BDG Shysters*: "Get'cher Tea Head Turncoats (tm) Here!"

.

BDG self-confession began long, long ago...



 The Barefoot Dirty Girls

• Mistresses of Flim-Flam**
• Purveyors of TLC Roach Coach Swill
• Growers and Distributors of Sierra High (c) Marijuana
• Brains (?) and Producers of Tea Head Turncoats

-------------------------

I guess Lyin' Lynda and Roly-Poly Red have been ruminating on my proposal from last January, in the post "Opprobrius Chameleons: Reversibles and Rip-Offs" - a jacket that announces to the world what bad-girl bad-asses they are on the outside... but warm, fluffy, virginal, cuddly and affirming on the inside.



NO camouflage covers the BDG's the moment they open their mouths.
(Hmmm... maybe camouflaged duct tape over their mouths...)

In patenting this "invention," the most telling sentence in the entire Innovation Application is this one, penned by Theresa Ann Brassey in 1998 (though undoubtedly dictated to her by Lyin' Lynda Sue Allen):

"If the team [s]he is rooting for loses the game or is otherwise unacceptable to the rest of the fans, e.g. for example [sic] if they are the visiting team, the user can simply reverse the jacket and present those fans in the stadium with a logo for a team and/or player that is acceptable to them."

What a slimy, manipulative confession of unprincipled action! This applied statement of Lyin' Lynda's and Roly-Poly Red's credo grows out of their blind paranoia that someone might see them for who they really are; it attempts to validate their schizophrenic view of this life; and it embodies their anxiety and dread of the here-and-now and the hereafter.

"Just turn the coat (and hope no one looks inside.)"

The Barefoot Dirty Girls are merely recycling their wasted lives. As one online encyclopedia put it,

"The fear of the past coming to upset the newly-found stability is always present in the mind of the turncoat. The past is rewritten and whitewashed to cover former deeds. When successful, this activity results in the distortion and falsification of historical events."

Amen.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But the story continues and gets better. Their plan was (is?) to capitalize on the patent by trademarking a clothing line label - Turncoat. (Yes, Turncoat! From their own mouths! I know...!)

Not one, but two trademark applications were filed. It appears these two snake-oil saleswomen have been through litigation before. New action took place a few months ago on one of the trademark serial #'s, cancelling the original litigated one.

Trademark Serial # 76454909 (live)

Litigated Serial # 76533488 (dead- cancelled 04Feb2011)

It looks as if our local turncoats are attempting to re-launch some sort of camouflage enterprise.

The BDG's:

Drive '89 Chevy submersibles
We blend in 'cause we wear reversibles
Don't dare you detract!
Don't give us no flak
By sayin' we're gas-filled dirigibles.

Yeah, that black market "Manteca medical" marijuana money needs a Turncoat (tm) money laundering front in order to evade numerous more laws. As spelled out repeatedly in the Showtime series, Weeds, the BDG's need some sort of cash-based scam going to hide their activities and perpetuate their miserable existences. Just like their earlier roach coach food business, drug money funding; now, instead of cash for emetic comestibles, cash sales of Chinese-made sports apparel (especially for a worthless franchise in a useless industry.)

If anyone happens to spot one of these monstrosities in real life -- a jacket or a BDG (no diff) -- check it for a hidden zipper pocket for smuggling a marijuana inventory stash into Raider football games. (Now we know why the fans of eyeless, toothless pirates are so wigged out... Go, Red, weed-brained daughter of the San Leandro Pirates!)

Here's another suggestion for
Lyin' Lynda, Ravaged Red, and Guts[y] Green -

just sew large, scarlet A's

on your personal jackets... inside and out...
after all, "A is for Asshole[s]."

(And watch out for those gas-filled dirigibles that float over stadia full of people.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* shy·ster (n) Slang. A person who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business. An unethical, unscrupulous practitioner, especially of law.

Word History: Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. Shyster is most likely derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally "one who defecates," from the verb scheissen, "to defecate." Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of the English terms bastard and son of a bitch. [Middle High German schzen, from Old High German skzzan; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The Flim-Flam Man (20th Century Fox)  George C. Scott plays Mordecai C. Jones (self-styled "M.B.S., C.S., D.D. — Master of Back-Stabbing, Cork-Screwing and Dirty-Dealing!"), a drifting confidence trickster who makes his living defrauding people in the southern United States. [Really? Criminals drifting through life on lies and evasion? Sound familiar, BDG's?]


.

Ticky-Tacky Little Narc Squabs

.

