Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Public Meeting #1: Code Enforcement Board Hearings

For the first public meeting assignment I attended a Code Enforcement Board Hearing. The hearings consisted of property owners who had been in violation of code enforcements. Almost all violations had similarities which consisted of improper use of zoning, accumulation of junk, trash or debris and overgrown conditions. The meeting allowed each property owner in violation to come before the board and explain their situation, give reasons to why they were in violation and what they have done to improve the violation presented.

Pledge of allegiance, roll call and an oath of witness started the meeting. Up first, Agnes Bak, was in violation of improper use of zoning. The Code Enforcement became involved when Bak’s neighbor complained that Bak was using residential property as commercial property. The Code Enforcement Board went to Bak’s property, and after investigation, they found Bak in violation. Bak explained that she had purchased the property five years ago along with the business in that same location. “I was shocked I had been in violation,” explained Bak. She continued by asking the board for more time, promising to file for rezoning. A motion was set that Bak would have a 30 day extension to comply with filing for rezoning; along with that, a $250 per day fine would be issued if rezoning wasn’t filed within the allotted time. The motion was passed after being seconded by board members.

The second, third and fourth cases were presented by the board and each property owner spoke on their behalf. Each case had a lot in common, but the fifth case caught my attention. This case involved Paul D. Mascato, and Debra K. Mascato. The two were in violation of accumulation of trash, debris and junk. Although the cases presented before had to do with accumulation, this case in particular had a heart felt story along with it. I decided to interview Debra K. Mascato and realized her husband had been a drug addict for years. When Paul and Debra received the violation notice, Paul felt the violation was irrelevant, and he had no interest in cleaning up the yard to comply with the violation according to Debra. Debra continued, “I did think the violation notice was important, and I had to do something about it, but I work over 50 hours a week.” She explained that her husband had gone to jail the previous night, so she was determined to comply with the violation notice. The board did allow 30 days to come into compliance.

Following Mascato’s case, Edward Deridder presented himself before the board. The case was for property owner Bobby James Jackson Jr., and to the boards surprise, Jackson had passed away five years ago. Deridder explained to the board he had purchased the property with partner Lee Chuck and he had papers to prove it. The board couldn’t believe that their records still showed Jackson as the owner, and in confusion they began to laugh. Deridder also explained that when he received the notice, he and his son spent 16 hours cleaning the property. The board dismissed the case completely. When Deridder walked out, I hurried out the door to get a quick interview. Deridder, “I was so nervous.” He said he was confused to why he had been nervous, because he had been involved in 25 immigration cases prior to this.

The final interview was with Code Enforcement Operations Manager, Jim Blinck. I wanted to know why he got involved with code enforcement and he replied saying he didn’t really know, but he has been doing it for 23 years. He says that he doesn’t enjoy fining property owners, but he wants to achieve making our communities beautiful. I asked why more than half of the property owners didn’t show for their hearing and he said most of them don’t care.

What more can I say about my first public meeting assignment….? Well, I know I don’t want to attend another Code Enforcement Board Hearing. I was relieved to have two interesting stories come from this meeting, but I know I was fortunate. In final remarks, I will try and find a better meeting to attend for my second assignment.

No comments: