Manteca City Governance

...

Citizen:

I have upset the tea of some “power-that-be”
Of a king with some fancy new clothes
It appears the shoe fit, but he’s shamed to wear it
Because then we would see his twelve toes

King:

The affairs in our gate (whether soon, more oft late)
We can see with these cool X-ray glasses
But the law, as they say, merely gets in our way
We prefer to kiss each other’s asses

Citizen:

My dear sirs, let us think – you provided the ink
To record your whole long list of crimes
Can one slander with truth? Or dress up the uncouth?
Or defame such depraved sods, betimes?

King:

We reject you… you… all! And your poison pen scrawl!
We demand you remove yourself hence!
There is nothing you say will impinge on our day
We paid our silv’ry coins – thirty pence

Citizen:

Should we follow the trails, what that money entails
And discover those masters of power?
When the towers of earth fall, to what god will you call?
Your reward will be: Kneel, blanch and cower!

...

Jousting with Fence Boards

Labor Day was a very busy day for someone hired by Allen & Brassey to rebuild two portions of fence. The first job was to replace a "plywood patch" on their front fence, which remained unfinished until yesterday for lack of fence boards. It now looks halfway respectable.

The second project was a stunning farce, another over-the-top manipulation for which Lynda Allen is widely infamous.

To relate this properly, I must go back to last February. After the picture in this post appeared, Ms. Allen calculated the angles and added one-foot lattice toppers to the sections of the decrepit six-foot fence between our houses. A seven-foot fence still wasn't enough for her, so while I was gone away to friends on Father's Day in June, A&B hired a guy to rebuild several sections of our common property line fence, starting at the very back of our 185 feet deep lots. A couple more sections were done the next day, for a total of six eight-foot sections. The old boards were redeployed (horizontally!) as backstops to the sections up front, between our houses, until every chink, crack, and knothole was covered.

Good Neighbor fences are usually a joint effort, at joint cost, and the boards alternate sides with each eight-foot section. That was not the case here. First, I was not consulted on the fence replacement project; second, I was not asked to contribute to its costs; third, the fence was "bettered" (newer and higher than the original one); and fourth, the old fence boards were appropriated for other uses by A&B as described above - for these reasons I did not object to the installation of the new fence, even though I got the side with all the 2x4 stringers. Better fence... neighbors' nickel... NOT a problem... really. I accepted her offer. Everything was cool... so far.

The funniest aspect of Ms. Allen's charade is that after she closed all the knotholes, the knothead discovered she could no longer see if my truck was in my yard, or if my blinds were drawn, or if my lights were on. (Keep 'em guessing, I say.) It was no longer easy for her to detect signs of my presence. How do I know? Because, during my ladder-assisted project described next, I observed their step ladder set up next to the fence just for such use. On rare occasions it is put away, but generally not.

A month ago, I embarked on a modest beautification project: a freestanding screen or trellis to span the gap between my house and my outbuilding. A row of 4x4's was set in the ground five feet away from the property line fence, 2x4 stringers were bolted on, and two courses of 4x8 redwood lattice attached horizontally. Ivy, bougainvillea, morning glories, and other climbing greenery would in the future provide a "green screen" - a visual break from TLC Catering's ugly backside always mooning me over the fence.

[Special note: this trellis, even overgrown, IS NOT a noise barrier - in spite of Ms. Allen's acoustical architechure and engineering degrees and her assertions to Manteca's code enforcement pencil pushers, duly noted, that lattice and plywood perform that function. (Honest! I don't make this stuff up!)]

In the inscrutable and infinitesimal mind of the genius next door, however, that damned trellis was interfering with her ability to ascend her step ladder, surmount her own lattice fence topper, and scan my house and property for signs of my presence. Reverting to the Machiavellian axiom that imitation is the best form of flattery, she hired a guy on Labor Day to pull the boards off two sections of the "new" fence and redo those sections using the staggered offset pattern I used on my northern front fence (away from her property.) She may want an "open" fence on our property line, but I certainly do not. I was not flattered. (We're not even friends, let alone intimates!)

It is obvious that her architectural genius is exceeded only by her dog training skills. The fence boards she used were only 5 1/2 inches wide (cheap, cheap), with gaps between them ranging randomly from 2 inches to 4 1/2 inches ("eyeball" method?), and the offset pattern on the other side of the stringers was nowhere close to precise (it's really hard to find good [free?] help these days!) The result looked like shit - but produced her desired goal of opening my property to her view without revealing any of her own property.

Unfortunately for the hammering hamsters, there is this little bit of common law regarding common fences that does not allow one party to dictate the structural elements employed on the side of the other party without consent. Her erection constituted a solicitation for agreement. I rejected her proposition the next morning by removing the fence boards on my side, piling them neatly next to the fence, and placing the container of removed screws on top of the stack. Nothing oral by either party, but the communications (advance and rebuff) were absolutely clear and unmistakeable.