Duh... what happened to all my Dodo squabs?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My email to the Superintendent of the Manteca Unified School District regarding the illegal marijuana cooperative operating right behind Sierra High School:

Mr. Messer,

Consider this an update from last year, when the three residents were growing their own weed at 810 Fishback Street. That usage was apparently legal. Those three moved last Easter, turned the property over to a relative, yet still return to collect the crop. That activity, however -- growing for non-residents -- constitutes a cooperative or collective, which is strictly prohibited within a thousand feet of a school, not to mention being in a residential district.

I would suggest you request another police visit to ascertain the cardholder status of the property residents, and investigate the shipments of marijuana to non-residents (ie., a co-op.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

His response:

Mr Behling,

We did contact the Manteca P.D. again and they emailed Sergeant Mraz, cmraz@ci.manteca.ca.us, who is the supervisor for the narcotics unit.  They did a compliance check on the home and they meet all requirements.  The address on Fishback is in compliance with state law.  They recommended that if you needed any further information you could contact Sergeant Mraz.  Thanks for keeping me posted.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Compliance check, my ass! Contacting Sergeant Mraz - or any other useless, unreliable party - at the Manteca P.D. is a waste of time, breath, or any other resource. (I'd love to see some dip-shit email him with words of encouragement and support for not enforcing the marijuana laws. Be sure to leave a copy here on a Comment; I'd love to post it!) The former residents had to be forced into structural "compliance" the previous year, although there was an awful lot of collective "sharing" of the more-than-three-persons crop going on. City law requires destruction of excess marijuana, not "sharing" or selling it to persons not holding some perjured doctor's medical recommendation.

Compliance with state law? Barely... California law does contemplate private cooperatives among medical marijuana patients only (but not the so-called cannibis clubs.)

Compliance with Manteca law? Bullshit, Sergeant Mraz! The new residents, relatives of the scofflaw Barefoot Dirty Girls, are openly distributing the crop off the property, which is a clear cut restriction on a collective or cooperative in Manteca's very own officially adopted -- but heroically unenforced! -- Municipal Code (here.) While you're reading subsections F. and G., be sure to also read about not having co-ops in a residential district or next to a school.

Compliance check, my ass! What'd you do, Sergeant Mraz? Read last year's reports? They don't tell you that:

1. The formerly barely legal residents became non-residents.
2. The current residents are growing weed for those non-residents (ie., became a co-op.)
3. The current residents are illegally distributing weed off the property for those non-residents and others.
4. MMC 8.35.030, subsections F. and G., prohibits co-ops in residential districts and next to schools.

Make sure of your entries on the police department service call logs for that so-called "compliance check." Hell, Sarge, you probably went over, all right... just to pick up your monthly vig of Sierra High (c) whacky tabacky.

It appears the overly  highly  educated  educators  administrators at MUSD are willing to trust  believe  be duped by the underly educated  Voc Ed dropouts  _?_?_?_ at MPD regarding this law - and breach the duty they owe to the students and parents.

The people of Manteca, and parents within Manteca Unified School District, get exactly what they deserve when they cede authority to such troublemakers, scoundrels, beatniks, bumpkins and bastards!

To honor (or ridicule; they won't know the difference) the rabble of monumental imbeciles on the public dole  employed at the Manteca Police Department, I composed alternate words to a ditty seen/heard earlier on this blog:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Little Narc Squabs*

(sung to the catchy little tune of "Little Boxes," here, Season 1, Episode 1.)

[1]
Little narc squabs, in Manteca,
Little narc squabs smoking tacky-tacky,
Little narc squabs, bumbling drug cops,
Little narc squabs;  not a brain.

There’s a nose ring, and a tattoo,
And the ones should been fired long ago,
And they all smell of homegrown ticky-tacky
And they all act just the same.


[2]
So the potheads in their grow sheds
Still cultivate with impunity-
They just put some in special boxes
When the narc squabs call again.

Some for Mayor, some for Sergeant,
And a whole host of other City squabs,
’Cause they all toke lots of ticky-tacky
And they look the other way.


[3]
And the kiddies in the schoolyard
See the narc squabs playin' fast and loose;
“What the hell, then, I can smoke, too,”
Is the kiddies’ last refrain.

But the teachers and the principal
And even the Superintendant
Take the word of reeking narc squabs
That there’s nothing going wrong.


[4]
There’s a fox and there’s a henhouse,
And the one’s to keep the other safe.
In Manteca, them’s the narc squabs-
Keep the co-ops nice and green.

