The Continually Disgorging Cornucopia of Detritus

.

C.D.C.D. BDG
(say it fast five times...)

I am flabbergasted! - near to speechless!! - at just how much useless trash treasured trophies three Barefoot Dirty Girls, six dogs, a chicken, and a cat can cram into such a small space. The shanty shed, on its illegal concrete pad, continues to disgorge load after load from the inexhaustible heap of rubbish stored inside it and the Bally walk-in freezer.

Bally freezer, left foreground; shanty shed, right foreground.
Derisively known as Icemaker Corral, home of the ice-chewing dog.
(Pic posted November 12, 2008)

This new-found Spring cleaning fetish is completely out of character for Lyin' Lynda, Re-Upholstered Red, and Cork-Screwed Green. One wonders if, maybe, there's a code enforcement reason behind it? Perhaps a financial reason?...

{brain flash} Wait! Wait! It's a change of heart and they're finally getting ready to move to Oregon?!

Anyway, Cork-Screwed's flashing episode yesterday was, I'm unsure, an expression of... what?... anger, frustration, helplessness? self-loathing, perhaps?... on her own behalf and that of her dominatrices mistresses, Lyin' Lynda and Roly-Poly Red, who were party to the unveiling (assuredly, nothin' those two haven't seen before.) So audacious and incredible was the "in-your-face" presentation that I forgot to review the immediately preceding time frame for their mind-altering drug use.

Lest one thinks this is merely another example of BDG abberant behavior, keep in mind that Cork-Screwed was only mimicking Resectioned Red's own flash and waggle dance on the 16th of January.

- - - - - - - - - -



Red Letter Day -
September 24, 2010

The following posts document the river of trash that - sometimes flooding - slowly flows and eddies through Icemaker Corral:

July 2010 - Sliding number puzzle of trash

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 - yard sale begins

September 2010 - Large appliances removed (to the reconstructed back porch!)

Fri, Sep 24, 2010 - Icemaker removed

Sat, Jan 15 - Budget moving van

Fri-Sat, Jan 21-22 - Pickup and trailer, then another loaded pickup

- - - - - - - - - -

Yup, officer, tha's her, all right.
Hey, she could be a model
for geriatric Lipo-Zapp!

 

Tue, Mar 29 - Pickup load from shanty shed (with gratuitous flash.) Cork-Screwed first staged the detritus for Roly-Poly's inspection and Lyin' Lynda's veto, then they loaded it up and shuttled it off to somewhere else (flea market, maybe?), taking a loaded Playmate cooler along, and returning about seven hours later.

(Poor R/R had to stay home, shuffle dogs, do the laundry, nap, tend the marijuana grow, and toke her joints alone. So sad... so sad... just doesn't have the knobbles for heavy lifting anymore... 'nuther hit...)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wed, Mar 30 - Breaking news.

F Another garbage triage going on this morning.

D Disappearing bottoms and house dogs (vanished before inspectors arrived for appointment.)

L Visitors get the tour (it seems everyone except plaintiff and attorney, as requested.)

K Mosquito breeding pond overturned (after four years.) {idiots!}

J One camera down (most likely only temporary.)


...
Details to follow. Keep your channel set here.
...
Don't touch that dial!

.

Bumpy Times at Manteca City Hall

My short list of (known) totally useless city employees was recently pared by one-third.

Mark Nelson is out!

This was the man who held the title of Director of Community Development, a department head.

This was the man who, in a city council meeting, indignantly spluttered, "It is NOT my job to fix all the [planning] problems of the past!" (Gee, not even the ones that require no effort on your part?)

This was the man who, in the Manteca Municipal Code, Title 17, was given full and exclusive authority to review illegal land uses and summarily stop them until compliance with the code is achieved.

This was the man who, during the City Council meeting of March 3, 2009, sat by for forty minutes without uttering a single word regarding my fully documented illegal land use complaint. Instead he deferred to Rex (The Icepick) Osborn's smear campaign and John Brinton's CYA legal elucidations or obsfucations (I couldn't tell which. Oh, right. That makes it an obsfucation...)

Even with all three of those mentioned, combined, bumps on logs are more useful.

Code Enforcement: Slack or Overbearing?

Once again the author of the blog, Pigs in the Parlor, seems to be writing in a universe where Lexington, Kentucky's woes exactly parallel those of Manteca, California.

"Lexington’s record on intelligently addressing and abating the adverse effects of the intensive, business-oriented use of residential properties is dismal at best. Not only can’t the city mitigate problems created by those that already exist — it can’t seem to identify them in the first place, hidden as they are behind the fig-leaf assertion that they are not what they most certainly and self-evidently are."

Both cities have a distinct problem enforcing longstanding zoning codes because city leaders charged with upholding quality of life goals are wholly inadequate to the task. Their policies and procedures manuals must say, "Close your eyes and maybe the property owners will magically obey the laws. ("If the law [or its agent] supposes that, then the law [or its agent] is a ass, a idiot! Dickens, Oliver Twist.)

Risking going overboard the other direction, the first commenter to this Code Attorney blog post says the "City of Fort Wayne... now use[s] administrative hearings where civil penalties are attached as a special tax assessment." Hey, good idea! The Code Attorney is jealous of her inspector colleagues in Indiana... and Minnesota.

