Code Enforcement | Michael Reiter, Municipal Attorney with Milligan, Attorney, Beswick, Levine & Knox LLP Blog

Filed under Building Permit, City of Los Angeles, City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, Criminal Code Enforcement, Municipal Law Tagged with Abusive Code Enforcement, Building Permits, Code Enforcement, El Cajon, Jail for No Permit, Sacramento

Neighbors, Google Maps and Disputes

July 12, 2017 Leave a comment

I have been involved in a number of neighbor disputes, long-running and costly. But this is a new one.

You should definitely click on the article, but a neighbor in Washington State mowed the shortened form of an expletive in his grass with an arrow towards his neighbor so that it would appear on aerial photography.

What laws does this violate? I cannot think of any off-hand.

Can anyone think of any legal reason that the neighbor cannot do this? I’m not sure it would violate any sign code on earth, and if a code enforcement entity tried to enforce it, it would run up pretty hard against the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Reply in comments if you have any thoughts on the subject.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708

“Ogden tells dad to take down his kids’ cardboard castle because it’s ‘junk'”

Filed under Code Enforcement, Constituational Rights, First Amendment Tagged with Code Enforcement, U.S. Constituation

Code Enforcement Gone Wild

April 6, 2015 Leave a comment

I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino and the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands. Along with another Deputy, I advised what was then the Code Enforcement Department in San Bernardino. The City of Redlands had different code enforcement issues than the City of San Bernardino, but code enforcement was an important part of my job in Redlands.

We were not on the leading edge in San Bernardino (everything we did was pioneered at larger cities), but we tried to employ as many code enforcement tools as possible. We were never successfully sued in a code enforcement case while I was there.

However, now that I represent citizens, I see all kind of ticky-tack things that other entities do. Here is an article from the Salt Lake Tribune

Now, this is in Utah, but most cities and counties in California have a similar ordinance that prohibits junk, trash, and debris in your front yard. However, just because it’s technically illegal doesn’t mean that the City should cite for it.

Looking at the link from the story, this is the City of Ogden ordinance:

12-4-2: WASTE MATERIALS OR JUNK; PROHIBITED ON PREMISES:

A. Prohibition: It is unlawful for any owner, occupant, agent or lessee of real property within the city, to allow, cause or permit the following material or objects to be in or upon any yard, garden, lawn, or outdoor premises of such property:

1. Junk or salvage material;

2. Litter;

3. Any abandoned vehicle or inoperable vehicle.

In California, our ordinances tend not to be as vague as this code section.

Does a cardboard castle even qualify as “junk” or “litter?” If it were in California and I were reviewing a notice (which I believe I did sometimes in Redlands) or a citation (in San Bernardino), I would probably turn it down.

As I teach code enforcement officers in training, just because something can be cited doesn’t mean it should be.

I think the reaction by the resident was the right course of action.

“Had he not received the letter, he was planning on taking the castle down soon anyway. But after receiving it, he now plans to keep it up until just before the penalty.”

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, Constituational Rights, Municipal Law Tagged with Abusive Code Enforcement, Code Enforcement, Debris, Junk, Trash

More On Constitutionalist Nonsense

June 4, 2014 Leave a comment

One of the more relatively popular posts on this website is this post on Constitutionalists.

From time to time, I run across them in either my Code Enforcement or my Civil Rights practices.

However, I don’t wish to debate the issues. If you have a code enforcement issue, you must realize that the government has police powers to deal with code enforcement issues. The police powers are in the California Constitution:

“A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) Often referred to as the “police power,” this constitutional authority of counties and cities to adopt local ordinances was described by the Supreme Court in Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School District (1985) 29 Cal.3d 878, 885, as having the following broad scope

“Under the police power granted by the Constitution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise this power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. Apart from this limitation, the police power of a county or city under this provision is as broad as the police power exercisable by the legislature itself.” 85 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 21 (2002).

This is not up for debate.

That does not mean that the police powers are unlimited. In particular, code enforcement often does not follow the law, whether it is the City’s own processes in the municipal code, a charter provision, California law when applicable, or the California or United States Constitution.

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Code Enforcement, Constituational Rights, Fourteenth Amendment, Procedural Due Process Tagged with Code Enforcement, Constitutionalists, U.S. Constituation

Abusive Code Enforcement

August 2, 2013 1 Comment

I have begun to notice a pattern in complaints about code enforcement agencies lately.