There’s a fat one and a thin one
And a pock-faced really ugly one,
And they all smell of homegrown ticky-tacky
And they all act just the same.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* squab (n) 1. A young, newly hatched, or unfledged pigeon. 2. A soft, thick cushion, as for a couch.
(adj) Young and undeveloped; newly hatched or unfledged: "a narc squab."

All these descriptors fit: unfledged, soft, thick... esp. thick...


...

BDG's Latest (Family) Business Expansion

.

aka, Green and Yellow and the Red Balloon



This is a follow up to the post of October 20, 2010, where I surmised the beginning of a new illegal business by Lyin' Lynda, Resectioned Red, and Cork-Screwed.)

The Barefoot Dirty Girls were busy this weekend - but not moving. As I predicted, the scenes of cars, trucks, and trailers convoys moving more shit off the property were just stage props for Lyin' Lynda to practice her fevered incantations and other office party games, like that old chestnut, "Gossip." (Her entire life has been a lie!)

The Kid and his pa came over several days to help Lyin' Auntie Lyn, and "Auntie" Red, and "Auntie" Cork-Screwed with the façade of activity. Bubba and Bubba Lite (you know, twice the size! half the calories!) schlepped a bunch of boxes to truck and trailer, ferried the junk elsewhere, and puttered around the yard, taking orders from the howlet-faced general like good little soldiers.

But man's and boy's real purpose was to build a wooden screen fence to block off the view of the marijuana sheds from the west, north, and east. (Aww, Fudge! Those just happen to be the sides viewable from the street, from my property, and from Sierra High School.) This will greatly ease the BDGs' smuggling of people and product in and out of the MJ Sheds, allowing them to train, grow, and distribute with less chance of detection.

That is, of course, unless they move... and have to turn the operation over to someone else. Who else could these baked dopey women trust to follow their orders better than blood kin? The scenario looks like this:

• Take up long term residence elsewhere (not yet done)
• Flood their property with guard dogs and surveillance (already done)
• Set up the most kick-ass grow operation possible (pretty close)
• Move a fall guy scion into place, trained in herbiculture and harvesting (but whom?)
• Distribution - pretend they are Celia Hodes, "Weeds" character (done, done, and over done)
• Hone their NsFH skills (baked to perfection)
• Smoke happy grass happily ever after, or until their pea-brains are toasted (almost there!)

Sounds heavenly, huh?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Nuts shaken from the TLC family tree






The Keekin' Glass

How daur ye ca' me 'Howlet-face',
Ye blear-e'ed, wither'd spectre?
Ye only spied the keekin' glass,
An' there ye saw your picture.

(Robert Burns)













.

A Few Key Documents From the Report

{Click on the highlighted links for the larger versions}


First up, the County Recorder's filing showing the annexation finalizing in December 1986.

Next is the deed where the Mego's, still living at 810 Fishback in April 1987, purchased a new home on the other side of Manteca. After this purchase they would have put up the property for sale.

This second deed is when the Mego's sold the property to Lynda Allen & Theresa Brassey in November 1987.

Sixteen months later is the Fictitious Business Name published notice from March 1989, where in Allen & Brassey lied about their principal place of business.

Lastly, the hand-redrawn chart of the business operation of TLC Catering from the new beginning in Manteca through 2008 (current.) Most of this data came from the Health Department permits the two women relied on so heavily.

Enjoyable, no?

.

What Do Pit Bulls, Used Cars, Annexations & Code Enforcement Have in Common?

City of Manteca senior staff are schizophrenic. Of course, its a "trickle down" effect because our Glorious City Council enables them to pursue their pet projects with a free hand, while totally ignoring the festering boils infecting various neighborhoods.


This explains why an unenforceable pit bull ordinance gets adopted 5-0 over the objections of some who have state law backing them up. (Can anyone say, arrogant?)


This explains why code enforcement and planning force a used car dealer to put in "beautifying" downtown landscaping, while ugly, illegal uses of many residential properties - and much illegal business - runs rampant throughout the city, even after code enforcement and planning/zoning are handed the evidence on a silver platter. (Hmm... kinda like "whitewashing the sepulchre.")


This explains why the whole MUSD property must be annexed - along with taking away the protest rights from the East Louise/Airport Way residents - in order to clear a path to the future annexation of a large industrial park. (Restated: My public legacy - your private expense.)


This explains the campaign rhetoric of one councilman, Steve DeBrum, "We must continue to augment an aggressive code enforcement program with a complaint-driven system in order to ... [blah, blah, blah]" and the emphatic public statement of the Director of Community Development, Mark Nelson, "It is not my job to perpetuate the mistakes of the past!" versus the whining, handwringing refrain from code enforcement, "There is nothing we can do."