You know, that's what City of Manteca [in California] is going to do, too. By passing Ordinance 1457, Administrative Enforcement Provisions, at tonight's City Council meeting, code enforcement will theoretically have the means to remedy an identified violation. That's the rub, though... it has to be an identified violation. It falls to the various department heads to:

• 1) have a possible violation somehow randomly impinge upon their consciousness,
• 2) think to themselves, 'Gee, this might be a violation?'
• 3) circulate the reporting party's name in-house to see if he or she is only a crackpot who can be safely ignored,
• 4) figure out if the violator is somebody important who can make personal trouble for the department head in the event of enforcement action, or is a campaign contributor, or a developer, or a friend, relative, neighbor, priest/pastor, or a [ fill in the special interest ],
• 5) try to hand off the problem to another department,
• 6) check to see if it's lunchtime yet,
• 7) while eating, have a lackey do a cursory check by making a couple phone calls to other bureaucrats,
• 8) run the situation past other department heads, city manager, mayor and council, and the city attorney to see if any closets containing political skeletons might inadvertently be opened,
• 9) have a lackey call the reporting party to say, "There's nothing we can do / will do / want to do,"
• 10) if the reporting party throws a hissy fit, have a lackey visit the violator and write down on the courtesy notice whatever the violator says. (This is also known as an "inspection" in Manteca.)

This is how violations get "identified" under the current system - and that won't change! As you can see, by the time the newly-identified violation makes it to an administrative hearing contemplated under this new ordinance, the custodians of Sim City have already decided the outcome of the process. (This is also known as "due process" in Manteca.)

Of course, Manteca could go whole hog - do a 180° turnabout - and become one of those cities vilified by the bloggers at F.A.C.E.OFF. (Fight Aggressive Code Enforcement Office). This new blog features the anti-gum'int passions of those dispossessed by code enforcement crackdowns. (Think Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona type passions on one side and zealousness on the other.) City of Downey, City of Madera (particularly its Redevelopment Agency), and County of Contra Costa have been "written up" so far.

Closer to home is the code enforcement debacle in Stockton, next town north. Even now Stockton responds to the Grand Jury that the city does not need policies and procedures in the area of identifying and documenting violations because they belong to the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers and have two-way communication with cities throughout California.

I still think the City of Austin, Texas, has the best idea. They operate their Code Compliance department within their Solid Waste Services. What better way to get "eyes on the street" continually than to have ride-alongs on the garbage trucks that criss-cross the city every week, beginning in the wee hours of the morning.

How to balance code enforcement? The administrative hearings ordinance will have NO EFFECT so long as fair identification and proper investigation of violations remains an undocumented whim, a caprice. So many variables...

A county district attorney in Texas last year said, "The most perfect law in the world could be sullied by the individuals carrying it out. It goes to the integrity of the people enforcing the law."

Manteca Animal Control Has Gone to the Dogs

The Manteca Municipal Code (MMC) must be too hard for the Manteca Police Department to understand, especially the two departments charged with enforcing its provisions. Leaving criminal and other state law to sworn police officers, Animal Control and Code Enforcement are to ensure that local, civil laws (the Municipal Code) are being observed.

Unless one knew differently, one must conclude that MMC 17.07.030 is worded, "Whatever the lawbreaker says, write down as gospel truth." See for yourself, below. On the citation written against Theresa Brassey, please take special note of the Remark: "Two houses on property" and immediately below that the accounting: "3 dogs - 2 dogs."




There are indeed TWO addresses on Assessors Parcel Number 222-11-003, but one of them (812 Fishback Street) is for the unregistered mobile home illegally remaining on the property from the early 1980's. This structure is used by the operators of TLC Catering as a commissary - taking deliveries of perishable dairy products directly from a Crystal Dairy truck and deliveries of perishable bread products directly from an Oroweat truck, and serves as storage for other supplies, as well. All this means that racks and refrigerated appliances occupy most or all of the floor space.
The mobile home is definitely NOT a residential home. No one lives in it. It is an illegal accessory structure used for an illegal, nonresidential use. But, in a most disingeneous argument, Theresa insisted to the Animal Control officer that the structure is a house that deserves a three-dog allocation (whispered after the officer departs: "to guard our business assets!")

A previous post describes the visit of Animal Control with Brassey and her reaction to the front lawn "investigation." The resulting action was that three $5.00 dog tags had to be picked up for the three junk yard dogs.
The official Manteca Municipal Code, Section 17.07.030, reads this way:
The Keeping of Animals. In any district on a lot with a principal permitted use, no more than six small animals may be kept, provided none are kept for commercial use. Not more than three of such animals may be dogs or cats over ten weeks of age and not more than two may be pot belly pigs. [emphasis added.]

This whole sorry episode - this farce - illustrates the depths of conniving my neighbors go to and the inconceivable incompetence with which Manteca's code enforcement operates. Everything that goes on next door, aided and abetted by the City of Manteca, grows out of Allen's & Brassey's fundamental lie that this nonresidential use of property (TLC Catering and Commissary) was somehow magically legalized twenty-two years ago. Worse, Manteca's hired civil servants can't figure out their asses from their elbows, recognize the numerous ongoing code violations on the property, and perform the jobs they are paid public funds to do.