With great regret, I was absent when the roach coach co-pilots returned to their business yard, but I truly hope their disappointment, with wailing and gnashing of teeth, was not inflicted on their very nice junk yard dogs. As expected, however, by my return in midafternoon, a large blue tarp had been carefully stretched out and tucked over the tops of the gap-tooth boards remaining on A&B's side of the fence. At 5:00 p.m. a guy appeared, retrieved the boards, and for another hour removed the ones on the other side and did the best he could to reattach them in a close approximation of their previous, simpler layout. I hope he allowed for the small "summer gaps" that accommodate the winter's swelling of wooden fence boards to prevent them from warping and popping off the fence.

Oh, and let me tell you about the junk yard dogs... and the house dogs... and the narrowly averted hosing down...

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 Trick or Treat

O.K., back to a more-or-less recounting of my prodding the City of Manteca to enforce codes they adopted…

After sending my research report to Mr. Steve Pinkerton, city manager, on September 2nd I waited for the City Council meeting on October 6th.

When Friday morning, October 3rd rolled around, I downloaded the city council agenda for Monday’s meeting. The item I requested was nowhere to be found, so I emailed Mr. Pinkerton and asked about it.

Surprise! I got a return telephone call, after which I wrote up these notes:

- - - - - - - - - -
Notes from October 3, 2008 - Rex Osborne called at 1:15 p.m. in response to my mid-morning email reminder to Steve Pinkerton.

1. He offered me a researching job (in partial jest?) in light of my letter and report of September 3rd.

2. The city manager, department heads, and code enforcement, (but not the city attorney,) had met about my complaint. (By deduction, just prior to the meeting in #3, below.)

3. The city has met with TLC regarding moving or enclosing the ice machine. (From tracking my neighbor’s icemaker operation, the meeting took place toward the end of July.)

4. The city is bringing in an acoustics firm to measure the sound levels and timing of the ice machine.

5. It is possible that “sunset” dates may apply to the grandfathered conditional use of the property.

6. It’s not likely that my item will ever make it to the City Council agenda, but will be handled administratively.

7. The city will assist if I go to court to obtain an enforceable order against my neighbors. City attempts to maintain “neutrality.”

8. My inquiry about a definite time frame (end of year? or, next summer?) was given an indefinite answer.

I changed the conversation focus, and asked about abating the entire commissary, including the ice machine, which was the major finding of my research submitted to the city manager on September 3rd.

9. The letter from Ben Cantu to TLC is not in the city files - it was prepared at TLC’s request for TLC to show or to give to EHD only.

10. The city attorney has not reviewed the Timeline of business expansion yet. He also was not at the (July) meeting.
- - - - - - - - - -


On Monday morning I again emailed Steve Pinkerton and included my notes from Rex’s phone call. In it I rejected the city’s illegal “offer” and outlined my “deal” to abate the commissary, including the icemaker.


October 6, 2008

Mr. Steve Pinkerton, Manteca City Manager
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mr. Pinkerton,

I appreciated your follow up to my inquiry last Friday. For your information, below are my notes from the conversation I had with Rex Osborne.

Rex’s news was “old news.” He appeared to be offering me a deal whereby TLC Catering could continue to operate its illegally established commissary in exchange for building a sound containment structure around the ice machine. I will not agree to this arrangement, because it does not remove this business blight against my residential property. Further, it does not meet the city’s own home occupation or conditional use codes, and any attempt on the part of the city to issue such permits at this late date will be challenged.

More importantly, why haven’t my report findings been reviewed during the last month? Is the City Attorney not available? I allowed you a month of review time in order to synchronize with the city council meeting schedule, yet almost five weeks have been wasted before I’m told nothing has been reviewed and you will not take up this item in public.

Here’s my deal. (Option #1) If you will go public, I will allow you another two or three more meeting cycles. Merely specify the meeting date chosen to me by this Friday, October 10, 2008. (Option #2) If you elect to retain exclusive administrative control, I can only allow you two more weeks (Friday, October 17, 2008) before again retaining legal counsel of my own – and we will go public anyway. Under either option, either confirm my findings and take action to remove the illegal commissary operations, or refute my findings with contemporaneous documentation from your own files or from the business owners.

It is a sorry state of affairs should I have to pay for legal counsel to prosecute, and should taxpayers (myself included) have to pay legal fees for a City Attorney to defend, in the same action. I, the victim of the city’s negligence, am being “double-dipped” and the city cannot remain neutral.