See the advantages of a huge "committee" run by politicians? They can lay claim to all the credit on one hand and deny any blame or culpability (or responsibility) on the other.





.

JACKPOT! (Ka-ching... ka-ching... ka-ching...)

Nothing is sweeter than revising assumptions and revisiting unchallenged claims - and blowing those claims to hell!



Here I recap my progression from naïveté to hardened cynicism...






1. I originally assumed TLC Catering was a legal business, with law-abiding owners who had the necessary neighborliness to mitigate any noise or other nuisance their business might generate in a residential area. My neighbor, Lynda Allen, immediately gutted that assumption with her caustic and intimidating communication tactics. She stridently chanted her mantra, "I have a legally grandfathered business," while clutching and waving some yellowed papers in her ancient fingers. The City of Manteca had apparently given her some reason to believe that. Who was I to argue with both neighbor and City Hall?


2. I assumed a "legal business" would be subject to a City of Manteca noise ordinance. After suffering an insufferable summer of sleep deprivation caused by an equally ancient Scotsman commercial icemaker, improperly installed outdoors and too close to my fence line and house, I was driven to file a series of written complaints outlining the depth, breadth, and seriousness of the problem. The city ignored my initial letters and public statements at city council meetings. This led me to stumble upon the fact that this was a "new" noise ordinance, and never would apply to a grandfathered business. My research began in earnest. For many months - and until it was too late - the city did not even try to measure the noise nor to enforce the "old" ordinance.



3. I assumed a "legal business" would be subject to a City of Manteca business permit. Manteca personnel dispatched that thought with the simplistic argument that the "activity next door was not a business" and did not need a business permit because TLC Catering did not transact any retail sales in Manteca's city limits. The city has NEVER issued TLC Catering a Business Permit for Revenue, and still refuses to acknowledge all of the non-retail activities of an actively operating business by requiring a Business Permit for Regulation Only.



4. I assumed a "legal business" would be subject to a City of Manteca permit for a Home Occupation because business or non-business activity of a non-residential character in a residential zone requires one (also known as a Conditional Use Permit prior to 1992.) TLC Catering has NEVER had such a permit. Code enforcement officers, Manteca Chief of Police, Manteca planning (zoning) personnel, and the Manteca Director of Community Development have all waffled so badly with mealy-mouthed answers to this one that I am still unsure if they know what Municipal Code sections apply.



5. My research turned up a 1993 letter from the City wherein TLC Catering's operations were declared a "legal but non-conforming use" of property. (This must be where Lynda Allen's mantra came from.) I assumed that the TLC Catering commissary business expansion, which occurred in 1994, would be restricted from grandfathering according to the letter's explanation, or at least be subject to Manteca's 1992 Home Occupation ordinance. That supposition was blasted when a code enforcement officer took it upon himself to misinterpret common law and write, "I am not necessarily in agreement..." (I know where this one is going...)



Finally, I revisited the original assumption - grandfathering at annexation.



- - - - - IF:



* Prior to December 17, 1986,

* A catering truck business was operating on that property, and

* It was doing so legally,



- - - - - THEN, it would be grandfathered for:



* The continued use of that property,

* At no greater than existing level and scope of business use,

* By the current and subsequent property owners,

* Until the non-conforming use ceases.



JACKPOT!

Until now, I have never argued that TLC Catering was an illegal business; only that its use of residential property was illegal. I have questioned the legality of the business expansion resulting in a full commissary on the property. But now it appears that the entire business - all operations, assets, equipment (especially the icemaker), and large and small business jetsam - is illegally occupying a residential property.

The only question remaining is: Did Lewis Mego and Anne Mego, the former property owners, operate a legal catering truck business on the property on December 17, 1986, and until they sold the property to Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey eleven months later, on November 10, 1987?

If the Mego's had a catering truck business AND a legal land use permit from San Joaquin County, then that business use would be grandfathered. However, all indications so far are that my neighbors purchased the property from the Mego's and THEN began to establish an unpermitted and illegal business operation on residential property within Manteca city limits.

.

Stay tuned for the next episode of this long-running soap opera...

.

Chumming for Whales

This script is so predictable it does not take a mentalist to recite the lines before the (very bad) actor speaks them.