Brassey Wakes Up (Finally)

Jeez, you would have thought I killed Teresa Brassey's firstborn, lastborn, and all the ones in between. Apparently her consanguinity with dogs runs deep.

During last year's dust up with Manteca's finest minds, I logged several city code complaints on Manteca's state-of-the-art, Internet-based, tell-us-your-problem-you-whiner system, with full knowledge that the reports would be tagged as "Closed" before I even hit the "Submit" button. True to form, the K.M.A. officers * proffered only half-baked, erroneous, and/or conflicting reasons for closure. But I digress... My purpose was to have the items "on file", regardless of their summary administrative dismissal, in order to establish my neighbors' pattern of cavalier disregard for any lawful regulation of their illegal operation and activities. Allen & Brassey (and some of their associates) are truly not good citizens and definitely not good neighbors. With no fear of overstating, they are the archetype Neighbors From Hell (NFH). **

My teaching moment for Ms. Allen, utilizing her snaggle-tooth fence as the object lesson, brought me face to face with her three junk yard dogs, canine guardians of all things illegal at 810 Fishback Street. (To tell the truth, they were a lot quieter and more amenable than the two yappy house dogs or their owners.) It reminded me of something I was investigating many months ago - the City's zoning ordinance regarding animals.

Manteca Municipal Code, 17.07.030, The keeping of animals. In any district on a lot with a principal permitted use, no more than six small animals may be kept, provided none are kept for commercial use. Not more than three of such animals may be dogs or cats over ten weeks of age and not more than two may be pot belly pigs.

I am not quixotic enough to believe that Manteca minions will enforce this ordinance any more than any other ordinance, but I needed this item to be "on file." I started by asking Animal Control for info on owners, dogs and licenses. No such luck. Animal Control: "We don't have everything on this computer. Finance Dept. has it on the big computer." I drive over to City Hall. Finance Dept: "All we can say is, there are licensed dogs at that address." "How many?" "We can't [won't] say. If you have a complaint, you have to go to Animal Control."

[rant] Do you know the saying, You can't fight City Hall? The mental impression of a City Hall conjures up soaring Doric columns, expansive marble steps, and a giant statue of The Mayor, (Willie Weatherford ala Abraham Lincoln), sitting on his giant golden throne dispensing God-like wisdom and justice for all... except it ain't true. Everyone - elected, appointed, employed, contracted - everyone is a schmuck, just like me and you. If any heat or discomfort comes their way, they squiggle, they squirm, they crawl under their desks, and they point their fingers down the hallway or, better yet, across town to some other department, never a person, saying, Go try there. Every schmuck at city hall is busily engaged in staying disengaged from citizens who would like them to do their jobs. This is as good as administration-by-unaccountable-committee gets. [/rant]

So, I drove back over to Animal Control and verbally delivered my complaint that there are at least five dogs on the the neighboring property. (I realize now that was a mistake - not the number of dogs - but I should have used the technologically advanced, Internet-based, go-ahead-suckah-try-complaining system furnished to Manteca residents by their ever-lovin' City Hall.) What's so bad about five dogs, you ask? Only that the ordinance allows three dogs and/or cats per residential property. My neighbors' five dogs (more?), plus a cat or two, clearly exceeds the allowance.

Drove home, changed clothes, dug out lawn mower, and started mowing edges in preparation for straight lines. An Animal Services truck pulled up. (Whoa! I never before experienced this level of timely service in my prodding Manteca code enforcement.) The uniformed officer from the kennel rapped on the door next door. Brassey came out front and they chatted further over on the other driveway. By this time the mower bag needed emptying, during which break the officer hopped in her truck, pulled a U-turn, and drove away.

I must have missed the part where the Animal Control officer actually counted canine heads.

Reattached bag, fired up mower and started toward the property line. Brassey appeared suddenly, looking like a cartoonish, apoplectic bulldog barrelling down on me. Pausing, dipping, she picked up a garden hose, spun the faucet wide open, and continued the charge.

Visualize: Train Wreck. Judging from her eyes, expression and body language - and the fact she is spraying the water in an upward arch right at me as she approaches - I was positive the irate woman was going to hose me down in my own front yard.

Visualize: Train Wreck Chicken. She's now at the property line. Her water arch is tinkling on my mower. She spins 70 degrees left. Water begins landing on a brown patch at the edge of the grass. (I had sprayed it with Roundup two weeks prior.) Given the pit bull set of her jaw and her stance, she was nonverbally daring me to push my mower into the spray. Ten feet from her, I made two 90-degree turns to the right and mowed a line away from her, then turned back. This went on a half-dozen times until I finished all but the 10 by 10 patch of wet grass being overwatered by Brassey, while she yakked on her cell phone with the Alpha Female.

I proceeded with mowing my side yard, leaving her to pour more water on some dead grass for as long as she didn't feel foolish. Sure enough, another bag change and she was gone. Sheesh, that was a much closer call than Allen's photographic foray. Brassey was on the brink of turning this one into a felony assault.