Respectfully submitted by,

_____________________
Richard W. Behling



Another telephone message from Rex Osborn in the afternoon. He said he had read what I sent Steve Pinkerton and appeared most anxious to make corrections to my notes. (It’s too bad, though, that Rex relies on his superior verbal skills rather than putting anything in writing.) He again referred to something about a sound meter. Just prior to leaving for the city council meeting, I emailed the following to both Pinkerton and Osborn:


Mr. Pinkerton and Mr. Osborn,

Thank you, Rex, for your return phone message at 1:22 today.

Two quick points (please, pardon the bluntness):

Rex, forget the noise meter. The ice machine will go away with the other commissary equipment.

Steve, whether you and/or John Brinton review my report or not, if your chosen Friday deadline is missed, we’re off to court.


Richard Behling


Both Friday deadlines (October 10th and 17th) passed with nary a peep, so on Monday, October 20th I consulted with my attorney for a third time. He lectured me about not getting on the agenda. We called the City Clerk’s office and learned that a councilman needs to sponsor an agenda item.

(Oddly, the very next day, TLC Construction Company sprang into action and hammered up their Cheap Trailer Trash Sound-Enhancing Plywood Edifice.)


It was still my turn in this chess game.

- - - - - - - -
Notes on meeting with Mark Meissner, Planning Manager, and Lantz Rey, Associate Planner.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 1:15–2:00 p.m., Planning Department Conference Room at city hall.

I went to the Planning Department in order to schedule a short personal appointment with Mark Nelson, Director of Community Development. When asked the purpose of the meeting, I gave my name, the topic of an unpermitted business, and three documents - the 1993 Cantu letter, the 1993 EHD statement, and the email from San Joaquin County planning. After many minutes, I was allowed to meet with the two listed above instead of the director.

The meeting started with Mark and Lantz rehashing the “noise problem” and how I was not cooperative with the code enforcement attempt to use a $400 rental sound meter. Mr. Meissner said my actions made no sense.

My response: Manteca code enforcement, Rex Osborn, knew of the need in April, but wrote, "...case and complaint closed with no further action." Several plywood sheets were hammered up by the neighbors, serving as the only communication with me. Such inaction forced me to continue researching and consulting with an attorney. On August 20th I had already found documented evidence of TLC's illegal business expansion. Therefore, when Rex made his “offer” of icemaker noise abatement in October, I rejected it in favor of commissary business abatement, icemaker included.

Mr. Rey mentioned the icemaker would probably stay, even if the commissary operations ceased. I told him the icemaker was an integral part of the operation; of all equipment to be removed from the property, that one topped the list.

The email from the county, saying a search turned up no land use permits, was dismissed by Mr. Rey as possibly not comprehensive. I told him my August inquiries established a base from which he could use his official access to corroborate my work. The validity of the 1993 Cantu letter was undisputed, but they did not understand the significance of the 1993 EHD statement. (This is exactly why I asked for a face to face meeting.) I pointed out that the dates and entries meant the commissary expansion occurred the year AFTER Manteca adopted its Home Occupation Permit ordinance, and this business expansion clearly qualified as requiring a permit. I had to explain the health department’s policy of “non-involvement” with applicant’s dealings with other regulatory bodies; EHD assumes all other necessary permits are in place.

These three documents are copies of attachments included in my report to Steve Pinkerton, City Manager. They claimed they already had a communication from the City Attorney about the lack of standing about the “noise problem” but, when pressed, they admitted no communication regarding the absence of a Home Occupation Permit. (Meaning: my report still has not been reviewed. Hmmm… September 2nd to October 29th is… 57 days!) They made the excuse my complaint was not the only work they had to do; they admitted that the city files had not been located, nor even looked for.

All in all, they kept parroting the “Rex Osborn Orthodoxy” of noise, noise, noise. Several times they accused me of “jumping around” from department to department. They called me uncooperative with their efforts to solve the noise problem. My neighbors have been visited several times, but never has anyone called me for a visit or a meeting. Several times throughout the meeting, I had to redirect them to the root cause of the problem – an illegal business expansion, icemaker included. No more commissary; no more icemaker; problem solved.

They accused me of trying to put these women out of business. I told them my very first letter of March 5th stated my wish for no noise; my second letter of April 4th outlined my aim of having the business moved, not shut down. I have now given them proof that the commissary should not be on that residential property.

- - - - - - - -


This meeting was a primo demonstration of mental gridlock at the top levels of Manteca city government. Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, the enunciator of antique and modern political machinations, would be so proud of their brush-off performance (much, much too little, and very, very late.)

Here we go again… more months wasted by our public indentured servants, who are hired for their brains and talents at salaries higher than most people, yet still cannot seem to keep up with anything more complex than… uh…uhn… Trick or Treat!

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.