• Months ago, a code enforcement officer said to me, "Anyone can have a commercial icemaker on their property."
• During the same conversation he said, "The activity going on next door is not a business."
• Last week, a code enforcement supervisor tells me, in essence, "Anyone can have several giant metal freezer boxes on their property."
• And I am now informed (below), "Anyone can collect abandoned catering trucks on their property."

These are the "quality of life" issues as determined by code enforcement officers of the City of Manteca.

This latest exchange took place over a "Papa Bear" sized catering truck, a "Mama Bear" sized vending vehicle, and a "Baby Bear" sized Buick Regal, all parked along one edge of the property next door. All have "For Sale" signs in the front windshields, but nobody can see them because they are totally faded, scootched down sideways behind the windshields, the windshields so dirty it's hard to see them, and they cannot be made out from the sidewalk in any event. Just giant metal boxes on wheels, no longer used in the unlawful TLC Catering business.

The City of Manteca has an on-line program for communications from the citizenry. At city council meetings, the administration simply cannot figure out why so few complaints come through the system versus people calling the police department. Well, here's an example of the shallow and specious responses one gets from the one in charge of code enforcement.

-----Original Message-----From: Manteca Help Line [mailto:manteca@user.govoutreach.com]Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:43 PMTo: Richard BehlingSubject: Manteca-CRM: New Request # 197462 [3132316139643362]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for contacting the City of Manteca. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you and assure you a positive experience with us.

The Problem you submitted was:

Request type: Inoperable Vehicle on Private Property

Description:

1. Abandoned mobile food preparation unit (catering truck).

CA license # 4A09350, no current tag. Cast-off from unlawful business operation. Permanently located alongside parking spot of remaining operational truck and used as unauthorized storage unit.

2. Abandoned mobile food vending truck.

CA license # 3V60905, no current tag. Cast-off from unlawful business operation.

3. Abandoned automobile – Regal.

CA license # 732PGK, no current tag.

When a person signs up and logs in, the messages are tagged with all that indentifying information. But the city employee who responds to it is anonymous unless he/she signs the response. In this case - nothing - and this message was irresistable to one who speaks with a mellifluous voice like unto God.

-----Original Message-----From: Manteca Help Line [mailto:manteca@user.govoutreach.com]Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:44 PMTo: Richard BehlingSubject: Manteca-CRM: Closed Request # 197462 [3132316139643362]

Dear Richard,

Your request # 197462 has been resolved with the resolution:

All vehicles on the property are whole and complete and are operable. Current registration is not required unless a vehicle is to be operated upon a public roadway.

How disingenuous is that answer? Any moron, myself included, knows he can't drive without tags! The whole point of the complaint is to get an officer, well-versed in the Municipal Code and its intent, to apply such code to the situation at hand. An even larger issue is this: Equipment formerly used in the unlawful business cannot be "legalized" merely by abandonment, because it then becomes "abandoned." Duh... like, do I have to explain the code to him?

(Of course, this anonymous soul seems to need all the help he/she can get.)

-----Original Message-----From: Manteca Help Line [mailto:manteca@user.govoutreach.com]Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:14 PMTo: Richard BehlingSubject: Manteca-CRM: New Request # 198750 [3437656466356137]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for contacting the City of Manteca. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you and assure you a positive experience with us.

The Complaint you submitted was:

Request type: Abandoned Vehicle

Description:

See Request # 197462, closed prematurely.

Thank you for verifying the operating condition and registration status of the three vehicles listed in the complaint. However, your report does not answer to the definitions spelled out in Manteca’s Municipal Code, Section 8.20.010, A. and D., for abandoned and inoperative vehicles.

These three vehicles are not registered, appear by sight to have been left to the elements, and cannot be lawfully operated upon any highway. Section 8.20.020 recounts the city council making the finding that since the 1980’s the accumulation of abandoned or inoperative vehicles on private property (three’s a crowd!) tends to reduce the value of private property and to promote blight and deterioration and declaring such storage a public nuisance.

The one possible exemption is if “A vehicle” [singular] is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property. That would apply threefold to this accumulated fleet, yet the subject property has no such structure or facility.

For the twenty-two months I have been personally aware of these vehicles, there has never been any apparent good faith effort to dispose of them. Indeed, the sun-faded and obscured “For Sale” signs in the windows are truly only diversionary window dressing.

Quit dithering around and issue the "ten-day notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicles."

From my experience with the "Make-The-Citizens-Think-We're-Listening" reporting system, I would strongly discourage anyone from routing any messages to code enforcement for the present... unless you like chumming... and get a nibble like I did.

