Saturday, May 24, 2008

Structure, practices of Code Enforcement Unit discussed

Structure, practices of Code Enforcement Unit discussed


  1. Kind of funny how the County politiicans bend over when the SoHum dope growers cry foul.

    Kind of seems like ??????????

  2. I don't think it is the dope growers who have gotten attention here. It is the regular people who were unfairly rousted who spoke out.

    Sure there's probably a mix.

    But that's where this is going to require the wisdom of Solomon, how're you going to split this baby - because there has to be some code enforcement, but it shouldn't be draconian, and the illegal grows and spills have to be dealt with.

    (And I'm STILL waiting to hear what happens to Schectman/Vilica LLC, because there's a CLEAR example of violations, yet it appears the DA's Office is not going to do shit about it. The County did their part.)

  3. The 5th dst. supervisor needs to help Charles up at Yee Haa. A lot of good this process will do if it allows this nice but unconventional man to be brutalized. It should offend are scare everyone of us. Do you have a new deck or a slight extention on your porch? Maybe you have a small sink in back to wash the veggies & clean some fish. Worse yet do you let that water (gray water) drain into your garden? Guilty evil doer! One can only hope your neighbor calls in a code enforcement complaint.

  4. Grey water systems should be legal and encouraged.

    The building department should take the stance that they are there to ASSIST people in doing the right thing, with lots of information about how to build safely, fire safety, wiring safety, all of that.

    The movement for owner builders that Dan Taranto was part of way back when was a great thing, and I am glad to see him on this code enforcement task force. I would have liked to have seen someone from Hum CPR, even if it meant someone form CLMP giving up a spot.

  5. "regular people who were unfairly rousted" !! Come on Rose.

    How many "regular people" live on Elk Ridge or Seeley Creek or where ever it was?

    Rousted ?

  6. Are you saying every single one of those people who got up and spoke were dope growers?

  7. Every single one? I couldn't say that. Would I be surprised if that were the case? No I would not be surprised.

    I beleive the vast majority of those "residents" who spoke before the BOP and complained about code enforcement, 80% or more, are currently, have been in the past, or are planning to in the future be involved in the marijuana trade, industry, underground or what ever you decide to call it.

    Get real. Do you think people that live up on Elk Ridge commute to Fortuna or Eureka to work each day? There is a reason High Times magazine frequently mentions and praises Humboldt County.

    Why does the CLMP exist in Humboldt and N. Mendo Counties and not in Monterey, Tuolome, Sacramento, Shasta, Glenn, Riverside, Orange, Los Angeles or King's Counties ??? Do you think the local cops are so far out of line from the rest of the state?

    Maybe I should make a complaint to CLMP about the Highway Patrol? Last week I was stopped for doing 72 in a 55, and I'm certain I was doing over 70? The officer was polite and professional but hey what the F*&&^ this is Humboldt County. By Humboldt County standards or logic I was rousted.

  8. You make good points.

    Though I do think there are people who have retired, who do not need pot income who have made their homes out there.

    But there's no question that you can go anywhere in the world and say "Humboldt" and get quite a reaction.

    From the grow houses in Arcata to the major grows in the hills, we have some decisions to make as a society. If you have rules, are they just? Are they what you want? And whether they are or aren't you can't choose to let one guy go and go after the next one because of where they live or whatever. Do we want to legalize pot? Or make it more illegal? Do you want the 215 sham and the resultant abuses and crimes? Do you want big illegal plantations in the hills? Is it any different if it the Mexican Mafiosos or the local boy?

    You can't hold one property owner to the letter of the law and let his neighbor break them.

    But I'm going to use Schectman as the benchmark here - because if nothing happens to him, nothing should happen to ANY of the other people.

    Justice for all, no matter how wealthy or sacrosanct - that;'s what Paul said in his recruiting ads - apply it equally, Paul - start with your buddy Schectman, he surely fits the sacrosanct - he's not Palco, but let's see if you mean it.