One is that certain cities (especially large charter cities) regarding what they want out of code enforcement. They used to want to use code enforcement tools to eliminate blight and come into compliance. Now, it seems that many cities want to generate revenue from code enforcement instead of compliance.

The second pattern is that code enforcement is abusing their discretion. In order to make money, little infractions become major code enforcement violations. Dormant trees in the winter become unmaintained landscaping. A burnt patch of summer grass becomes lack of landscaping.

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Administrative Citations, Administrative Civil Penalties, City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, Constituational Rights, Municipal Code, Riverside, Riverside County, San Bernardino Tagged with Administrative Citations, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, code enforcement attorney, code enforcement attorneys, code enforcement lawyer

Garage Sales and Yard Sales (and permits) in the Cities of Highland, Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Redlands, Yucaipa and unincorporated San Bernardino County

October 17, 2012 Leave a comment

People want to know how to get yard sale and garage sale permits in the East Valley, and they find this site because of this article about the City of San Bernardino’s yard sale ordinance. Therefore, here is a chart to give a basic (but not complete) understanding of the rules and regulations regarding yard sales in the East Valley, here defined as the Cities of Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Yucaipa and unincorporated San Bernardino County such as Muscoy, Mentone, Oak Glen, Devore, Arrowhead Suburban Farms, Devore Heights, and Del Rosa. Per the City Clerk of Loma Linda, there is no yard sale ordinance in the City of Loma Linda as of 10/17/2012. Note also that homeowners associations (HOAs) probably have additional restrictions (particularly East Highlands Ranch) which you should look into.

City/Unincorporated	Permit Required	Permit Cost	Where?	Duration
Colton	Yes	$2, except charity, nonprofit, religious	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Grand Terrace	Yes (Except Exemptions)	$5	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Highland	Yes	$7	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Loma Linda	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Redlands	Yes	$2.50	Treasurer	3 d or 2d each over consecutive weekends; 8 am-8pm
Rialto	Yes (Except Exemptions)	$5.40	Finance Department	3d, daylight
San Bernardino	No (anomoly regarding Estate Sales)	N/A	N/A	3d, daylight
Yucaipa	After 1st sale	$2.50 (sales 2-4)	Front Desk, City Hall	3d, 8am-8 pm
Unincorporated San Bernardino County	No (See SBCC section 84.25.030(e) unless exceed standards of 84.10.	N/A	N/A	3d, 8am-5 pm

City/Unincorporated	Frequency	Display	Signage	Exemptions	Ordinance	Codified At	Violation
Colton	1/quarter	Not in PROW	During, onsite	Court sales	Ord 1483 (1975); 0-3-1989 (1989)	Colton Municipal Code Chapter 5.45	Misdemeanor
Grand Terrace	2/yr	Not in PROW	2 onsite, unlit, 4ft area, 5 day limit, not on PROW, trees, fences, utility poles, removed at end	Court sales, charitable, nonprofit, religious	Ord 35 (1980)	Grand Terrace Municipal Code Chapter 5.40	Infraction
Highland	3/12 mo	Safety	1 onsite doublesided, 6 ft area, 5′ tall, 24 hours before until end.	Court sales	Ord 239 (1998)	Highland Municipal Code section 5.04.370	Infraction
Loma Linda	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	None	N/A	N/A
Redlands	3/12 mo	Not in PROW, safety, only during sale		Court sales	Prior Code secs 24001-10; Ord 2684 (2007), 2779 (2012),	Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 5.68	Infraction
Rialto	4/calendar yr only first weekend in March, June, September and December	Not in PROW, front or side yards	2 onsite, 4ft area, 4directional signs, prohibited in PROW, >864 sq in., with permission of property owner.	Nonprofits,	Ord 1416 (2008)	Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 5.69	Infraction; misdemeanor for <3/yr
San Bernardino	12/yr only on 3rd weekend of mo	Not in PROW, safety, only during sale	3 onsite unlit 24 hr prior until end; 4 Directional 2 sq ft on private property w/consent	Estate sales as to frequency nonprofits as to frequency	Ord MC-1344 (2011)	San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 8.14	Infraction/misdemanor (woblette)
Yucaipa	4/12 mo	Not in PROW	1 onsite, not in PROW	Court sales	Ord 102 (1992)	Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 5.22	Infraction
Unincorporated San Bernardino County	4/yr	Not in PROW	2 onsite, 4ft area, 4 directional signs, prohibited in PROW, 864 sq in., w/permission of property owner.	None	Ord. 411 (2007)	San Bernardino County Code Chapter 84.10	Infraction; misdemeanor for >3/yr

