Farmer's house to be destroyed in a matter of hours.

Neighbor hood ^ | 11/25/3 | Varmint Al (Al Harral)

[Cultural Jihad]

You claimed 4 months ago that his illegal shack was going to be demolished that day. Now we hear it will happen within the hour 3 days ago. Is this like a Persian rug company which is perpetually having going out of business sales?

[HiTech RedNeck]

You are either totally cynical or criminally insane. Schwarzenegger WANTS and SUPPORTS this kind kind of land grab. His friends and associates have advocated this kind of taking for decades. It's "for the environment" you know.

Now that he's on a cost cutting kick, he may be amenable to a different point of view. Environuttiness is not without its co$t.

[ClintonBeGone]

No, it isn't, and thats the point. The CCC bozo's are trying to construe spending a couple of nights in it as defining it as a dwelling.

I've provided a citation to a federal court opinion which I think provides substantial backing of my statement(s). Could you provide something factual to back up your statement(s)?

[Carry_Okie]

Environuttiness is not without its co$t.

Now that he's on a cost cutting kick, he may be amenable to a different point of view. Then why did he put a Sierra Club hack in charge of Cal-EPA?

Cost cutting my butt. Arduin could only find $160 million of waste in the education budget?

[Varmint Al]

You claimed 4 months ago that his illegal shack was going to be demolished that day. Now we hear it will happen within the hour 3 days ago. Is this like a Persian rug company which is perpetually having going out of business sales?

If on Nov 25, Mr. Avery had not been there behind his locked gate, the house would have been "Abated". Abatement is the government's term. As it was, the county employees called the police to have Mr. Avery arrested. The police asked to look at the court order and the county employees did not have a "Forcible Entry Court Order", so the police would not let them cut the lock and proceed.

Mr. Avery has filed an appeal and had it hand delivered to the court in Martinez, CA. That was supposed to have delayed the Abatement till there was a hearing. I am not a lawyer and don't know all the details. I can't predict accurately what is going to happen day to day. I would be quite happy is the Contra Costa County would just leave Mr. Avery alone and allow him to have his house on his farm.

Here is what was posted on the gate the day before I saw the crew out there, I took the picture and started this post. Cultural Jihad , What would you have done?

Update Nov 29, 2003

After the county employees left on Nov 25 to get the court order for Forcible Entry, they did not come back that day or the next. The gate is still locked. I talked to Mr. Avery who lives 50 miles or so away in San Jose and told him that there was no more activity. There was no activity at the site on Thanksgiving day and none of Friday, Nov 28. I don't think the county "works" on the week ends. I will post another update on Monday, Dec 1, 2003.

I think it is important for people to see how our government has grown to the point of a nanny state where, they are poised to Abate a house because it might flood. It had all the permits when it was first placed there some 20 years ago. With the same logic, the government could just as easily crush your car because it might be involved in an accident some day.

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

[Cultural Jihad]

I would be quite happy is the Contra Costa County would just leave Mr. Avery alone and allow him to have his house on his farm.

If Mr. Avery wants to follow all the applicable laws and regulations, then he can. People have a right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in, and apparently the people of CoCoCounty have self-governed themselves in such a way that shacks are sub-standard housing are things they do not want in their community.

[GladesGuru]

How is this man's structure suddenly a "shack"?

Could you have irritated the local witch when she knocked on your door at Haloween? I can't otherwise understand how you started to sound like you are channeling James Carville?

No offense intended, but isn't calling this structure a "shack" akin to Carville's infamous "troll a fifty dollar bill through a trailer park, ain't no telling what you'll come up with"?

[Varmint Al]

It is not a SHACK!

I don't have any pictures of the interior, but I will vouch for the fact that the house is not a shack. It is very neat, clean, and nicely decorated inside. The next time Mr. Avery is over, I will get some pictures of the interior.

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

[Axenolith]

Your link is to a totally unrelated case. What has it got to do with this one? This is a zoning issue, not involving conveyance covenants (unless I've TOTALLY missed something), and has to do with utilizing the building as a dwelling. The guys home is in Santa Clara Co...

What is it about this (excerpted from first link) you didn't get???

However, my worst problem is with Contra Costa County Building Department. I bought approximately 72 acres on Bethel Island 29 years ago. Presently I am using this property for pasture. I have cows, goats and sheep there. I have three buildings on the property: 2 barns and 1 manufactured mobile home which I use for storage, shop and rest area when my workers and I work on the ranch.

I have had some sort of unit (self contained travel trailer, etc.) on the property since shortly after purchasing the property. In June 1984, I applied for permits for sewer, water, PG&E, electric which were granted (*see enclosed). I was told the unit I had on the property at that time did not meet the size code to be permitted (less than 400 square feet).

