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

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

[passionfruit]

Last week we had 5" of rain in one hour. It flooded some blighted areas of Los Angeles, including Watts. When can we expect the bulldozers to start tearing down those areas?

[AuntB]

Al, I'm sorry but this is the first I heard of this. Will go back and read more on it. Thanks.

[Rodney King]

I can see that if the risk is high, but how can anyone make someone leave their property and destroy it if they are willing to live there without insurance?

I'm all for the farmer, but the reason here is that if they let people live in the flood plain without insurance, when the flood comes they will all expect the government to bail them out. (I think this is a bad reason to move this guy out, by the way).

[Varmint Al]

Update 9:15 PM 11/25/3

I am not a very good reporter, but here is what I heard from Mr. Preston Avery, the farmer, this evening: 

The county inspectors this morning were going to demolish the house. Mr. Avery wouldn’t open the gate. The inspectors told Mr. Avery that they were going to have him arrested for not allowing them entry. The inspectors called the sheriff and Sergeant Jeff Berry, of the Contra Costa Sheriffs would not arrest Mr. Avery and said that the inspectors had to have an Order of Faceable Entry to go through the locked gate. The inspectors took off to go see a judge to get the order. They did not come back to the property today. The gate is still locked and Mr. Avery is back at his home in San Jose. 

Monday, Nov 24, Mr. Avery's lawyer filed an appeal to the action and hand delivered it to the Martinez court house. The appeal should be resolved before Mr. Avery's property can be destroyed.  Mr. Avery got a phone call from the Straight Talk radio program, but at the time, he was in his auto on a cell phone and wasn’t able to go on the air. The station is going to call him back tomorrow. The phone number of the radio program is: 866-222-2368. I don’t remember the radio host's name. I found it on the internet from the phone number.

Home of KNAK Radio, 540 AM. Broadcasting Live, 24 Hours a day.
Serving Central Utah with a Smile! Delta, Utah - U.S.A.

KNAK Week Day
Line Up
(based on mountain time)

12:00 AM -  2:00 AM	Radio for the Family	Radioforthefamily.com	Repeat
2:00 AM -   4:00 AM	Daniel Chapter One	Danielchapterone.com	Repeat
4:00 AM -   5:00 AM	1sr Light		Repeat
5:00 AM -   6:00 AM	Day Break USA	Usaradio.com	Repeat
6:00 AM -   7:00 AM	Voice at Large with Wyatt Cox	Wyattcox.net	Repeat
7:00 AM -   8:00 AM	Local Information, etc		Live
8:00 AM - 10:00 AM	"Radio for the Family"	Radioforthefamily.com	866-222-2368 Live
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM	"Daniel Chapter One"	Danielchapterone.com	866-222-2368 Live
12:00 PM -    3:00 PM	Jerry Hughes "Straight Talk"	Cilamerica.com	866-222-2368 Live
3:00 PM -    5:00 PM	Chuck Harder "For the People"	Chuckharder.com	Repeat
5:00 PM -    7:00 PM	Bruce Williams	BruceWilliams.com	800-97-RADIO
7:00 PM -    8:00 PM	Larry King  Live
8:00 PM -    8:30 PM	Focus on the Family Daily	Family.org	Repeat
8:30 PM -    8:00 PM	Adventures in Odyssey	Family.org	Repeat
9:00 PM -  11:00 PM	Point of View	Pointofview.com	Repeat
11:00 PM - 12:00 AM	Old Time Radio	old time radio	Repeat

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[fire_eye]

I wonder how much this very, very important action is costing Commufornia.

I wonder how much the "farmer" had to invest, to cost the very, very important Governments down there in Commufornia, all the money he is costing them.

I wonder what would happen if lots and lots of people bought cheap trailer houses and put them on "improperly zoned "property and then made a hobby of dragging every Governmental agency within range through every legal procedure possible to force them to remove them... and them moved them 25 yards and made the aforementioned very, very, VERY important Governments start all over again. I wonder how much that would cost a Government, every time it happened.

(You'll have to excuse me; I'm just full of all sorts of wonderment this evening...)

[Smokin' Joe]

The Nanny State: "Ve haff vays uf making you safe."

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[ClintonBeGone]

It didn't say no residential development. It said that the land was to be used as a farm. It's fairly common for a farmer to have a house for himself on his farmland.

Same difference. These conservation easements are usually very clear. They don't want the property to be used to live on, just farmed, or as a park, etc. While you and I think every cute little farm deserves a farm house, in the legal sense that's simply not allowed if the deed or logical interpretation of its langague doesn't permit.

[EverOnward]

This could very well kill the poor guy. The local government used federal money to oust my parents off the family farm because it was in a "flood plain." Never mind that it was in high desert near the one ditch (they called it a river) that ran through the whole valley. Never mind that it had been in the family for generations (well over 100 years) and that to maintain the land, it had to be irrigated. Never mind that the land HAD NEVER flooded. The land is now a golf course and the big money maker for the town. AND both my parents went 6 feet under shortly after the loss of the land they loved and were good stewards of. Multiply this story by thousands...