Hauling Out the Trailer Trash - One Piece at a Time

O.K., folks, it's time to clean up for the annual health department inspection of the commissary operation. Of course, we don't have to worry about the really big ticket items because the county's Environmental Health Department only checks food temperatures, hot water, washing hands, and whether the ice scoop is clean (more on that last one later.)


Anyway, five (5) pieces of trailer trash are hidden in plain sight, among all the other building code violations and affronts to common sense and decency. Can you spot them?





The first two fall under something called "Property Maintenance" in Manteca's Municipal Code (Chapter 17.53.) Freezers are specifically mentioned in both the "Unlawful Residential Property Nuisance" section and the "Unlawful Nonresidential Property Nuisance" section - so the code boys from city hall can take their pick (they seem to be confused whether this is a business or not.)

These two big metal boxes with compressors on top were apparently used during TLC Catering's heyday (circa 1999, four EHD truck licenses and the EHD commissary license.) Now they are used for storing junk and harboring vermin and feral cats. Don't believe me? See for yourself.

Abandoned Trailmobile full size shipping container.

Located along east property line, behind the commissary trailer. Cast-off from unlawful business operation. Unused for at least two years, probably more. Formerly used as walk-in refrigerator/freezer with two roof-mounted compressors.


Abandoned metal insulated walk-in refrigerator/freezer.

Located along north property line, in vicinity of commercial icemaker and several refrigerators. Cast-off from unlawful business operation. Unused for at least two years, probably more.

Abandoned vehicles

The three vehicles are under a different part of the Municipal Code, in Chapter 8.20, Abandoned Vehicles. The city council found that: "The accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof on private or public property not including highways is found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, ..." Yup, I agree with that.

Unlicensed and inoperative vehicles can only be stored on residential property if they are enclosed in a building and not visible from the street or other public or private property. The interesting thing about all three vehicles is the For Sale sign inside each windshield, as if the owners are pretending to dispose of them. This car and these trucks "appear by sight to have been left to the elements" and the California Highway Patrol confirms their unlicensed and inoperative status.

It's bad enough that Manteca allows (even protects) an illegal business to operate on this property. Worse, still is the official denial of its existence and operation. Now, we get to watch the business jetsam turn to detritus...

Two complaints were entered into the city's "government out-of-reach" website, one for the two freezers and one for the three vehicles. However, the two "pigeon hole" classifications for the complaints were both assigned to code enforcement, so I estimate the liklihood of real resolution to be zero (0.00%).

We will watch to see which gets the cast offs first - rust or city enforcement people. (No bets taken - that's illegal, you know.)

K.I.S.S. (for Manteca City Hall)

Well, THAT election is over. The radio pundits said, "We have to educate the voters!" My observation is that educating voters is virtually identical to graduating seniors from high school.

The candidates I voted for did not win. {~sigh~} One incumbent is returning to the Manteca City Council. The other may or may not, depending on the final count, because there was only a seven-vote spread last night between second and third. The official canvasse will take a few days.


Back to "educating" Manteca city managers again, I took up the pen (or, keyboard) and sent a letter to the Director of Community Development (a.k.a., Planning Director.) This is the guy who is supposed to be in charge of everything zoning related, including home occupation permits. After meeting with two of his guys last week and leaving only three documents with them, I now included an entire copy of my report and the report of last week's meeting.

November 5, 2008

Mr. Mark Nelson
Director of Community Development
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mr. Nelson,

I am requesting a home occupation review by the Director of Community Development, under authority granted him by the Manteca Municipal Code, Section 17.25.020, regarding the following illegal home occupation expansion:

While still part of unincorporated County of San Joaquin, Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey, owners of TLC Catering, began parking one or two catering trucks on their residential property at 18594 South Fishback Road. From the beginning they operated with only two permits: 1) a business license from the City of Tracy, and 2) a Health Department permit for each truck from the County of San Joaquin, Environmental Health Department (EHD). For whatever reason, the County of San Joaquin allowed that use of residential property, but never issued any Conditional Use permit.

On December 17, 1986, the property was annexed into the City of Manteca and the address was changed to 810 Fishback Street. The city "grandfathered" the existing business use (that is, the parking of trucks); the city did not "grandfather" the business as a whole.

In 1991, a TLC application to EHD indicated they were still using outside commissaries to re-supply the catering trucks.

In 1992, the City of Manteca adopted its Home Occupation Permit ordinance.

