Definitions

[Alias]

My question is, is there a substantial difference between the following two terms?

From Dictionary.com -

sub·stand·ard   

[suhb-stan-derd] Show IPA

adjective

1. below standard or less than adequate: substandard housing conditions.



2. noting or pertaining to a dialect or variety of a language or a feature of usage that is often considered by others to mark its user as uneducated; nonstandard.

3. Insurance . a. not measuring up to an insurer's regular standards in undertaking risks: a substandard risk.

b. pertaining to insurance written to cover substandard risks.



con·demn



   [kuhn-dem] Show IPA

verb (used with object)

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment: to condemn a murderer to life imprisonment.

3. to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring: His acts condemn him.



4. to judge or pronounce to be unfit for use or service: to condemn an old building.

5. U.S. Law . to acquire ownership of for a public purpose, under the right of eminent domain: The city condemned the property

Reason being, I have an absentee homeowner who wants me to post an old existing shack as 'condemned'. It is vacant and has been for several years. When the homeowner bought the house in '07, the shack was there and in about the same condition. Homeowner has since moved out-of-state and is trying to sell the home.

I had posted the building as 'substandard' earlier in the year. I tried explaining to her yesterday via telephone that I can't just enter a home without permission and as such can't post a condemnation notice on the door. I also stated that I can't just bulldoze the home either.

Am I incorrect? Homeowner is a governmental employee and is threatening to serve me with a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for all of my files on the property. Oy vey.......

Sue :cowboy

Living la vida loca in the land of fruits and nuts.......

 

[mjesse]

Sue,

In my opinion these two terms, as they relate to Code enforcement, are not similar.

Can the shack legally exist on the property in accordance with zoning laws? If yes, is it habitable?

We tag properties here as "Habitable" or "Not-Habitable" The intent is that repairs must be made before Occupancy can be granted.

If a property is deemed, not-habitable and non-repairable by the Official, you could order the property to be "Condemned" meaning removed from the site.

Not sure what kind of threat a FOIA request is. We get FOIA requests all the time for public information to be released.

Good luck,

mj

 

[mtlogcabin]

request for all of my files on the property

A couple of photos and a few sheets of paper.

Just tell her to give you permission in writing to enter the home. Do tell her she is responsible for all cost incurred in condeming and removing the home

 

[Alias]

A couple of photos and a few sheets of paper.Just tell her to give you permission in writing to enter the home. Do tell her she is responsible for all cost incurred in condeming and removing the home

mtlogcabin -

It's not her home she is complaining about. It is a vacant residence that is catty corner from her home. This shack was occupied until mid-2008 and has been empty ever since. No power, no water, and it was boarded up for a time. Shack owner will be getting a notice to re-secure the property this week along with an additional door posting.

Sue

 

[Alias]

Sue,In my opinion these two terms, as they relate to Code enforcement, are not similar.

Can the shack legally exist on the property in accordance with zoning laws? If yes, is it habitable?

We tag properties here as "Habitable" or "Not-Habitable" The intent is that repairs must be made before Occupancy can be granted.

If a property is deemed, not-habitable and non-repairable by the Official, you could order the property to be "Condemned" meaning removed from the site.

Not sure what kind of threat a FOIA request is. We get FOIA requests all the time for public information to be released.

Good luck,

mj

mjesse-

Thanks, good explanation of differences. Zoning is correct, habitable is a no. Roof coverings are non-existant and it is down to the wood and I am sure it leaks like a sieve.

I was trying to explain to the adjacent homeowner that without access to the home, I can not condemn it. Just because it looks like sh*t on the outside doesn't necessarily mean it is sh*t on the inside. I know different, just can't prove it.

I do have a tag that states "Keep Out, Uninhabitable, contact Building Dept. before entering" that will be posted shortly.

Sue

 

[mtlogcabin]

Comdenation under the ICC does note require a building be torn down or removed from the premise

08.2 Closing of vacant structures.

If the structure is vacant and unfit for human habitation and occupancy , and is not in danger of structural collapse, the code official is authorized to post a placard of condemnation on the premises and order the structure closed up so as not to be an attractive nuisance. Upon failure of the owner to close up the premises within the time specified in the order, the code official shall cause the premises to be closed and secured through any available public agency or by contract or arrangement by private persons and the cost thereof shall be charged against the real estate upon which the structure is located and shall be a lien upon such real estate and may be collected by any other legal resource

 

[Frank]

Regarding FOIA--most likely property maintenance files are exempt from disclosure, as they are part of a criminal investigation Check your state's laws and with your localities legal staff.

 

[brudgers]

My opinion:

Get all the files together and send them to the person requesting them.

There's really no such thing as the threat of an FOI request.

Once they suggest that they might want the info, it's best to assume that they have requested it.

And getting the info together will make you familiar with the property in the way that is likely to help you later.

 

[mtlogcabin]

FOI is not free she can be billed for your time and # of copies. Most people do not want to pay for anything that they want from goverment

 

[brudgers]

FOI is not free she can be billed for your time and # of copies. Most people do not want to pay for anything that they want from goverment

Billing will probably cost more than the cost of providing the information.

 

[mjesse]

FOI is not free she can be billed for your time and # of copies. Most people do not want to pay for anything that they want from goverment

Depends.

Our State law says it free up to 50 standard sized documents, no matter how long it takes.

