming from the Greek tà politiká, meaning "public matters, civic affairs".
Modifications to the Code Violation Complaint System should not include a maximum number of complaints by one person because this would defeat the purpose of the complaint, especially in a complaint-based county of the size of Mendocino. IF code enforcement were able to be proactive, holding up the rule of law by itself, and correcting violations, there would not be a need for this service. I oppose this entire agenda item unless the detail in question is removed from the proposition.
Chair Haschak,
This feels like another knee jerk reaction - a quick fix as a result of a complaint shared at the recent Laytonville MAC meeting. While I am sympathetic to the effects on this one landowner, we must ask ourselves how they ended up in this situation. Did they follow the law or did they choose to take short cuts to benefit themselves? Have they been paying their fair share? Have they created a situation that jeopardizes public health and safety and our First Responders?
The sensible course would be to spend more time developing long-term, effective practices that will benefit the entire County moving forward. While I understand the possibility of misuse an anonymous complaint could create, we must consider the entire issue.
1. Of the “one hundred [anonymous] complaints” that were filed, how many had valid violations?
2. If the complaint had a name attached to it, would it have changed the outcome?
3. Will the corrected violations increase the County’s tax base?
4. Who are we protecting here? The violators? Code Enforcement? The health and safety of the entire county?
5. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have the public involved in the process of discovering violations as much as possible?
While I am not 100% against not allowing anonymous complaints, the restrictions outlined in your memo also raise additional concerns:
1. While working on the Redistricting Committee after the 2020 Census, I learned that a significant number of County residences do not have verifiable addresses. Your proposal would eliminate these residents’ right to file a complaint.
2. We also have a significant number of property owners of rental/vacation homes that live out of state. The language of this item would deny these taxpayers the right to file a complaint to protect their property.
3. With the private camping/micro business items currently being developed, the proposed changes limits those affected by these types of businesses on an on-going basis.
There are alternate solutions to issues raised here.
1. Redefine the Board’s limit on operating proactively. The Board should clarify this directive to mean that CED staff will conduct a comprehensive review of the property to ensure all violations are identified and addressed. This approach would result in significant cost savings for the County as well as reduce the need for multiple complaints.
2. You state that complaints have returned to previous levels now that cannabis has settled out. Maybe this allows the County to return to pre-cannabis practices. Reduce CED staffing to meet the needs of the Abandoned Vehicle Program and return the full responsibility of addressing complaints to the respective departments. Doing away with the ‘filter” that CED provides could result in cost savings.
The problem of unpermitted structures throughout the county, and the resulting threat to public health and safety and the negative effect on the tax role has been previously identified by this Board. The Board’s Mission Statement states that the Board will work to “[enhance]the quality of life of the people of Mendocino County…[and]…to deliver services that meet: Public safety, health, … and environmental needs of our communities”. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors Principals of Office state the Supervisors will “Represent the entire County of Mendocino…”. It is prudent and crucial for the Board to ensure that their actions are thoughtful, intentional, and truly for the greater good.