Sometime in early 1993, a complaint was lodged against TLC Catering and City personnel responded with some type of enforcement action. This incident caused TLC to request a determination of legal status from Manteca's Planning Department. The City's letter was issued on June 29, 1993, and clearly explained the doctrine of "grandfathering"; that is, TLC could continue to park their trucks on the property, but no more than existed in 1986, and no other business use of the property would be permitted.

(The content of the complaint, the resolution, and the file copy of the determination letter were requested months ago, but the City files have not yet been produced.)

On September 17, 1993 - only eighty days after the letter - TLC made a very risky business decision. Against the instruction they just received, they decided to increase the number of trucks and to build a commissary for all those trucks and to do all this on-site, on their residential property, to avoid renting commercial space elsewhere.

This business enlargement is illegal because of the "grandfather" restriction on business use expansion AND because this 1993-94 commissary project is subject to Manteca's 1992 Home Occupation ordinance. Lynda Allen, Theresa Brassey, or TLC Catering did not even bother to apply for a home occupation permit.

Manteca Planning Department and Code Enforcement were A.W.O.L. while TLC Commissary was born. On July 13, 1994, EHD issued a Commissary Permit to TLC Catering, after much of the following was accomplished.

• A portable building (with building permit?) was brought onto the property to serve as the dry commissary.
  


• A metal walk-in freezer and a full size steel shipping container (building permits?), with roof-mounted compressors, were installed to store frozen products.
  


• Various refrigerators to hold perishable ingredients for use in the mobile food preparation units (catering trucks).
  


• Commercial delivery trucks from Crystal Dairy, Hostess Cakes, and Oroweat make regular deliveries to the property at 3:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and other times.
  


• The crowning achievement was to acquire an antique commercial icemaker to produce up to 400 pounds of ice a day for use on the ice-cooled trucks. (Not rated for household use and wrongly located, all the noise goes to the neighbors!)
  


• In addition to all the commercial equipment, sheds, porches, and coverings (more building permits?) were constructed all around the property to protect their investments from the elements.
  


• Plugging in the trucks at night, floodlights, strings of yard lights, and all the commercial appliances draw power... LOTS of power. Seven massive solar panel units were installed and wired into the property grid.
  


• Solid wastes from the catering trucks were (and are) stored on-site in an open pickup truck until taken off-site to the refuse transfer station.
  


• Liquid wastes from the catering trucks were (and are) stored on-site in barrels until taken off-site by a pumper truck.
  
  
  Please correct this unconscionable situation. This is a power assigned to the Planning Director by city law. I am not seeking the closure of the commissary, merely its relocation to a properly zoned location. This is not code enforcement's call; they will be obligated to carry out the decision, but they do not make the decision.
  
  Enclosed you will find a copy of the report, with footnoted attachments and other enclosures, received by Mr. Pinkerton on September 3rd. In addition are my notes of my October 29th meeting at City Hall with Mr. Meissner and Mr. Rey.
  
  
  Respectfully submitted by,
  
  _____________________
  Richard W. Behling
  
  
  Enclosures: Timeline Regarding 810 Fishback Street, with footnotes and attachments.
  Review of EHD Public Records.
  Commissary Operations Observed.
  Abatement Options and Special Conditions.
  Notes on Meeting with Mr. Meissner.

Let's see how much more time Mr. Nelson needs to wrap his head around the facts.

Actually, Mr. Nelson was just appointed as a big cheese with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA.) Since my neighborhood is blighted by an operating business, with business noise and abandoned business equipment littering one particular parcel, perhaps the RDA could redevelop that parcel back into a residence? Hmmm... our tax dollars at work.

(I hope he gets it done before the infamous O. Rex [spawn of the insatiable T. Rex] trundles himself down the hallway at the smell of new blood.)

TLC Catering - "Don't need no stinkin' permits!"

OK, the lights came on, but my troubles weren't over quite yet.

This letter - from the city itself - is the keystone of my case against the city and my neighbor. Other documents, from the health department files and from other city and county sources, establish other aspects of the problem, but the letter makes sense of all of it.

I found this singular piece of evidence the day before my second attorney consultation. The city never did - and never would - issue a home occupation permit for this business use of the property. The commissary did not exist at the time of this letter.

In addition, the following email exchange shows that the county never issued any conditional use permit to that property or owners prior to annexation.