What got her juices boiling? Did she think I was "attacking" her dogs? Perhaps it was because Brassey had to face the inquisition alone while Allen was out buying more inventory for their illegal commissary? Or because I had "unscrewed" their dip-see-do fencing folly that morning? (see previous post). Am I attacking their livelihood? (How do I know if moving and setting TLC Catering up like a legal company is economically infeasible?)

- - - - -

* Kiss My A...

** archetype (noun) - the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype. [ed., Hopefully, that mold was broken...]

From Pencil to Print to Digital to Television... whew!

What a week! Never in my wildest dreams did I think this story would be broadcast to the entire Sacramento/Stockton television market area, which includes Manteca, even reaching coworkers in Modesto. Talk about unanticipated results from informing the local press…


The Friday after City Council meeting last week, I got a call from the Sun Post newspaper to schedule an interview this last Monday. The weekly paper publishes tomorrow (Friday). This is exactly what I hoped for – that I could get my case noticed by the press.

* * * * *

But, then… the news story below appeared on the Manteca Bulletin website late Monday night, also a direct result of my presentation to City Council of my research report. Dennis did a great job of laying out the case for his readers.

Ice machine fight escalating: Fed up neighbor asks for council intervention

By Dennis WyattManaging Editordwyatt@mantecabulletin.com209-249-3532
POSTED Feb. 23, 2009 1:22 a.m.

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/1646/

* * * * *

The next day, on Tuesday, Channel 13’s local news producer picked up the story from the Manteca Bulletin website and sent out Andrea, and Carl her cameraman, to do a 2-minute spot for the 10 o’clock news on Wednesday night. (That’s the link below.) They had already been to the police department, had already tried to speak with Allen or Brassey (but were declined – more gently than was the Sun Post reporter – by Corky), and were waiting for me when I arrived home from work.

Manteca Neighbors In Ice Fight
CBS Channel 13
MANTECA (CBS13)
Feb 26, 2009 7:09 am US/Pacific

http://cbs13.com/local/manteca.ice.fight.2.944485.html

* * * *

What a night... What a week, so far...

.

Mugging for the Sun Post

"Face time" is a good thing.

I guess that's what I've been doing at Manteca City Council meetings since last March - getting them used to my extraordinarily handsome visage. Really, the purpose was so the recipients of my many letters and emails would know who the sender was. Of course, the delivery of the 82-page illustrated "Valentines" helped somewhat.

Just enough visibility so the Sun Post newspaper took notice of these City Hall shenanigans and sent a reporter, Cheryl Winkelman, and photographer, Ike Dodson, to my home for an interview and mug shots. (I should have paid more attention to how high up the yard light pole Ike climbed for the panoramic aerial shots.) A brief story is likely to appear in this Friday's edition (2/27/09) about my year-long campaign to obtain REAL information on TLC Catering and the FALSE foundation of it's presence on the neighboring property. Even a small, pictureless article would go a looong way toward lending me some credibility.

Also of great benefit would be a reporting of Lynda Allen's intimidation tactics in refusing to cooperate with Cheryl on the story. Yesterday - with a "heads up" warning from me - Cheryl and Ike suffered the same fate as Ben Marrone, also of the Sun Post, last July 2008. Little Ms. Allen verbally attacked them with threats of police calls and the coarsest swearing. (I really, really, really wanted to call her bluff and dial the police number for her to make the call.) Her small, yappy dog, Rufus, was at her feet, no doubt being trained by soaking up the actions and personality of his owner.

The ferocity of her verbal assault has twice driven the press off her driveway in under a minute. It was the identical one-way "communication style" this not-so-nice neighbor used on me two times before. In February 2008 it was just the two of us; the set-to in March 2008 took place in front of a Manteca police officer. Four times in one year Ms. Allen has been given the opportunity to make a good impression on people who knew nothing about her business. So much for telling her side of this unbelievable story. And forget any "face time" for her... I'm sure Ike would not want to break his camera for that mug shot.

.

Now you see them... Now you don't!

Someone mentioned the Grand Jury to me, so I got to poking around in their reports. I discovered that two years ago the City of Stockton came under Grand Jury investigation for complaints about their code enforcement practices. The upshot was that code enforcement was "uneven" at best and at other times practically confiscatory, serving as a substitute for eminent domain actions by the Redevelopment Agency. Cases were processed differently in part because Stockton had no internal policies and procedures to implement their Municipal Code (or city law.)

Doing what Grand Juries do, they interviewed a bunch of Stockton bureaucrats and reviewed any available documentation - minus the policies and procedures noted above. Then the Grand Jury recommended (that is pracically an order) that Stockton write the policies and procedures that code enforcement personnel and cases are supposed to follow.

Two things caught my eye. First, one official interviewed during the investigation - and during the follow up by the next year's Grand Jury - was the head of Stockton's Redevelopment Agency two years ago, and is none other than the City of Manteca's spanking-new City Manager, Mr. Steve Pinkerton. He was front and center in that little fiasco up north.

Second, the Grand Jury listed some of the documents reviewed, particularly the code enforcement policies and procedures from other cities in the county, including Manteca. One of Stockton's lamest excuses recorded in the Grand Jury follow up report was that the documents from the other cities were not useful models because those cities were not comparable in size. I certainly wish the Grand Jury had attributed that remark to the backward-thinking public servant who uttered it.