In 1991 1 purchased a larger unit and applied for permits for a care takers unit and the permit was granted (see enclosed). Due to circumstances beyond my control the unit was never occupied as a care takers unit. But it has been used as a farm building as noted above .

The county has declared the unit a public nuisance because they said it is being used for human habitation (which is not true) and is in the flood plain according to FEMA.

I have exhausted all avenues with the county and they said their decision is set in concrete. They have let contracts to demolish my unit (see enclosed information).

Any help you can give me in this matter would be greatly appreciated. If I am not allowed to keep this building on my property, my entire operation will be in jeopardy. For more information or questions please call me at 408-252-3706.

Sincerely,

Preston Avery 10315 Moretti Drive Cupertino, CA 95014

Additionally, do you just MAYBE think there could be an ulterior and harassing motive here just from the fact that the county guy is threatening to treat his unit as asbestos laden when it was constructed AFTER asbestos was removed from general building materials???

[ppaul]

BTTT

[tracer]

Sometimes some of the stuff our daddies taught us as kids can come in handy when times become tough.

Take the effects of range, elevation, and windage, for example....

[FairOpinion]

Any update on this?

[Varmint Al]

Update Dec 2, 2003

Mr. Avery received this letter Dec 1, 2003

Mr. Avery tried to put the building up on pilings last year. They gave him 90 days and he needed to get permits for a Soil Report, and Environmental Impact statement and a number of other county permits that would have taken 6 months and thousands of dollars. From what I gather, they refused to let him apply for the permits. I am vague on this.

Below are the faxes that Mr. Avery just sent me. It appears that the reason the structure is going to be Abates is that it is a mobile home and is not screened from view. I hope the county doesn't look at my house and decide that it is a nuisance.

The building inspector can stand in the street and determine that a house is occupied as a residence...

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

[FairOpinion]

Thanks for the update. From what I read here their main problem is that it's "not screened from view".

Can he put up something -- like a tall fence-like "structure" or even a painted plastic screen, or something which would "screen it from view"?

Or move it back so it's not visible from the road?

Then their case would be shot.

As for the human occupation, that is hard to prove, unless they stay there 24/7 and take pictures of people actually living there.

I think he also needs to have a talk with his attorney or get a new one? An attorney could take this building inspector apart regarding the statement of occupation.

As for this land use permit -- the mobile home is a temporary structure, especially since it's not on cement blocks, etc., I bet those rules apply to permanent structures, not temporary ones.

I am not an attorney, so this is definitely not legal advice, but I think his attorney may have been focusing only on part of the problem, the flood issue, and missing these other possibilities for defense and resolution.

What I would suggest is for your friend to go to the Bldg. Insp. Dept, and ask them, if they would consider it acceptable, if he moved the trailer, or, as I said, put up something in front of it, to screen it from view, and also bring up the issue that if it's screened and not occupied, that should be OK, isn't it? And the thing about a temporary structure. Supposed he parked a car on his property, would that be a problem?

I really think this can be resolved.

Good luck and keep my posted.

[FairOpinion]

PS to my previous post.

I think that if your friend shows some cooperative spirit to some extent, such as I suggested, making some small concessions, while trying to address the other issues, and explain to them about the occupancy issue, also trying the "temporary structure" defense (obviously someone needs to read up on all that), the Bldg Inspection Dept. may not really proceed with their stupid idea.

I just get the feeling, that they are trying to save face, so a direct confrontation and defiance would do more harm than good, but a pretense and some effort of working with them, may just resolve the issue and they will wash their hands of it.

[Varmint Al]

Update Dec 21, 2003

Mr. Avery has no place to move the house to. It boils down to the County Inspector claiming that the house is a "blight" in his view. And should therefore be removed from the premises. Here is the latest letter:

I think this cartoon states the point very well.

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

[FairOpinion]

Thanks for the updater. I was wondering about it.

Sounds like they are still willing to meet with the attorney to work out a solution.

My impression from this and previous info you posted is that their major issue is that they consider the mobile home a "blight", so this is the issue to address.

I really think it wouldn't be too costly to put up some 8 ft green canvas screen on some posts, to hide the mobile home from view. I think this offer should be made to the Building inspectors. Or put up some "fence-like" structure, upon which some green vines would grow -- in fact, this may even be better and more natural looking. Or Grow some bushes tall enough, to hide the mobile home. I think the attorney should meet with the people at the Building Inspectors office and make this offer.

I am almost willing to bet that they would accept a solution like this. This shouldn't be too much for your friend, and would satisfy the building inspectors. Otherwise I think ultimately they will take his trailer.

Please pass on to him my suggestion and keep my posted on what's happening.