  9. "But I'm going to use Schectman as the benchmark here - because if nothing happens to him, nothing should happen to ANY of the other people."

    The marijuana case involving hedlund/schectman is federal, not county. wasnt schectman busted for code violations and not getting permits by the county.

    using this case a benchmark for county marijuana growing cases seems silly, since it will be federal judges making the decision, not gallegos.

  10. i hope that this issue doesnt become a story of pot growers agaisnt the govt. building permit enforcement is countywide, with eureka having the vast majority of "stop-work orders" issued.

    ive had quite a few orders issued to me and have wondered on each occassion how the county was tipped off to my project.

    should the county really be shaking down its business community for cash, or should it ENCOURAGE improvements to business since it will boost their tax base?

  11. I once knew a Mom who called the Sheriff on her kids (girls) all the time. Why? Because she couldn't control them. In effect, she used the Sheriff's deputies as the parent for her kids. The one who would tell them to behave. It was a sad, sorry, sick situation.

    Now we find that in Humboldt County, if you want anything done, you have to bring in the feds.

    Has there been any report of what has or is happening to Schectman? Has he been charged? Indicted? Investigated? Do you have any links? Last I heard he was merrily suing away.

    Feds or not, there are County charges there, too, and they should be brought.

    If the YeeHaw guy has to go to court, so should Gallegos' buddy, Recall-shill Steve Schectnan.

  12. rose,
    i doubt that my mom turned me in. she's not a big fan of getting permits either.

    as far as schectman goes, if he was never found in possesion of plants, he will not be charged with cultivation. i dont think he was ever arrested for cultivation.

  13. Your mom should have turned you in. And not deprived you of attention.

    As to Schectman if he was involved he could be charged with conspiracy to cultivate, to sell, and so on.

    His little buddy Josh had others do the grows in the Bay Area and he was charged (and I think already convicted) of conspiracy? You can bet your back side that Schectman was not his lawyer in Federal court.

  14. 7:16,
    thank for you stating your postition on the code issue. you support families turning on each other in order to line the pockets of local government officials.

    thank you for stating your opinion on schectman's people like you who we can thank for making america the country that incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than ANY other country in the world.

    oh well, we are now at the point in our country's history where socialists like 7:16 want to jail people for making money. jealousy is a VERY strong feeling.

  15. wealth envy cracks me up......

  16. It's not wealth envy that makes me despise Steve Schectman, the Recall shill, slimy POS.

    I don't know if he has a dime to his name, and I don't really care.

    That man could've been DA. If that doesn't tell you who we are dealing with in the Gallegos camp, nothing does.

  17. despise is a strong word....being emotionally involved in issues can clouds ones thougts. its better to step away and take a deep breathe sometimes(healthier at least!!).....

  18. From Heraldo's Blog:

    Desadier Demoted...

    thorn Says:

    May 30, 2008 at 1:45 am

    first of all, no one takes a “voluntary” demotion, that’s just face-saving p.r. bullcrap.

    this cowardly-bully-in-uniform should have been fired, straight up. but at least there has been SOME consequence for this armed asshole’s idiotic actions. perhaps his demotion will act as a cautionary tale for other cops who might otherwise treat all civilians as presumed dangerous criminals, instead of as neighbors, fellow citizens, and fellow human beings.

    desadier is the jerk who brought a heavily-armed military-style raid to the yee-haw ranch in trinidad, just because a few days earlier residents asked him not to come on the property without a warrant and without the owner being present. he described thiese simple requests to the north coast journal by saying that the residents “put up a fight,” which was used as justification for the armed raid, in which another coward/deputy (fulton) pointed a gun at a young mom, her infant daughter and 5-year-old son. all over a few trailers, cabins and converted schoolbuses…oh yeah, i almost forgot the dreaded “greywater” that frightens some people so much. another justification that desadier used was that one of the residents he met on the earlier occasion had tattoos, so he “might have been a parolee.” and on this basis he called in a virtual swat team to roust families out of their homes, pepper spray a dog, and wave guns at small children.

