County looks to rid yard of junk

By Mike Berry
Sentinel Staff Writer

December 9, 2001

One of the touchiest neighborhood disputes in Seminole County history may be coming to a head.

County officials say they are "strongly" considering use of a rarely enforced nuisance law to clean up the property of Alan Wayne Davis, who has aggravated neighbors for years by piling up airplane replicas, scrap metal, barrels and other junk in front of his home on Alpine Street near Altamonte Springs.

Neighbors say they are frustrated that the county has been unable to do anything about the situation, despite a code-enforcement fine that now tops $160,000.

County officials say they must move gingerly.

"He has said some things that are of concern to us about how he might react," said Don Fisher, head of planning for the county. "It's an antagonistic situation."

In a Sept. 5 letter to County Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide, Davis accused commissioners of "criminal activity" and wrote: "One of these days one of these criminals is going to get shot . . ."

Nevertheless, Fisher said the county is "leaning strongly" toward imposing a nuisance abatement law for cleaning up unsightly properties.

Fisher said that during the next two weeks he will meet with other county officials and representatives of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office to plot a course of action.

The county does not want to use such a drastic measure, but it is running out of options, Fisher said.

Neighbors say it is about time.

"We feel we are being held hostage to this man," said Jann Schmitt, who lives three houses down from Davis.

Another neighbor, Terry Miller, said the situation has deteriorated, and he is embarrassed to have visitors.

"It started out with a few things in his yard. Suddenly, it blossomed into the salvage dump you see today," Miller said. "The frustration level is off the chart."

Davis, 46, said that he has the right to keep his property as he pleases and that his junk is a statement about defending that right.

"Yes, I could put it behind a fence, but would that get the point across? This is actually quite effective," he said.

Davis, who is married and has a 6-year-old daughter, said he doesn't tell any of his neighbors how to lead their lives, and he resents their attempts to intrude on his.

When asked about the county's possible action, Davis referred to the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Asked if he meant he might use a weapon if the government tried to clean up his property, he replied, "Well, sure, why wouldn't I? They're coming to my property to steal my property."

Davis has had some success fighting the government.

In March 1987, he successfully sued Orange County and its code-enforcement board over an airplane he stored and repaired in a home he was renting in east Orange. A judge ruled that a person should be allowed to use his property "in the pursuit of his hobbies and interests."

In January of this year, Davis was arrested on a third-degree felony charge of littering and creating a public nuisance. Seminole Circuit Judge Alan Dickey recently dismissed that charge, ruling that, under the felony law, a property owner cannot be accused of littering on his own property, said assistant Seminole-Brevard state attorney Beth Rutberg.

Although Davis still faces related misdemeanor charges, including a charge of endangering the public health, Rutberg plans to appeal Dickey's ruling.

"I'm not going to give up. I'm fighting as hard as I can," she said.

Seminole County's code-enforcement board is fining Davis $250 a day because of the litter, and the fine was up to about $163,000 as of last week. Although the board has imposed a lien against his property, it does not have the authority to order someone to clean it up, Fisher said.

Furthermore, Davis cannot be evicted because he is not behind on mortgage or house insurance payments, Fisher said.

Mike Berry can be reached at mberry@orlandosentinel.com or at 407-320-0915.

Not the same. When you sign the deed to your land, you fully agree to the rights that you get and you recognize the rights you do not have. It is perfectly fine if I wished to sell you limited rights to my land and keep the rest. There is no violation of your natural rights.

appraising the rights of that property

Does property really have rights -or- are there just zoning laws that govern property? Do you appraiser property for a living?

Geee whiz . . . I wonder what prehistoric man with the exact same natural inalienable rights ever did before there was a government to tell him he really didn't own the rights to all of his land. Must have been quite perplexing to him. I'm sure he was glad when government showed up and cleared it all up for him.

Zoning laws are just a definition of rights for land. When you purchase commercial land, you do not purchase the right to build anything but commercial improvements.

Yes I am a real estate appraiser.

How do you get this guy out of your neighborhood then? Is code enforcement the only recourse a neighbor has? Honestly, I would like to hear your opinion.

In uncivilized times. There was no law to defend the rights of land owners. If I came and took your land, who, but you, would stop me? Therefore, if I defeated you, I would earn you land.

Let's say though, there was a very limited gov that DID protect your property rights. Let's say I chose to sell you some land with only the right to utilize it to cross. A right of way right. You chose to buy that right. That violates no natural right, you fully agreed to purchase just that right. The same happens when you buy property in the USA. Some rights are just not for sale. You cannot declare your land to be a separate nation or state. You cannot commit crimes on that land. In order to have a civilized, non-chaotic society, this is how land rights must be set up. Locke addresses this issue with his concept of commonwealths.

Local laws are all they have to fight with. If what he put up can be defined legally as obscene, they can force him to remove it from public view. There is really no way to get the man out of the neighborhood unless he violates a law punishable by jail.

They only way to protect yourself from having messy neighbors that keep a crappy yard (that does not meet the city code for a public eye sore, which the standard VASTLY differs from town to town) is to move into a restricted community. However, some small towns have been known to make local laws that are very similar to restricted communities, such as regulations to keeping garbage in attractive containers and what time it can be put out on the sidewalk, ect.