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Administrative Citations, Amboy, Angelus Oaks, Arrowhead Suburban Farms, Baker, Baldwin Lake, Big Bear City, Big River, Bloomington, Bluewater, Cadiz, Cedar Glen, China Lake, City Clerk, City of Colton, City of Highland, City of Loma Linda, City of Redlands, City of Rialto, City of San Bernardino, City of Yucaipa, Code Enforcement, County of San Bernardino, Crafton, Crestline, Criminal Code Enforcement, Criminal Law, Daggett, Del Rosa, Del Rosa, Devore, Devore Heights, Earp, Forest Falls, Fort Irwin, Garage Sale / Yard Sale, Goffs, Helendale, Hinkley, Hodge, Johnson Valley, Joshua Tree, Kingston, Kramer Junction, Lake Arrowhead, Land Use, Land Use Law, Landers, Lenwood, Lucerne Valley, Lytle Creek, Mentone, Morongo Valley, Mount Baldy Village, Municipal Code, Municipal Law, Muscoy, Nebo Center, Newberry Springs, Nipton, Oak Glen, Oak Hills, Ordinance, Oro Grande, Phelan, Pinon Hills, Red Mountain, Rice, Rimforest, Running Springs, San Antonio Heights, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, Searles Valley, Skyforest, Sugarloaf, Trona, Twentynine Palms Base, Twin Peaks, Valley of Enchantment, Wonder Valley, Wrightwood, Yermo Tagged with Code Enforcement, estate sale, garage sale, infraction, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, misdemeanor, property sale, wobblette, yard sale

City of San Bernardino returning California Mobilehome Parks Act responsibility back to the State of California

October 2, 2012 Leave a comment

Yesterday, at the October 1, 2012 meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, the council voted 6-0 (with Council member Wendy McCammack absent) to lay over for final adoption an ordinance repealing San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 15.55 and returning responsibility for enforcing the California Mobilehome Parks Act to the State of California through the Department of Housing and Community Development. A substitute motion proposed by staff to transfer responsibility to the code enforcement division was withdrawn.

When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I had to review every mobilehome notice of violation before they were issued. Long-time readers of this blog will remember that I was hired about a month after the City’s closure of the Cypress Inn Mobilehome Park and the Valente Duran letter.

Because of cut backs related to the City’s bankruptcy, the staff responsible for the inspections was cut. The move to return responsibility to the state will save about $100,000 according to the staff report, a rather small amount of the City’s budget.

During the roughly sixteen minute discussion, City Attorney James F. Penman said that the need for local inspections was great, that the condition of the City’s mobilehome parks had deteriorated in the last ten to fifteen years, that he didn’t know the solution, because he was confident that code enforcement did not have sufficient training to do the job.

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under City of San Bernardino, Code Enforcement, Mobilehome Parks Act, Municipal Code, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, San Bernardino Municipal Code Tagged with Chapter 9 Bankruptcy, Code Enforcement, mobilehome parks act

City of San Bernardino Code Enforcement Salaries and Benefits as of July 24, 2012

July 26, 2012 2 Comments

View this document on Scribd

As a follow-up to Tuesday’s post on San Bernardino’s Fiscal Emergency Operation Plan Memorandum, and yesterday’s snapshot of the City of San Bernardino’s Community Development Department Code Enforcement Division contained in the memorandum, here are more details from the Operation Plan Memorandum regarding Code Enforcement Salaries.

This was found on page 48 of the Fiscal Emergency Operation Plan Memorandum.

As you can see, it shows the Code Enforcement Division Manager budged at $132,565 in salary and benefits, including salary, the employee portion of PERS, the employer portion of PERS, unemployment, fringe benefits, and the employer portion of Medicare. The City of San Bernardino does not pay into Social Security. You can also see that a portion of the Community Development Director’s salary is shown in Code Enforcement, $53,347 in total. The three supervising code compliance officers each are budgeted $113,545. Of course, that doesn’t mean they are taking home $113,545, but that is the current budgeted cost of the position. The two Senior Code Compliance Officer positions are set at $102,915 in salary and benefits. The lowest-cost employees appear to be the Code Compliance Processing Assistants without special pay. They are budgeted at $53,007 each.