    this guy should have been fired, and then run out of town on a rail. but at least he got “voluntarily” demoted. i hope he develops a little more personal fortitude so that in his re-armed position as a deputy he won’t feel the need to hold children at gunpoint so that he feels “comfortable” while trampling their families civil rights for no good reason.

    i’ll bet that jeff conner (the other code enforcement guy) is happy that he won’t have to be associated wth desadier’s idiotic and violent approach to code enforcement.

    next items of business:

    (1) drop the asinine suit against Charles Garth, the owner of the trinidad property where the yee-haw ranch is located, and the even-more-ludicrous civil charges against his former tenants for being “co-conspirators” by paying “sub-standard” (also known as affordable) rent.

    (2) adopt more appropriate rural building and sanitation codes, including a more reasonable process for getting composting toilets and greywater systems approved.

    (3) adopt a policly whereby no family will be kicked out of their home for mere paperwork violations or anything else short of a demonstrably dangerous situation.

    (4) permanently decriminalize and permanently disarm code enforcement, and adopt an approach that seeks to educate and offer assistance rather than bullying, threatening, filing idiotic lawsuits, etc.

    (5) stop the use of the patently unconstitutional “administrative” warrants that allow cops onto private property without demonstrating “probable cause” as required by the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution.

    - thorn

    p.s. d.a. paul gallegos did the right thing by un-deputizing the code enforcement officers. too bad it took 5 years to get around to it despite his numerous statements at the garberville meeting that he had been “uncomfortable” with it for “some time.” but, well, better late than never!

    thorn Says:

    May 30, 2008 at 1:58 am
    ( i cut-and-pasted this from eric’s blog. - thorn )

    FYI Said:

    In my opinion, this was the most disturbing part of the Code Enforcement meeting that was described in the Times-Standard story:


    “County Counsel’s Office attorney Richard Hendry — who went to work for the county in 1994 to establish the code enforcement unit a year later — shared some background on inspection warrants, the means which allows code enforcement unit officers to enter private property without notice.

    It’s a civil court order, he said, which allows officers access to property to determine if violations have occurred.

    Criminal warrants, conversely, require probable cause. The only requirement for inspection warrants is the reasonable perception that some nonconformity exists, he said. ”


    “Reasonable perception that some nonconformity exists” !?!?

    So much for the Constitution, which requires “probable cause.” And these folks - Hendry and Chaitin - are supposed to be attorneys?

    The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Again: “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”

    Got that? There’s nothing there about “…reasonable perception that some nonconformity exists…” being grounds for a warrant.

    Isn’t this clearly unconstitutional? Get ready for another expensive lawsuit against the county for, once again, overstepping its legal authority in the attempt to extend the powers of the police state against certain targeted groups -just as with the pepper-spray case and the Tooby lawsuit.

    BE THERE June 6th!!!

    Mon May 26, 12:10:00 PM

    thorn Says:

    May 30, 2008 at 2:02 am
    “BE THERE June 6th!!!”

    june 6th is apparently the date of the next meeting of the code enforcement task force.

    J.P. Says:

    May 30, 2008 at 7:51 pm
    Anybody here know the time and location of that Code Enforcement Task Force meeting on the 6th?

    J.P. Says:

    May 31, 2008 at 8:43 pm
    It turns out the answer was in the Journal article: the meeting is this coming Friday, June 6th, at 10:00 am in the Board of Supervisor’s Chambers.

    Be there…or forever hold your piss.

