Entries Tagged 'Code Enforcement' ↓

Sioux Falls Apathy Council

YouTube Preview Image

Mr. Danielson’s case is NOT the only one. Several citizens have been coming out after the verdict on Friday that they are also being ‘criminally’ charged for violations. So now we have a code enforcement department that is treating people who have things ON THERE OWN PROPERTY like common criminals instead just civil code violators.

Man Bites Dog

IMAG3281

Surveillance of the surveillance (This is a shot of one of Bruce’s neighbors taking pictures of his yard, but you know, the city claims only the code enforcement officer was a ‘witness’)

To those interested in the Bruce Danielson case, try to understand some of the underlying issues at play.

The City of Sioux Falls has established itself as a Home Rule Charter form of government. The Home Rule Charter form of city government was designed for small villages with a limited number of people to help make decisions. It can be a benefit in emergencies to quickly make survival decisions but many safeguards must be in place to keep authoritarians in check.

Since 2010 city election, we in Sioux Falls have seen the rise of a dictator-like form of ‘efficient’ government. Our city government does not brag about trains running on time but we do have a city government bragging about cutting corners to get things done (Take the cuts in Paratransit, for example). The civil rights of ANY individual are not to be stripped from anyone for the expediency of another, tell this to a subprime credit card salesman turned mayor, practically overnight.

Do you know what it is like to be arrested and put in jail? I certainly do. I was arrested over 7 years ago. It was normal operating procedure to arrest me for what I did. I spent about 2 hours in jail before I paid bond.

We are seeing abuses in the operation of Sioux Falls and a few of us are willing to speak up.  For speaking up Bruce Danielson was arrested and put in jail for over 6 hours, not for a serious traffic violation, like myself, but for a ‘code violation’ (too much building materials in HIS fenced in and locked backyard).

The administration of Mike Huether has decided they do not need to follow the US Constitution, it’s Bill of Rights, the Laws of the United States, State of South Dakota or the Home Rule Charter of the City of Sioux Falls. We the people have no rights to question their authority or decisions.

This issue is not ‘piles’ of junk sitting around the property. This case is an example of a code enforcement system becoming an all-powerful entity onto itself, able to have citizens arrested without due process. It’s offensive and SICK.

The Sioux Falls code enforcement officers under the possible direction of superiors are to pick and choose one citizen over another. We are learning more everyday how this system works.

The Honorable Judge Joni Cutler saw through the city’s illegal activity.

Cutler showed she had the ability to listen to the witnesses, weigh the evidence and control the courtroom in order to perform the responsibilities of her office. Cutler decided the city had no right to interfere or set a ‘speed’ claim for project completion.

It is also the policy of the City of Sioux Falls to NOT work with possible offenders. As you can see in Darin McDonald’s public testimony to the city council and mayor, he tried several times to work with the city, only to find out they fined him anyway. And to add insult to injury, the city failed to comply multiple times with their own property for the same thing they were fining Darin for.

Code enforcement officer Todd Rhinehart admitted in court he never attempted to call Mr. Danielson, personally visit or return a telephone call in his process of building a case. He never supplied any information to help Bruce understand what the issues were. He also admitted to the unconstitutional, illegal service of notices and citations.

By Rhinehart’s court testimony admissions, It is the policy of the city code enforcement system to pile on without assisting or guidance to possible problems or corrections.

Mr. Danielson had proven an almost 20 year track record of working with the City of Sioux Falls. Prior to the administration abuses demonstrated in this case, Danielson never had any citable or serious violations. He always worked with the city to make sure everything was safe and presentable. I was actually witness to it once with councilman Staggers. Ron Bell from the city’s code enforcement office came out to inspect some repairs Bruce had made, and he approved the repairs and assured Bruce their would be no fines. That was probably the last time anyone from the city worked with Bruce on his home.

The reason Mr. Danielson began to seriously get involved in Sioux Falls politics was to have a voice in correcting the abuses of the personal liberty of the Huether administration. And apparently they like to bite back.

Breaking: Bruce Danielson found NOT guilty on all 3 criminal charges

Read the background here.

One of the counts was dismissed.

As you know Bruce is the person who started Citizens for Integrity. Bruce was also instrumental in helping SON, Save Spellerberg and the Snowgate petition drive. Bruce also has filed several ethics complaints against the mayor over pre-election presentations. He also helped file two complaints about the municipal election ballot language.

He is a man of integrity.

As for the case. Bruce’s neighbors have used city code enforcement for over  20 years to harass him while he has made improvements to his home, which has enraged the neighbors. They lost today, and rightly so. It is neither the city’s business or his neighbors on how he chooses to work on his house. In fact Joni Cutler, while giving her decision, commended Bruce for his ‘Passion’ in improving his property.