In total, $3,024,254 are allocated towards Code Enforcement salaries in the City of San Bernardino. As the Mayor and Common Council make cuts in anticipation for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy, this amount going forward could be cut through agreed-upon give-backs or lay-offs.

The thing that seems strange about the numbers is that all similarly situated code enforcement officers and other positions are receiving the exact same amount of pay, which if they were all stepped-out would make sense, and like I said before, a lot of the officers were there when I started as a Deputy City Attorney in 2001. Also, it shows salaries for more officers than positions that are currently filled.

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Code Enforcement, Criminal Code Enforcement, Municipal Code, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, Transient Vendors Tagged with Chapter 9 Bankruptcy, Code Enforcement, Steve Wilkomm

City of San Bernardino Code Enforcement Organizational Chart as of July 17, 2012

July 25, 2012 3 Comments

View this document on Scribd

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on San Bernardino’s Fiscal Emergency Operation Plan Memorandum, here is a snapshot of the City of San Bernardino’s Community Development Department Code Enforcement Division contained in the memorandum.

On Page 50 of the Memorandum is an organizational chart for Code Enforcement dated July 17, 2012. It details the names and titles of the code enforcement officials responsible for code enforcement in the City of San Bernardino as of July 17, 2012. In all, it shows 34 filled positions, and two vacant positions. There is a Code Enforcement Manager, Steve Wilkomm, and three Supervisor Code Enforcement Officers. The three Supervisor Code Enforcement Officers were all with the City when I was last a Deputy City Attorney, and two of them were with Code Enforcement before I became a Deputy City Attorney in 2001. In all, there are still 19 code enforcement employees that were employed at the time I left the City of San Bernardino to become the Assistant City Attorney of Redlands.

While this organization chart is likely to change in the coming months because of the Chapter 9 bankruptcy and the planned (but heretofore proposed) reorganization, likely retirements and possible further attrition, this chart gives the public insight into how Code Enforcement in San Bernardino is organized at the moment.

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Filed under Code Enforcement, Criminal Code Enforcement, Municipal Code, Municipal Law, San Bernardino, Transient Vendors Tagged with Chapter 9 Bankruptcy, Code Enforcement, Steve Wilkomm

When Should You Contact A Lawyer For A Code Enforcement Problem?

December 28, 2011 1 Comment

Many California cities have departed from filing misdemeanor or infraction citations or complaints in their local Superior Court. The reason why is that the Government Code provides a more efficient process with administrative citations. For many situations, such as leaving your garbage cans out too long, it makes more sense to pay an administrative citation then to be arraigned on a criminal citation. Further, with the ever-increasing amount of penalties piled upon criminal citations, it is also beneficial to the violator to only have to pay $100 for a ticket. The city or town benefits because they get the entire fine, minus any processing fee from a third party administrator, versus getting roughly half of the base fine for the criminal citation. In most cases, the alleged violator does not need an attorney. Even when it is a criminal case, unless your time is exceedingly valuable or you will be out of the area at the time, it does not make sense to pay an attorney to appear on your behalf.

The number one way to get rid of a code enforcement problem is to come into compliance with the ordinance. Sometimes that is not possible for financial, logistical, or other reasons. However, an attorney is often the wrong tool to deal with financial problems, as the attorney’s fee will increase the cost to remedy the situation. Sometimes an attorney can help with the process and explain the situation, and work with the agency to come up with a compliance plan.

However, with administrative civil penalties cases, where the city wants to charge the property owner up to a thousand dollars a day for a continuing violation, it may make sense to speak to an attorney sooner than later. Once the citation becomes a lien against the property, depending on the implementing ordinance, it may be impossible for anyone — including a skilled attorney, to do anything about the situation. Also, attorneys will not guarantee results, because with code enforcement, the same City that cited the alleged violator that must be convinced to change their course.

Alleged code enforcement violators like to think that they are being singled out for selective enforcement, or some kind of discrimination is at hand. Though that may be the case, having hundreds of junked cars on a property makes a selective enforcement case difficult to win. Though code enforcement departments sometimes very technical interpretations of vague municipal codes that are problems, the majority of code enforcement cases are not based on animus towards the property owner.

For out-of town landlords and property holders, it sometimes helps to have an attorney who has dealt with a code enforcement department in the past. Each code enforcement situation is different, and property owners and tenants should consult with an attorney about their particular situation.

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708