Anyway, I sent off a request to Manteca to obtain a copy of those documents which provide guidance to Manteca's finest (oops... second finest) as they approach and resolve the problems which generate complaints. I wished to see for myself why my complaints seemed to be the problem down at Police HQ :(

Wouldn'tcha know it? The new Manteca Chief of Police, serving directly under the new City Manager, has apparently (lost, can't find, maybe they evaporated?, we don't know) the code enforcement policies and procedures which the Grand Jury reviewed in the very recent past.

(Here's one for all you conspiracy theorists out there: Maybe there is a very clever plan afoot to gut code enforcement and collude with the County to do "eminent domain lite" on certain properties out by the MUSD HQ, in order to get a "good-for-the-city-and-all-citizens-in-it" northerly annexation [dubbed Centre Pointe - where do those final e's come from?] to go through without creating a prohibited "annexation island.")

Machiavelli would be so proud if city officials actually were trying to do something so underhanded; but less proud if the gumshoes are merely picking gum off thir shoes.


emails below
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Richard Behling
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 6:23 PM
To: 'GrandJury@courts.san-joaquin.ca.us'
Subject: Request for Manteca Code Enforcement policies and procedures

Dear sirs,

I read the 2006-07 Grand Jury report on Case #04-06, City of Stockton Code Enforcement. Of particular interest to me was the mention of GJ review of Manteca’s Code Enforcement policies and procedures. I sent a request to Manteca’s City Clerk to obtain a copy, but she replied that such items could not be found. (See emails, below.)

Does the Grand Jury still have a copy of Manteca’s Code Enforcement policies and procedures? Could I obtain a copy from those?

Or, perhaps the Grand Jury could refresh Manteca’s memory of the documents in question. Mr. Steve Pinkerton is Manteca’s new City Manager and he was personally involved in the City of Stockton case mentioned above.

Sincerely,

Richard Behling


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


From: Richard Behling
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:48 AM
To: 'Tilton, Joann'
Subject: Request for code enforcement policies and procedures


January 6, 2009

Joann Tilton,
Manteca City Clerk
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Re: Public records request
Dear Ms. Tilton,

The 2006-07 Grand Jury reviewed Manteca’s code enforcement policies and procedures as part of their investigation of the lack of the same in Stockton. Their Final Report for Case #04-06, City of Stockton Code Enforcement, can be found at this Web-address: http://stocktoncourt.org/grandjury/2006-2007.htm Specifically, refer to the sixth bullet point on report page 51.

I, too, would like a copy of Manteca’s code enforcement policies and procedures. Please return them via email, or mail them to the address above at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully submitted by,

Richard W. Behling

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

From: Tilton, Joann [jtilton@ci.manteca.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:34 PM
To: Richard Behling
Subject: Request for code enforcement policies and procedures


On January 6, 2009 you request copy's of Manteca's code enforcement policies and procedures, via email.

My research of my records and via the Police Chief shows we do not have the documents (policies and procedures) being requested.

I provided the Police Chief with the 2006-07 Grand Jury report you emailed to me and he is not familiar, nor could he find the information mentioned on page 51 of this report.

Thank you for your patience while awaiting a response.


Joann Tilton, MMC
Manteca City Clerk
1001 W. Center St.
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 239-8467 (Phone)
(209) 825-2333 (Fax)
jtilton@ci.manteca.ca.us

Manteca Code Enforcement Takes Baby Steps

Just yesterday my (street) mailbox contained some of the records I requested from the City of Manteca pertaining to the business/property next door. Most of it was the three case files from my complaints logged on the City's Government Outreach system this year, but the expanded version with case notes - finally! A couple new items of interest also popped up and lead into my "next steps" mentioned in yesterday's post.

(Other items I expected were not included. This may launch a side investigation into the policies and procedures of the City's code enforcement, which should be fairly easy since those documents were briefly reviewed by a grand jury two years ago.)

The case file notes allow me to follow the developmental thought processes of City personnel. They appear to be coming along - slowly and with hesitating step - but still need my guidance in where to search next and how to interpret the things they find. These same people who dismissed my noise complaint months ago because the case was very "complex" are still resisting the rigorous analysis (missing when needed about 15-22 years ago) necessary to sort out the complexities of the governing common law of grandfathering and the applications of zoning ordinances of both the County of San Joaquin and the City of Manteca. These "discoveries" strengthen my resolve to pursue this ancient case to conclusion.

Because I can do code enforcement's work only on a part time basis (as they appear to do also), it will take a bit of time to factor this information into my case notes.


(I'm still standing - and looking forward to the next round.)

.

Fire Drill at the Health Department

Following up on my second public records request to the Environmental Health Department (EHD), the program coordinator and I played “telephone/vacation tag” for a few weeks before we spoke.

My intent with this visit was to copy the entire contents of the five file folders (three inactive trucks, one active truck, and one active commissary) and review everything at home.

At 10:00 a.m. on the morning of December 10th I was at the EHD copier. At 10:05 a.m. the fire alarm went off and all employees and visitors had to evacuate the building and walk three or four blocks to the designated assembly site at a parking lot under the cross-town freeway. It was NOT a drill because a fire truck responded to the alarm. The story I heard was that someone had burned something in the break room microwave. Of course, out in the cold, I had to give the program coordinator a ribbing by accusing him of doing anything to avoid giving me access to the records. I did finish copying the files after the all clear was given.