    Jane Doe Says:

    May 31, 2008 at 8:54 pm
    Hey Thorn, good to see you.

    thorn Says:

    May 31, 2008 at 10:47 pm
    why thankee kindly ma’am…

    thorn Says:

    May 31, 2008 at 10:56 pm
    what do you make of the fourth amendment issues, jane? did i miss something, or is it quite clear that “no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause” ? wouldn’t that make the much lower standard of “a reasonable suspicion that some nonconformity exists” an unconstitutional basis for these “inspection” warrants?

    i wish eric would run a new thread on this over at his sohum parlance blog - then we might here from him and/or ed denson (both of whom are attorneys) on their interpretation of this seeming contradiction between what the code enforcement unit is doing and what the plain language of the constitution calls for.

    eric? ed? any other attorneys out there?

  19. Yeah, then let's pull up "Jane's" rants about why code enforcement is sacred and couldn't be criticized. "heraldo" is big on those contradictions.

    And since you're pulling interesting comments from over there, there was one I found particularly fascinating. I'll have to see if I can find it, then it would be interesting to see if it is true, because if it is...

    I'm also interested in the ones where "Jane" demonstrates some knowledge of the Planning Dept. (and she isn't usually the top crayon in the stack, so for her to have knowledge is well, interesting in and of itself, but...) She always has those talking points down pat.

  20. Some of Jane's rants are both ill-founded and ill-mannered. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she worked for the county planning department!

    But seriously, this issue of whether the 4th amendment's requirement for Probable Cause is so easily sidestepped seems to me to be a very serious one.

    Today its code enforcement and pot raids, tomorrow they may come after you for your illegal tobacco cigarettes or an illegal fossil-fuel engine, or an illegal piece of red meat. I'm only half-joking about those seems like that's where we are heading...the obnoxious interference of the left-wing-supported nanny-state married to the obnoxious overreach of the right-wing-supported police state.

    I realise this sounds alarmist, maybe even "shouting fire," but is it better to sound the alarm, or to go on snoozing as the smoldering turns to flames?

  21. No, 12:17. It's not alarmist. That's why it's going to take the wisdom of Solomon to fix this one.

    Because the guy above who said it all the pot growers crying is partially right.

    It's quite a dilemma. There's a local astrologist who for years has had us in a period where we are to redefine what it is we believe. And she may be right. We have laws. Do we believe they should be enforced?

    It appears we think they should be enforced to the last letter of every paragraph with every hanging chad when it comes to Palco (for example) - but we should let the pot growers grow for sale across the globe, rake in the big bucks, destroy neighborhoods.... that's the progressive way.

  22. a local astrologist? oh brother.....

    my palm reader told me the exact opposite thing!!!

  23. LOL. Theo - I'm just sayin' - "Sentient Times" is a little skewy, but there's some truth to the statement. We have to decide what it is we really care about. The feel good rhetoric that ends up biting you in the ass, or the real life basics like your neighborhood doesn't need drug dealers and growhouses, meth dealers, do you want that old campaign standby - jobs, do you want a thriving business climate, or do you want excessive business killing regulations and red-tape because it pleased somebody in their quest for power along the way...

    I'm not wording it well, and I'm not giving it my full attention, so feel free to rip apart what I'm trying to say - but I'm hoping the gist of it is coming through.

  24. so the wisdom of solomon is what is needed, but what we have to work with is the county counsel, the county supervisors, and your favorite, paul v. gallegos!

    hoo-boy are we in trouble!

    but seriously, from my considerable experience in the "back-to-the-lander" and "envionmentalist" milieu, most of those who think that actors like hurwitz should be prevented from overlogging and support using the law to stop him when possible, also believe that the big diesel dope grows should be prevented from destroying our creeks and support using the laws to stop them when possible as well.

    so there may be a lot less hypocrisy there than you think, at least among the average back-to-the-land families (including small mom-and-pop pot growers, who despite the reports of their demise are still the great majority of the outdoor growers in the county) and the ordinary supporters of the environmental groups. their "leaders" may be another matter, but the fact is that these "leaders" can quickly become irrelevant when their suppoters go another way.

    so in my opinion there is some hope for reasonable approaches on both corporate environmental issues, as well as big-pot-grower environmental issues.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.