Jail sentence because of home improvements

[Anna]

I was going to post this yesterday when it first came out, but I thought someone else would do it. Now there's an outcry of support for the guy and it's become a bigger story.

A couple years ago, our town mayor was prosecuted for not getting the proper permits during his home remodeling. Until today, I still don't know if the permit he was missing was a building permit or a demolition permit. But he went through the whole court process and the jury came back with "not guilty."

Doesn't it seem silly to go after these guys with the full force of the law when there are more serious offenders running around the place?

Just another non-political post.

[footprintsinconc]

another example why HOA's are desperately need! (just be sarcastic)

[scmhogg]

Anna,

I agree that there is so much "real crime", one wonders why they spend so much time on this stuff. In Hollywood, they have whole task forces to capture ticket scalpers and bandit cabs. While a liquor store clerk in murdered down the street.

In this case, the big complaint is that the guy replaced a fence that abuts the public riding trails that thread through this very wealthy suburb. In replacing the fence he narrowed the trail so that the maintenance vehicles can't get through.

He plead guilty to zoning and permit charges and agreed to fix the problems.
A couple of years later he has done nothing. The judge gave him until September 10 to comply or do the jail time of 180 days.

Steve

[prlundberg]

Well, he did break the law, and he did plead guilty.

Some of the laws do seem silly, but then he should have known that before he bought the property.

[Knottscott]

It should be the homeowners who are prosecuting the towns for requiring a permit for so many rediculous regulations. Some permits are a good idea for everyone's safety and benefit, but alot of them have just plain become revenue generators for the insatiable spending appetites of "those who know what's best for us". Every little Hitler seems to have their empire.

[Anna]

From the article:

Linares said he called the city to find out how to get it fixed. He said he was told that the wood fence closer to his home was on his property and was his responsibility.

So he fixed it, putting it back exactly where he found it.

But the city said he illegally built on city property and ordered him to take the fence down - along with the stone columns flanking his driveway and a block wall.

If the report is accurate, I don't really see how putting the fence exactly where the old one was narrowed the trail. But then, don't get me started on reporters and journalists.

I think my biggest problem with property rights cases like this is when the property owners get slapped a jail sentence instead of just fines. I won't even have any problems with gradually increasing fines for non-compliance, especially for something that potentially can have detrimental effects on the public (e.g. narrowed trails).

Then we have people like Lindsey Lohan getting one day in jail for driving under the influence. Or 3 months for vehicular manslaughter (can't remember the link, but recent case in the last few weeks). This guy is going to get six months.

Heard of the 70-year-old Utah woman who was ticketed for not watering her lawn in breach of city ordinance (she claims she can't afford it)? She was handcuffed and taken to jail after she allegedly refused to give her name to the police officer at her door, an allegation the woman denied.

Oh, well. Property rights cases just get my dander up.

[Copper]

Sounds kind of like this one that I heard about today. However, this guy was completely negligent by not getting the proper permits for a baseball field that cost a few hundred thousand dollars.

[williamr]

I was going to post this yesterday when it first came out, but I thought someone else would do it. Now there's an outcry of support for the guy and it's become a bigger story.

A couple years ago, our town mayor was prosecuted for not getting the proper permits during his home remodeling. Until today, I still don't know if the permit he was missing was a building permit or a demolition permit. But he went through the whole court process and the jury came back with "not guilty."

Doesn't it seem silly to go after these guys with the full force of the law when there are more serious offenders running around the place?

Just another non-political post.

Having bought a house 2 years ago which was renovated by a person who did not know what they were doing... Well -- Let's say I have mixed feelings on the matter.

Some of what was done to the house bordered on the criminal -- electrical connections dangerous enough to cause problems, drywall installed improperly -- it would fall down when the walls were removed... etc. etc. Some of the stuff we knew about -- a lot was hidden damage -- covered up by drywall..

A lot of the stuff that I removed could have killed someone -- so there are some dangerous "renovators" out there folks! Permits and inspections exist for a reason. I suspect that the "problem" with this group is competence -- and you just don't realize the depths to which the technical capability of some very stupid people can sink.

If what the guy did to our house was deliberate -- then jail would be too good for him.

So I can see the point of the prosecution -- but still! I would have to know if the work was done competently before I could make a meaningful comment. If it was the sort of work that existed here -- then -- throw the book at your Mayor!

$.02 worth

Will R

[Anna]

Having bought a house 2 years ago which was renovated by a person who did not know what they were doing... Well -- Let's say I have mixed feelings on the matter.

Isn't that what home inspections, prior to buying the house, are for? And I think there are laws, at least in California, that says you have to tell the buyers known problems, otherwise it could be a basis for a lawsuit. In any case, sorry about your house. Your lucky that you know what you are doing. If more clueless people bought the house instead of you, that could have been pretty disastrous.

The town mayor who was prosecuted here was renovating a very old house. The rule says that as long as you keep one wall of the original house, then it's a renovation. If you pull down all the walls, then it's "building." Two completely different permits. Well, the one wall that was going to be kept intact fell down. With that one difference, all of a sudden there is a permit dispute. Neighbors complained (noone really liked the mayor anyway) and the DA stepped in. There's a bit of a don't-give-anyone-special-treatment syndrome that somehow trumped common sense.

[Uncle Cracker]

As he is the CEO of a local civil engineering firm, he (or others at his company) have probably gone head-up with building officials more than once. That's all well and good, as long as you keep your nose clean, but step off the curb once, and you can bet somebody will get even.

[Thalermade]

Property rights? If you have the time and the money, you can have property rights to your own property. I did a quick search and couldn't find the two pictures I wanted to include. One showed the 70 house neighbor hood before demolition, and the other showed the neighborhood with the last 3 houses standing.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...WS01/607270350