That night I went through each page, individually, and teased its story out and into my notes. I was heartened to find that the pages I obtained last August to create the “Timeline” were sufficient to prove my “expansion” argument, but more pleased with creating a chart, with ALL the intervening data, that made for a compelling visual.




The chart depicts the three critical dates in 1993 and 1994 that prove TLC Catering both enlarged AND expanded its business use of the property AFTER being explicitly told the prohibition against enlargement or expansion in the Cantu letter. The result was well worth the second visit to EHD (even with parking fees, copying fees, fire drill, etc.) and the night of analysis and charting. Now, when the right time comes to present the case, I won't have to "spell it out" because I've "drawn them a picture."

My problems are: 1) I have been crediting City of Manteca officials with far too much ability to understand law and read written words; 2) expecting the City of Manteca to know what's in their files, or even to locate them, and to be even remotely helpful in aiding a thorough investigation; 3) the EHD (the grandmother) and the City of Manteca (the grandfather) do not combine their separate dealings with TLC Catering (the spoiled, manipulative child) in order to operate from "the big picture."

Anyway, next steps involve receiving the last-requested public records from Manteca, interleaving already received building permit information into my "Timeline," requesting DMV records for license plates on certain catering trucks and the commissary trailer, and searching within Manteca's 1986 annexation records to verify any "grandfathered" levels of legal but non-conforming use.


(Damn! I'll miss that icemaker when it's gone!...)


(NOT!...)

Blind Men and Elephants

In the realms of the brain-dead, the half-wit is king!

Manteca’s Police Chief, David Bricker, sent me a letter telling me (again!) that my case is dead and closed - never to be re-opened - don’t contact us again – call an attorney – have a nice life. He was sounding very much like he had been promoted to City Manager, having the authority to direct and speak for all city departments. While suffering through a Pavlovian rush of endocrine secretions (adrenaline, testosterone, etc.), my mind dissected the idiotic letter and its status quo non-solution. Innumerable mental, verbal, and physical responses to the letter spun in a whirlwind (most were illegal, of course.)

(Because I cannot get the thumbnail/expansion thing to work, a transcript of the letter is below.)

Manteca Police Department
1001 W. Center Street, Manteca, CA 95337 (209) 239-8401

December 3, 2008

Mr. Richard Behling
786 Fishback Ln.
Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mr. Behling,

This letter is to serve as a closing document regarding our investigation into the matters you have brought to the attention of the City of Manteca. Your concerns have been thoroughly investigated by the various City departments having jurisdiction over the issues.

The property you brought to our attention is, in our opinion, a “legal non-conforming” property and the City of Manteca has no intention of changing that designation. Regarding the complaint that the current owner of the property is producing excessive noise, we also find that there is no violation. Regarding the complaint that the owners constructed an alternative power source illegally has been investigated and they are in compliance. Regarding the complaint of abandoned or inoperable vehicles on the property, all the vehicles were found to be functional though not regularly used and parked entirely on private property.

With regard to your currents complaints, we will not conduct any additional investigation regarding this property, nor will we accept any additional complaints from you regarding this property as to its proper use or noise.

As a result of our review of available information, our conclusion is that the City of Manteca needs to take no action regarding this property. This closure applies to all departments within the City of Manteca. There may be other civil remedies available to you. I would recommend that you consult an attorney for advice in this area.

Sincerely,

//s
David H. Bricker
Chief of Police

CC: All Departments and Parties Involved


Beginning to calm down, I recalled the ancient fable of several blind men encountering an elephant; whereupon, each man described the animal in wildly different terms based on feeling only one body part, such as trunk, ear, leg, or tail. I realized that Manteca’s current code enforcement minions are blinded by the orthodoxy of the myths surrounding TLC Catering, and their responses have all been to piecemeal the problem - each standalone piece being technically legal - and to ignore “the elephant in the room,” or the totality of the illegal commissary. It occurred to me that I am one step closer to “exhausting my administrative remedies,” a phrase my attorney said is necessary before suing.


You want a Yes? vs Won’t take a No!

Happily, I repaired to the keyboard to create this written response:

December 9, 2008

Mr. David Bricker,
Manteca Chief of Police
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Re: No more complaints re: 810 Fishback Street

Dear Mr. Bricker,

You have finally convinced me of the City's inability or deliberate refusal to comprehend the terms of "grandfathering" in this case. You quoted the "legal, but non-conforming" clause in the second paragraph of Mr. Cantu's letter of June 29, 1993 - a designation I did not ask you to change. However, my neighbors and all City departments completely ignore the restriction found in the third paragraph, namely, "The use may remain, but may not be expanded or enlarged." It is this illegal business expansion I have referred to repeatedly since last August. All additional equipment and processes after annexation are restricted from "grandfathering" and are subject to a Conditional Use permit (pre-1992) or a Home Occupation permit (1992 ordinance), which the owners never obtained - and, likely, could never qualify.

But, I am a reasonable man and I will acquiesce to your dictum by no longer filing complaints in this matter with the City.