From: Richard Behling
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:50 PM
To: 'mnelson@ci.manteca.ca.us'
Subject: Request for copy of a specific home occupation permit

Dear Mr. Nelson,

I am directed to you - and I am sure you will direct this request to the very best person possible.
I am seeking copies of public documents, specifically the home occupation permit and its underlying application:

1. Issued by the County of San Joaquin (and grandfathered into Manteca),

2. In the name or names of: Lynda S Allen, Theresa A Brassey, and/or TLC Catering,

3. Located at 810 Fishback Street (or its earlier county address, 18594 South Fishback Road.)

Since City annexation of that parcel, all such requests of the county are directed back to Manteca offices. San Joaquin County has a longstanding reputation for requiring business licenses and home occupation permits for everything, so this should be fairly easy to determine if the home occupation permit ever was issued and still exists.

I would be pleased to pick these copies up in person as soon as they can be obtained by calling me. In the event this permit never was issued, please commit that result to writing and contact me as above.

Thank you.

Richard W. Behling

- - - - -

From: Martinez, Alma [amartinez@ci.manteca.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 5:03 PM
To: Richard Behling
Subject: FW: 18594 S. Fishback

Here is the email from the County Planning.

Thanks,
Alma Martinez
Planning Technician
Community Development Center

- - - - -

From: Patrick Crosby [mailto:pcrosby@sjgov.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:56 PM
To: Martinez, Alma
Subject: 18594 S. Fishback

Hello Alma,

I checked computer records, which go back to 1992, and our address files. I was unable to locate anything for that address. I also looked under the names Lynda S. Allen, Theresa Brassey and TLC Catering, in several variations. I was not able to locate any records for any of them.

Thank You,
Patrick Crosby
Assistant Planner
San Joaquin County Community Development
1810 E. Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95205
209.468.8597
209.468.3163 - Fax
pcrosby@sjgov.org
http://sjgov.org/commdev


For the entire run of their business, the owners of TLC Catering relied only on obtaining the sanitation permits required by the county health department, and never obtained permission to park their catering trucks or develop and run a full-service commissary on the property zoned as single-family residential.


All 22+ years...

My noisy neighbors

I bought my house and property in March of 2007. That is when my nightmare began. Several daytime visits to the property with my real estate agent during January and February confirmed the quiet nature of the location. Real estate disclosure forms made comment about a catering business next door and occasional nighttime noise. It wasn't until the second or third night in the house that I knew I had a big, BIG problem.

There is an ancient commercial icemaker installed outdoors and just across the old wooden fence from my bedroom window. The condenser unit for the contraption is mounted on the roof of the building above the icemaker, and the icemaker sits atop a very large capacity ice storage bin. Worse, it has fill and temperature sensors which turn on the machine whenever usage or settling from melting occurs - meaning, it can turn on at any time of day or night. Summer of 2006 was very hot and the icemaker ran all the time. In this old house, sleeping with the windows shut was intolerable, and sleeping with the windows open was impossible. The machine made my life completely miserable.

Three women live next door and operate their catering business from their residential property. I didn't see them much, with their 4:00 a.m. departure time, 1:00 p.m. return time, and a very early bedtime. On weekends we'd wave at each other. After one long stretch of continuous 24/7 operation, I asked if the machine was supposed to run all the time. I was told it was being fixed so it wouldn't. (It was fixed to go back on to its fill and temperature sensors.) When fall and winter temperatures arrived, the machine would often remain silent at night. But nighttime startups were frequent enough to hold hostage any real, peaceful sleep because of the possibility of the machine starting up in the middle of the night, especially after the 3:00 a.m. usage.

I suffered one hellish summer as "the new kid on the block." None of the neighbors made any effort to welcome me; all contacts were initiated by me. I did not complain about the noise to neighbors or city because, for all I knew, it was legal.

My anxiety mounted at the thought of spending another sleep-deprived summer like the last one, so just before Christmas 2006 I went next door and made an appointment for the weekend to talk about "neighbor stuff." The day arrived. Minutes before the appointed hour they postponed it for a couple hours. Minutes before the next meeting time they postponed it indefinitely. I requested that they schedule a convenient time. I never heard from them.

In late February I went next door and asked to speak with the Alpha female. The conversation about trees, fences, dogs went along well enough... until I mentioned the icemaker. She instantly transformed into a she-wolf, with raised hackles and bared fangs. Anger and hostility infused every hissing word she uttered. The attack was so vicious it sent me reeling. I thought, "What did I do to deserve that?" The meeting, of course, ended badly.


I barely escaped the Alpha female's attack with my hide intact and my head still attached. OK, I had made the necessary personal contact required by civil people living next to each other, but the noise was still unresolved. It did occur to me that the over-the-top response was less directed at me personally, but that this problem had come up with her neighbors in the past. That truth took quite a while to be borne out, as you will see.