[Coop]

Our country STINKS!!!!!!!!!! Sorry to say but that is how I feel when I read something like this.

Your frustration is understandable, but keep in mind that if you really lived in a country that stinks, you'd have had a knock at your door last night.

[Cvengr]

Then don't buy property adjacent to that which favors hog farming and tanning yards. If you still want it, then save up to buy the property and put it to another use more efficiently. More power to you. But no, nobody has to destroy their neighbors or their opportunity to get ahead.

Real Estate zoning is a dismal failure with respect to efficiently improving the community. The reason it remains is that it brings in revenue to the county and any political movement to lessen its force is stopped by the system itself. It will take a groundswell to remove it. Until that happens we will continue to live in a socialist environment of inequity for those who are honest, honorable and hard working.

Go look at Houston as an example of how a city won't get bogged down as uncompetitive simply because it rejects zoning. The market itself very well enforces the principles behind zoning without creating artificial constraints to free enterprise and innovation.

The quickest way to stagnate an economy is to zone all activity and construction. That was the method of socialism in the USSR.

[Cvengr]

Whenever this type of situation arises, one if not both parties have dedicated themselves to a false system of living.

The antagonist with the county obviously desires to cause harm more than he/she wants to render a service to their fellow man or community.

There are financial costs to be able to effect this type of action. Sheriff's salary, vehicle expenses, moving heavy equipment to the site, operations, documenting the activity to defend against obvious claims, rendering the site safe afterwards and then pursuing financial restitution for the entire effort.

Considering the property owner is probably rather poor, such an effort obviously is a losing proposition for the county.

Perhaps the best way to attack this is by mandating the county continue to enforce the regulations with absolutely no increase in revenue nor ability to levy any primary lien against the property. Let the county employees salaries be contingen upon the effective stewardship of their code enforcement. If it costs them too much to enforce, let the county employees go hungry and homeless. Then perhaps they will face risk for irresponsible code enforcement.

Obviously legalism lacks the wherewithal to effect proper decisions in regards to zoning.

[Mannaggia l'America]

Same difference. These conservation easements are usually very clear. They don't want the property to be used to live on, just farmed, or as a park, etc. While you and I think every cute little farm deserves a farm house, in the legal sense that's simply not allowed if the deed or logical interpretation of its langague doesn't permit.

I guess you didn't read the article I linked to.

In 1989, a judge ruled that a farmhouse was acceptable based on the language in the deed, and he built it based on that ruling.

But the greenies didn't like it and found a judge in 1995 who would overturn the ruling. They bulldozed his house the next day.

[Kit]

Any idea what happened to this man and his family?

And do you know if the deed restriction specifically forbade residential construction?

[ClintonBeGone]

But the greenies didn't like it and found a judge in 1995 who would overturn the ruling. They bulldozed his house the next day.

Oh, I did read the article. A ruling is only as good as the last judge that makes it. In this case, another judge ruled differently. Although I suspect there is more to the story. Generally, when one trial court judge hears a case an rules, only an appellate court can overrule him.

[ClintonBeGone]

Here is the actual language from the deed:

"The use of the premises hereby conveyed shall be restricted to farming or for use as a wildlife sanctuary or nature conservation area and for the study of natural history. No buildings shall be placed thereon other than small buildings accessory to such uses."

The property is to be used *FOR FARMING* not a *A* farm. Farm implies all the accoutrements thereof, which could, arguably, include a 'farm house'. On the other hand, the limit on the use of the property FOR FARMING clearly does not imply use as a farm with a house. It's no different that a very common occurance where a person leases his land 'for farming'. The person that leases the property grows crops, etc. But they don't live on the property.

Here is a link to a factual account of this case:

http://www.paeb.uscourts.gov/pages/pubopins/pdf/natale-sr.pdf

[hedgetrimmer]

Wow just think of all the historic homes that would have to be destroyed if that were the case. Probably every home in California built before the 1950s would have to go.

[pollywog]

Our country STINKS!!!!!!!!!! Sorry to say but that is how I feel when I read something like this.

Your frustration is understandable, but keep in mind that if you really lived in a country that stinks, you'd have had a knock at your door last night.

You are right Coop. I am sorry that I sent that post. After sending it I realized that it was just out of anger......lashing needed, but wet noodles only please~~*grin*

[My2Cents]

With all due respect to you and to the victimized farmer, but the original post on this story from back in July, the farmer said he didn't live on the property, and no one else did either, according to him. So, to characterize this as the destruction of his "home" is inaccurate. Plus, in the two threads I didn't see any supportive documentation on this case, the reasons why the buildings are targeted for demolition (other than his claim that they're on a flood plain), the options (if any) the county has given the property owner, what appeal rights he may have had or whether he exercised them. He started out his appeal by giving us an inventory of his physical ailments, which, quite frankly, are irrelevant to this story. My suspicion is that there is more to this story than we've been told.