From now on I will only make demands for public records under California's version of the federal government's Freedom of Information Act. Indeed, I have already done that on November 14th when I requested nine specific items from the City Clerk, who is the custodian of the City's public records. While walk-in freezers, additional vehicles, a solar power system, an excessively noisy icemaker, and the comings and goings of commercial suppliers delivering food products to the property at all hours - taken individually - may or may not be illegal, when the dates and circumstances of their acquisition are combined with County Health Department's permit and inspection records, the unassailable conclusion is that my neighbors consciously and deliberately made the decision to illegally "expand AND enlarge" the business use of their property. On November 17th I made a public records request for four specific groups of records from the Director of the Environmental Health Department to augment the records I obtained last August from that agency.

Because you mentioned several investigations in your "closing document," I now make a further public records request (this letter is copied to the City Clerk).

The subjects and scope of the requested files and records are:

810 Fishback Street,
Lynda S Allen and/or Theresa A Brassey (810 Fishback property/business owners), and/or
TLC Catering (business name),
From annexation to present.

This records request covers all City Departments, including City Council and City Attorney, and is for:

All correspondence (in whatever media), all business records, all applications submitted (including drawings or diagrams), all permits issued or denied (reason for denial), waivers issued (such as refuse pickup or liquid waste storage), complaints lodged by or against the property or owners (especially the 1992 complaint), investigations made and enforcement actions taken or denied (reason for denial), and all other relevant documents, relating to the property, its owners, the business use, and their neighbors. Specific communications subject to rapid destruction (internal emails, telephone and voice mail messages, memos, meeting notes, etc.) must be immediately protected in order to be made available.

(Joann, duplicates in this request of the items requested previously will not be necessary.)

Mr. Bricker, I have already taken your suggestion and consulted an attorney on three occasions. I have again visited the Environmental Health Department and will obtain copies of their entire files on the illegal growth of this operation. Following a City Council meeting many months ago, you offered the City's resources to assist in prosecuting this matter. I am now calling that marker due. Please furnish any and all documents relating to the subjects above.

Respectfully submitted by,


________________________
Richard W. Behling

cc: Joann Tilton, City Clerk (and please cc: All Departments and Parties Involved, as noted on Mr. Bricker's letter, enclosed.)

enclosure:



(Stay tuned for our next episode, “Fire Drill at the Health Department.”)

Can Whales Vomit?

Gotta love Manteca City Hall's technological progressiveness. Quoting the Chief of Police, "While we have initiated an on-line reporting system through the Department's web page that allows victims of an incident to create their own report, during the past year we have received only 486 of our 10,803 reports via the on-line system." That means 95.5% of reports are taken are on-scene, or on the telephone, or when someone sends a letter or shows up at City Hall in person.

Yeah, these are the same tech folks who have TWO systems - the internal one where drafts of proposed ordinances for City Council consideration are found, and the external web-based site which just has city propoganda and the above-mentioned "reporting solution" - and the two systems do not talk to each other.

Anyway, my recent attempts to file reports in the 4.5% group (on-line) resulted in brush-offs marked by brevity of words and devoid of actions. Here is code enforcement's anonymous response to the last request:

-----Original Message-----From: Manteca Help Line [mailto:manteca@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:13 AMTo: Richard BehlingSubject: Manteca-CRM: Closed Request # 198750 [3437656466356137]

Dear Richard,

Your request # 198750 has been resolved with the resolution:

This is a duplicate request and the issue has been looked into.


Realizing that ALL of my requests directed to code enforcement will be deep-sixed, I returned to each of the three case closures and completed the satisfaction surveys, on the hope that someone else in system followup reads them.


Satisfaction Survey - Request #: 197457 [Abandoned structures/walk-in freezers]

I expect a code enforcement officer to actually know and apply Manteca's Municipal Code. To say, "I have been told by planning...", simply does not make the cut.

I believe a non-compliant situation still exists. The intent for which these codes are adopted is nullified when complaints are handled so sloppily.

Other than that, Why does the complainant have to be fully identified, while the respondent city employee hides behind the anonymity of a computerized system and does not sign the response?



Satisfaction Survey - Request #: 197462 [Abandoned vehicles]

The response does not appear to reference the relevant code sections and a non-compliant situation still exists.


Satisfaction Survey - Request #: 198750 [Abandoned vehicles]

This closed request was an expansion of an earlier request closed too hastily without appropriate action. The statement that "...the issue has been looked into" is a euphemism for "I made it LOOK like I did something." The non-compliant situation still exists.



It totally escapes me what codes these do-nothings are so busy enforcing (or willing to enforce) that they give a pass to the illegal business still operated by TLC Catering, along with its accumulation of castoff and abandoned equipment and vehicles.

And the city wonders why only 4.5% of complaints/reports/and such come through their wonderful new system. Have they considered the "human element" of their system? Maybe the whales are still grazing the greenbacks (you know, "lettuce", "vigorish", etc.)

May they swallow more than they can stomach.

The Never-Ending Machiavellian Comedy

This one has to be a pictorial. My neighbors' completely juvenile behavior could never be explained properly without these images.

Last April 28th was the first time the city's public affairs officer, who is also the code enforcement supervisor, stood around next door and seconded a police officer's earlier suggestion that a sound barrier be installed. Of course, he left it entirely up to the owners, and the first picture shows what resulted.