Now if you are out in the county, there's hardly anything to do but move.

He feels his property rights allow him to do anything he wants on his property and he indicated he will use his 2nd Amendment rights to defend his property and everyone better stay away from his yard.

He must have got that idea from the same silly principles the Founding Father's used in creating the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. What a crazy man to think he actally has rights . . . sheeesh . . . some looney people just don't get it . . .

This is the whole problem. He has rights and I never said he didn't. I have property rights on my property too, which happens to be in a neighborhood. But I don't try to build an amusement park complete with ferris wheel and roller coaster on my yard. Things have their place. Intelligent people understand that. If I wanted an amusement park I would find some cheap land away from houses to build it, or some other proper place. I have consideration for my neighbors. They have consideration for me. That is what makes our neighborhood good. He is not a neighbor. Nor does he have the first clue how to be one. He is an interloper who got lost on his way to the junkyard and decided to stay. That is unfortunate for the other people in the neighborhood who are neighbors.

It trivializes the founding fathers (not father's) to say that the protections of private property we inherited from them should be used to defend this or any man's right to turn his home into a factory when he has neighbors around, and alternatives to go somewhere else.

The ideas in the Constitution and the Declaration are larger than this and were to protect a nation of people from arbitrary siezure, property forfeiture, and a host of offenses that could be done by any government, but at that time were perpetrated by the British, and are now being done by our own.

Some people think just because they have the right to do something, they should do it, regardless of the effect it has on other people. And they will do it as a test to see how far they can go before they get resistance. Supposedly that is how they measure their freedom; by how much they can annoy someone else and get away with it.

The founders are not of that ilk. They did not sit like trolls on their front steps daring the world to say anything negative about the way they kept their yard. The founders would have found this man to be grotesquely vulgar, and viewed with disdain your juvenile application of their ideas to property rights.

Your point being here that while one does have an absolute property right, that when one lives with others, one accepts limitations on that property right so as not to infringe on other's property rights (such as the devaluation of land being next to a junk heap)?

So your position really isn't an argument about property rights, but rather that one should submit to the will of the people he lives around because one's neighbors should be able to dictate what one does with one's property? Yes? But why should one submit to the will of those around him? What is the underlying principle involved?

I can tell you that man, if he natural rights, and I think he does, has always had natural rights. One of these natural rights is the ownership of land. Man had the right to do with his land as he pleases. Since the natural rights are the same today as they were in the past, what has changed? What is the principle that says you can tell me what I can dow tih my property?

I find your assertion that I should bend to the will of those around me to be quite "juvenile".

when one lives with others, one accepts limitations on that property right so as not to infringe on other's property rights

One accepts the limitations that come with the community and the property they purchase. Otherwise they don't live there.

I can tell you that man, if he natural rights, and I think he does, has always had natural rights. One of these natural rights is the ownership of land. Man had the right to do with his land as he pleases. Since the natural rights are the same today as they were in the past, what has changed? What is the principle that says you can tell me what I can dow tih my property?

Yes, this is the question that I go 'round & 'round with Texaggie79 quite often. I reject the notion that because I am born into a geographic area, I have given up natural rights by "agreements" entered into by others. The ownership of land requires that the owner possesses all rights(unless said owner has voluntarily agreed not to excercise some rights), or there is no ownership. Purchasing a property that a governmental entity claims "control" over is not a voluntary agreement to not excercise rights.

I believe that man has gotten himself into this predicament by wanting to live in close contact with a large population, rather than "spreading out" and being independent. Its pretty much human nature for many to want to control anything within close proximity to them. Man has basically given up rights for security, comfort and bull shit.

One accepts the limitations that come with the community and the property they purchase. Otherwise they don't live there.

I'll agree with that statement. One problem, though, is continually changing "limitations" after one purchaes a property. This does not even mean HOA's where bylaws are ammended with the consent of the owners. I can purchase property with little or no restrictions involved, only to have a "government" or "voters" decide, against my will, to impose more limitations. If I am aware of certain limitaions within an area that a "city" claims jurisdiction, I may choose to purchase property outside their jurisdiction. Then, against my will, the city can decide that they have jurisdiction through "annexation". This is totally wrong and contrary to the notion of free men.

One accepts the limitations that come with the community and the property they purchase.

Ok, but what's the underlying princple unvolved? Because you say so?

Exactly. I wonder what perhistoric man did with his land before government came along. He must have been very confused. All that freedom and all . . . you know doing as he pleased because it was HIS and not anyone else's.

I appraise homes all the time in gated communities that are subject to any change the neighborhood committee decides on. If one year they decide that no Lawn flamingos are allowed, all homes are subject by contract to that. That is the agreement entered into. If you don't like it, move to another community that more conforms to your beliefs.

The underlying principle is that the landowner purchases the land with full knowledge of the limitations and possible changes.

Ok, but why are these limitations and "possible" even moral? What is the underlying principle that says property rights are somehow limited?