We can't charge for our time unless some undue burden can be demonstrated.

mj

 

[Mark K]

Not clear why the homeowner is asking you to condem a building he owns.

Suggest that if the homeowner does not want the shack that they either take out a permit to demolish the existing building or be prepared to pay the cost to correct the problems.

For California residential occupancies sub-standard is defined in state statutes. Read the statues not the building code. As I recall if a building is declared to be sub-standard and the property owner does not take steps to correct the problem in a timely manner the government entity would take possession of the problem and have the changes made with a lein being placed on the property.

These statutes preempt anything in the building codes.

 

[Alias]

Not clear why the homeowner is asking you to condem a building he owns.Suggest that if the homeowner does not want the shack that they either take out a permit to demolish the existing building or be prepared to pay the cost to correct the problems.

For California residential occupancies sub-standard is defined in state statutes. Read the statues not the building code. As I recall if a building is declared to be sub-standard and the property owner does not take steps to correct the problem in a timely manner the government entity would take possession of the problem and have the changes made with a lein being placed on the property.

These statutes preempt anything in the building codes.

Mark K -

Not homeowner, it's an absentee neighbor (with a home for sale in the 'hood).

Sue

 

[Alias]

FOI is not free she can be billed for your time and # of copies. Most people do not want to pay for anything that they want from goverment

Copying fees per my fee schedule - $.50 a page.

FOI will be hand delivered to me tomorrow by the complaining neighbor. She just informed me of that via phone.

I will be talking to the city attorney BEFORE releasing documents. I'm not sure about releasing correspondence, pictures, etc. is correct. I know that building permits are public record but not sure on the letters, my private notes, etc.

Sue

 

[brudgers]

Copying fees per my fee schedule - $.50 a page. FOI will be hand delivered to me tomorrow by the complaining neighbor. She just informed me of that via phone. I will be talking to the city attorney BEFORE releasing documents. I'm not sure about releasing correspondence, pictures, etc. is correct. I know that building permits are public record but not sure on the letters, my private notes, etc. Sue

$0.50 per page is asinine. Wouldn't be surprised if the city attorney advises you to waive the fee.

And BTW, your time talking to the city attorney is more expensive than the copying fees will be.

Just as I suggested.

Basically, you are throwing up roadblocks to a reasonable and legal request.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Scenario

If it takes an hour for you to go offsite to your records retention storage building, find the file bring back to the office make all the copies (2 pages or 200 pages) package it up and deliver in person or by mail there are cost incured by the AHJ and those cost can be charge to the person requesting the info.

Somtimes it is worth it sometimes it is so small and trivial it is not.

as others have pointed out state law may prohibit the fees ours doesn't

 

[Mark K]

As I read the California statutes related to sub-standard buildings if the owner does not make progress towards resolving the problem the jurisdiction is pretty much compelled to take action to correct the problem in accordance with the state laws. Talk with the City attorney.

Untill you have resolved the issue of state law the question of condeming the building is moot.

You have classified the building as sub standard as part of your job. Beyond this point I would suspect that the problem is in the hands of the City Attorney. I suspect that resolving this issue will take longer than the complaining homeower is willing to wait. The City Attorney should probably inform the her of this reality.

 

[Keystone]

Sub-Standard = below par, at one time complied or has the ability to comply

Condemn = judgement by the individual (you) of the property to be unhabitable

IMO;

1. Get a complaint in writing with a date and signature.

2. Prepare pics and violation notice. Send notice to maintain exterior premises with timeframe for compliance and means to appeal, lien, etc...

3. If you so feel the need, request access to view the interior of the structure but thats not a can of worms you may want to get involved with and likely to be shot down as a request. Ask yourself, would you have enough information to go in front of a judge and ask for an administrative search warrant? If the exterior appears reasonable there is no need to view the interior.

4. The owner will comply with your notice or not, if not take it to court.

5. If you have to do it a second time then include information about attractive nuisance or something similar leading to condemnation.

FOIA - Public employees and public files, really not a big deal. All file writing should be factually based, short and sweet.

 

[tmurray]

$0.50 per page is asinine. Wouldn't be surprised if the city attorney advises you to waive the fee.

And BTW, your time talking to the city attorney is more expensive than the copying fees will be.

Just as I suggested.

Basically, you are throwing up roadblocks to a reasonable and legal request.

It would be illegal here to release those documents even with a request for information (and especially without a request for information). If there is a reasonable likelihood that a file could go to court then you can't release it. Also, in my province we can only release records and open files are not records as it relates to building inspection and enforcement until the file is closed.

 

[Frank]

Filling public records requests is not a trivial expense I would guess around 2-3% of our budget.

In our office close to a full time equivalent in clerk's time is spent researching and filling public records requests along with charges by from the archiving company to pull and deliver them to us as well significant research time by supervisors when she cannot readily figure out what they want.

 

[brudgers]

It would be illegal here to release those documents even with a request for information (and especially without a request for information). If there is a reasonable likelihood that a file could go to court then you can't release it. Also, in my province we can only release records and open files are not records as it relates to building inspection and enforcement until the file is closed.

Having grown up in the South, I am reminded of the saying... I don't care how you do it up north.

But of course, if you have regulations (or "bylaws" in Canadian) regarding public information, then of course one must abide by them.

Florida, where I worked in government, has one of the most comprehensive sunshine laws in the US.

So I am probably biased.