The city tried to prove that he held a criminal ‘public nuisance’ with his construction materials stored in his locked fenced off back yard. As judge Cutler pointed out, in the 20 years he has worked on his home, no health nuisances have occurred and the city failed to prove that one is imminent.

At one point in the trial, the city attorney became enraged when Bruce’s attorney brought up how Bruce was arrested and made to strip down and wear ‘stripes’ for 6 & half hours with common criminals over ‘building materials’. Bruce’s attorney, Charles Dorothy said in his closing arguments that being arrested for this was ‘offensive’. The city attorney ranted that this was brought up to fuel a civil suit against the city and the the media was ‘called’ in to report this. John Hult from the Argus Leader was at the trial all day, and I am sure he will write a long story about it.

Bruce has believed that this was a vendetta by the city for all of his involvement with the different petition drives and ethics complaints, and also bringing to attention that the EC siding was put on wrong.

There is much more to come. This is only the beginning.

Today the GOOD neighbor WON and the BAD neighbors lost.

I agree with Mayor Huether, let’s end bullying in Sioux Falls, let’s start at Carnegie & City Hall

I have a little different perspective on it then he does, as I am sure you suspected.

While I do agree with him that work place/school discrimination and domestic violence is intolerable I do draw a line with freedom of speech. While saying ‘naughty hurtful words’ should be discouraged, the 1st Amendment is pretty clear about our constitutional rights. In yesterday’s press conference, Huether referred to a FB comment he read that said (in reference to the man getting punched outside of Wiley’s) “LOL. Maybe he should have minded his own business.” While the LOL was not needed (Lot’s of Laughs, is what Huether said it meant, which made me LMFAO*) I kind of agree with the rest of the comment to a point.

If it was a different situation, I would have definitely said something to the lady, but since the situation occurred while everyone involved was probably tanked outside of Wiley’s (a place known for it’s fighting problems) probably not a time to take a stand. For example, last night me and about 5 other people got doused with beer when someone behind us threw a cup. I turned around and saw some wannabe bikers laughing. I certainly could have went over and asked who the f’ing wise guy was, but you know what? I minded my own business, and guess what, no one got hurt. Did the gentleman outside of Wiley’s deserve to get punched? Nope. Violence is never a solution. Do I commend him for sticking up for himself and friends? Definitely! But like I said, if you put yourself in certain situations, there can be unintended consequences, especially when fueled by alcohol. Just look at the problems associated with drinking at Van Eps Park.

There are situations where you need to turn the other cheek, or you just might get punched in the face. It’s your choice I guess, like I said, the 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to pretty much say what we want as private citizens. It is clear though that employers can’t discriminate in this manner, and assaulting your spouse or bystanders is not included in this right. Please, let’s all stop punching each other over ‘words’. What an incredible waste of time and energy, and also, let’s stop crying over spilt milk.

This is where I disagree with mayor Huether on bullying. He seems to think this is about school kids, minorities, domestic assaults or gays, it is much more encompassing then that.

He lacks to mention peer bullying (most people think of this kind of bullying going on in school between classmates). It is also an issue in the workplace. In fact I believe it is an issue at Carnegie Hall.

I have seen city councilors, the mayor, city directors, city employees and citizens all bully each other at the meetings. In fact on one occasion, which still irks me to this day (the mayor says it is okay to get mad about bullying) is when Councilor Erpenbach bullied the snowgate petitioners and shut down public comment in support of an early election. Each week I have also watched several city councilors bully citizens when they say something they don’t like in public testimony. The mayor on several occasions has cut off councilors during discussions and asked for a roll call vote. They are all guilty, including myself, when I offer ultimatums during public testimony. I apologize.

I have also witnessed bullying by code enforcement officers, police officers and the city attorney’s office. In fact, a former city attorney bullied one of my friends for seven years which cost him over $40K.

Like I said, I am all for free speech, citizens have a right to address their government about concerns, but public officials don’t have a right to bully citizens when we bring up these concerns. I saw this recently when the city refused to pay for damages the SFPD SWAT team created. In another incident a guy is being taken to small claims court over not building a dumpster enclosure fast enough. So if city officials are going to hold press conferences to tackle the problem of bullying, they must first look in the mirror and get their own house in order.  I’m glad the mayor brought this issue to light, and I hope he looks at the bullying going on by the employees he manages. If Huether believes in leading by example it is imperative he sets a good example to city employees and directors. The same goes for the council (None of them attended the press conference yesterday).

BTW, Huether mentioned bullying that goes on on blogs. So I thought it would only be appropriate to comment on his press conference, on my blog.

*LMFAO. Which means ‘Laugh my funny arm off’

Code Enforcement out of control

YouTube Preview Image

I have suggested recently to a city councilor that complaints should be filed on a form at the code enforcement office or an online form. You must write the violation you think exists, YOUR NAME, address and phone number. I think the ANON complaint system leaves room for abuse and harrassment and it is unconstitutional to have an ANON witness. If someone chooses to appeal a code violation, the complaintant should have to appear at that appeal hearing as a witness to the alleged violation.

When speaking to a councilor about it, I compared it to being a witness to a car accident. There is a good possibility that you would have to appear in court.

Enough of the anon tattle-tale system. Put your big boy pants on, and own up.

SF City Council Public Input 9/9/14

YouTube Preview Image

It’s not Rocket Science

YouTube Preview Image

Just what is being done by city legislators when it comes to fixing the boulevard ordinance?

IMG_5304

That is a very good question. The current ordinance states:

96.010  RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING.

   (a)   The portion of a dedicated public right-of-way between the street and the property line excepting the sidewalk shall be landscaped and maintained by the abutting property owner. Landscaping shall be limited to sod, seed or other living ground cover approved by the city. Nonliving ground cover, including, but not limited to, rock, stone, brick concrete, asphalt or other like materials, shall not be used as landscape material except as provided herein.
   (b)   The city may authorize the use of nonliving ground cover for landscaping a public right-of-way when it is determined that a location will not allow for adequate maintenance of sod or other living ground cover. This exception shall not include the use of loose rock or asphalt as landscaping material.
(1992 Code, § 38-12)  (Ord. 37-03, passed 5-5-2003)
As you can see, as it currently states, your boulevard can ONLY be green cover. When is our council going to fix this? I do know that some councilors agree, this needs to be revised so thousands of residents can be in compliance. The mayor and some of the council say just leave it as is.
The problem with that is that there is NOTHING stopping code enforcement from giving out violations. Nothing. As the ordinance is written right now, they can give out a violation to anyone who is not in compliance. And they can pick and choose who those violators are.
So how is ‘doing nothing’ fixing the problem? I encourage our council works on revising the ordinance.

Reward the troublemakers, punish the property owners

Yesterday one of my South DaCola foot soldiers had a voicemail left in the afternoon. It was a message from a reporter at one of the local TV stations. She said she wanted to do a story about flowers in the boulevard. The soldier called them back about 30 minutes later, and the reporter told her that they no longer were going to do the story.

So what happened in that 30 minutes? I wonder if a call was also placed to city hall?

As for people who are beautifying city property (boulevards). I find it ironic that the city wants to punish people who are using their own resources to improve city property through code violations and fines.

But when other citizens of our community drink all day in one of our public parks, pass out, get into fights, etc. the city administration decides to reward them with bathrooms, picnic tables and a fence to contain their rowdiness.

To hell with a Bad Neighbor, more like a Bad Mayor.

UPDATED: Sioux Falls ‘Flower Police’ strike hard and fast

IMAG2773

UPDATED: This is the photo of where the flowers had to be torn out, you can see they were cut out. I think it actually looks worse, because now it is just a bunch of rocks. I guess how this came about was code enforcement tried to fine a lady with rocks in her boulevard, and she got mad and took around 40 photos of other properties violating the same thing she was, so code enforcement chased them down also. Ridiculous. I sometimes wonder if city employees or managers THINK before they act on stupid stuff like this.

Recently a resident of Sioux Falls was asked to remove her flowers from the boulevard (Day Lillies) by city code enforcement. This is in the wake of the city council recently stating they want to review the administration’s recommendation to limit flower planting and other landscaping in the boulevard.

According to current city ordinance, your entire boulevard should be grass only. But after the city council heard about the proposed changes they asked for the city code enforcement to not enforce the current ordinance until they come up with proposed changes, and they agreed they would not pursue issuing fines (because there are thousands of violators city wide). Apparently the code enforcement officers don’t give a rat’s behind what the city council thinks. The resident was asked to tear out the flowers within a week or face a $100 fine.

Code enforcement is supposedly based on neighbor complaints, but I guess all the neighbors of this resident were so upset the city did this, they sent the lady sympathy cards.

This has renewed an interest in a petition drive that may start very soon regarding what residents can plant in their boulevards and having the city public works trim THEIR trees in the boulevard instead of fining and charging residents to trim them.

Once again, if citizens want PUBLIC SERVICE and CONSTITUTIONAL Property RIGHTS they have to pursue it on their own at the ballot box, because our elected officials are asleep at the wheel. Just look at how long it is taking them to ban alcohol at Van Eps Park?