A single sheet of 1/4-inch plywood was screwed to the 4x4's in front of the noisy icemaker! The little hens go, "Cheap, cheap, cheap." Absolutely no noise reduction was accomplished. However, they played it up big time, as true devotees of Machiavellianism, using the same guiding principles as our city government officials.

After my exclamation of protest and dismay was put in writing, another visit was made somewhere around July 22nd. The neighbors were strongly advised to curtail nighttime operation. After that date the machines, compressor and condenser, were turned off around 7:30 each evening. (But they are still manually started up at approx. 6:00 a.m. every morning.

Even if it's only a 30-second self-check, it still wakes me up.

My guess is they were visited again in mid-October because, on October 21st, a little bit of hammering was heard. This is now the view from my bedroom window. I call it Cheap Trailer Trash architecture. But it's eco-friendly what with the piece of recycled siding sticking up over the plywood. Does anyone believe it meets building code?

Would a REAL code enforcement officer go for this evasion of reality? A REAL code enforcement officer would have required a permit (because it's being attached to an existing building), proper engineering, proper materials, and a competent contractor to construct something with such a specific use as noise attenuation. And it does nothing to address the noise from the condenser on the roof - a commercial unit, not rated for household use. It is unlike any standard air conditioner or heat pump. Such is the sorry state of code enforcement in Manteca.

This is looking over the fence and to the east.

This is looking over the fence and to the west.

Do these poor saps - next door and downtown - really think I'm going to negotiate away my right to abate this illegal operation for a few sheets of plywood?

The curtain has not yet rung down on this tragic play.

Curiouser and curiouser

I waited. Finally, on April 28th, this shows up in my email list:

From: Osborn, Rex [rosborn@ci.manteca.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:39 PM
To: Osborn, Rex; Richard Behling
Cc: Baird, Greg; Rey, Lantz; Bricker, Dave
Subject: RE: Response to your Code Enforcement Question

Mr. Behling:

Thanks for your patience in this matter. I have spoke with the Chief of Police, City Attorney, County Health and have conducted a site visit of the property in question. I have also spoke with the property owner and others who frequent the property. Here are my findings.

Based upon on our investigation, there are no violations of the health code, business license requirements or other applicable areas as you have brought to our attention. We did specifically work out the following regarding your primary concern the "noise violation". The owners of the property have taken measures to reduce if not eliminate the noise that has been coming from what has been determined to be an ice machine located near your southern property line. The owners have placed the machine on a professional timing device that only allows the machine to operate during daytime hours, within the allowable time for the noise ordinance. Realizing that your complaint specifically indicated that the noise of the machine was extremely disruptive, I along with the code enforcement officer who I supervise stayed at the site to first hand hear the machine function. The actual "ice drop" was several seconds in duration and the noise minimal. If I were the investigating officer of a noise complaint, I would not issue a citation based upon what I observed.

Regarding the business license issue, there is no requirement from the City of Manteca to have a business license for this property. This is based on researched information that the owner of the business does not conduct any business in Manteca but in another community, where they do have the required license. The permit that the owners of the catering business have was issued by the County which allows them to house on their property the vending vehicle, it is a Cantina Permit and is inspected by the county and they meet all the requirements. I even researched if the vending vehicle (taco truck) was illegal to operate in Manteca on residential streets and it falls within the legal weight limit. There is no food preparation at this location and no sales takes place at the residence. With all of this in mind the owners of the property have complied with all required rules, regulations and laws that would regulate that business and be able to reside in Manteca.

At this point the City of Manteca which includes all departments is considering this case and complaint closed with no further action. Unless you determine some other applicable law or regulation that might need to be review, we will not be taking any additional action regarding your complaint. You can direct any future questions or concerns regarding this specific property directly to me and I will address them as required.

In regards to you taking "involuntary compliance enforcement", I still don't know what that is, however based upon our findings I have no alternative suggestions for you in regards to this situation as it stands today. There will be no other enforcement actions taken by the City of Manteca at this time.

I appreciate you taking the time to allow us to conduct our investigation and share these findings with you. Based upon the changes made by the property owners I believe the issue has been resolved.

Sincerely,

Rex J. Osborn
Rex J. Osborn, PAO
Office of the Chief of Police
Manteca Police Department
1001 W. Center St.
Manteca, CA 95337
Phone: 209-239-8441Email: ROsborn@ci.manteca.ca.us

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Looking back after many months on this communication, the single, absolutely most important issue was NEVER mentioned. (Stay tuned.)

At the time, I was totally shocked. This supposedly intelligent code enforcement supervisor said the neighbors took steps “to reduce if not eliminate the noise?” Was he really serious in referring to the ¼-inch plywood? Remember my anger turning to laughter when I first saw it? Well, the laughter turned back to anger again!

My hopes rebounded somewhat when he next informed me that “the owners have placed the machine on a professional timing device” to alleviate nighttime operation. The next three nights, however, proved that such a device was a lie, a pure fabrication.

How does one digest the indigestible? Every other item of “research” he mentioned was nothing but regurgitation of the myths told him by others in telephone conversations. Did I mention vomit? Again I had to summon the strength to slog through it.

Some heavy duty smoking was going on in the offices of Wonderland.