What is a mayor? What do I want for a mayor? What is essential for a mayor? What makes a mayor successful? These are all the things I and anyone need to ask when considering such matters.
You are more than aware of why I choose not to endorse Kim Maggard for re-election but, you may ask, why do I then choose to endorse Leslie LaCorte? There are several reasons but one of the chief ones is her character. I’ve known Leslie since she was a whippersnapper in her cheerleading outfit at Whitehall-Yearling. I worked in the Bicentennial Summer at Orton Davis Park under the direction of her Father, John LaCorte. I knew her sister Amy from school who was a character everyone loved even then. Leslie and I had a class or two together but didn’t hang out in the same circles and so had a passing acquaintance. I did notice her strong personality and liked it about her. When I returned to Whitehall in 2008, I saw her at the Park at some event and we talked. She was a little forlorn how Whitehall had changed and she had a real connection in her heart to that. I knew Whitehall was going through changes but was glad she was there to help it in that and glad I was here to help if I could.
In the last six years I’ve watched her in council, how she was treated unfairly and how she reacted to that. I think she showed class and restraint in her reactions and that elevated her in my mind even more. Every time she was at the committee table her concerns were ‘the citizens’, I’ve heard that phrase and concern innumerable times from her. She always wanted what was best for them and I believed her because it was heartfelt, you could see it was true. She does care and she does want what is best for this city. Even when it meant agreeing with people when it wasn’t or wouldn’t be politically expedient. Why, because she’s a decent human being. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don’t. It is the duplicitous character who makes calculating choices for the benefit of their political career that you must watch out for. Leslie is not like that. If you say something smart or have something good and right for the best overall outcome, she will heartily agree and lend her support, no matter who you are. That’s because she’s a good human being first, a political player second. I admire the hell out of that. Her eager and sincere efforts for the citizens and her principals in the movement of those efforts are admirable and bedrock. My admiration for her, whether we agree or not (and we have) holds out because she is always principaled and ethical. Simply said, I trust her to always do the right thing because she has actually proven herself to be trustworthy. With Leslie those are not simply words printed on a cardboard sign.
As you may have gathered by my writings, these traits are everything to me, given to me from my dear and kind gentleman of a Grandfather, to my dear-hearted sweet Mother. People may do things which aren’t the best or they may make mistakes or slip up as human beings, the same things Kim Maggard has done as a person, but it is what lies underneath that ultimately adds up in the final analysis. If there is treachery underneath and one mucks things up, I have much less understanding for that than I do for someone who’s trying with earnest goodwill and doesn’t always succeed in their efforts. That is Leslie LaCorte, and that is priceless.
A Mayor can be many things, some have the education and experience to do such a job (Kim Maggard didn’t have experience being a mayor before she took the job. If a girl from Kentucky can do it, why not a girl born and raised here?) and then there are the stories you read where an 18-year old has won the mayorality of some town somewhere in America. I’m quite sure DSCC runs itself and its Federal government level of administration doesn’t much need the administration a small town mayor may want to bring to it. Outside of that, it is a small town and its needs are finite. I have found Leslie a capable and bright person and if she actually hires people and surrounds herself with the best applicants our money can afford (instead of friends and cronies who sometimes lack the necessary education for the positions), seeks their best counsel and uses that sensible head of hers, Whitehall will be fine. The rest, like Kim Maggard herself learned four years ago, is on a learning curve. Plus, along with that, you get someone that is citizen-centric, not government-centric. That’s important.
Years ago John Bishop ran things and all was well and things got done. Within that, the citizens were free to go about their lives in a civic-oriented fashion with stuff for kids and adults alike. When there aren’t problems overshadowing those things, people are freer to enjoy that relaxed level of activity. With the police backing her and her desire to actually get tough on crime, I think we can see that again on the horizon for Whitehall. Coming together as a community and taking part in a society we all share here in Whitehall can be our future and is an intrinsic part of Leslie’s makeup. She really does want this to be a people-oriented community, as do I. Its where our gold lies.
During this election season, where we’ve went from Winter to Spring to Summer to Autumn, I have given weighty consideration to why I didn’t want Kim Maggard running things here in Whitehall and I have spelled those out exhaustively, but I also considered Leslie in those moments too and truly, I have a very good gut-feeling about Leslie. I believe wholeheartedly that she will be there for the people and if its the people who make a town what it is (not the businesses)and their worth and gold is mined and celebrated and supported by the government for them, I believe you won’t be able to help but see a transition and rise occur. To me thats exciting and I feel the citizens need and are ready for such a leader. That is why I’m voting for Leslie LaCorte tomorrow, November 3rd. I hope you’ll join me in that endeavor. Thank-you.
Here then is the meeting that was held in the backroom of the council chambers, at the council committee meeting, where they can freely discuss issues which come before them. Due to no one pursuing my complaints and concerns regarding code enforcement stepping onto private property without permission or a warrant, I asked Councilperson Leslie LaCorte to take up that fight within council. In the face of so much opposition and dragging of feet in inquiry for the citizens sake, I feel she did so valiantly. I feel this meeting exemplifies well the kind of evasive and obfuscating behavior from them I’d become accustomed to over the years trying to get things paid the attention I feel they merited. It is also a window into how Leslie LaCorte was often treated by them, treating her disrespectfully, unprofessionally and talking down to her like she was a child. I have added my remarks in red as a commentary on the meeting. Again, this is verbatim, so while it reads like they’re all thick-tongued, all the ‘ums’ and stammering and such is just normal speech patterns and must not be construed as anything other. I want to start it by again showing the speech I gave before them to consider a moratorium on code enforcement.
CITY OF WHITEHALL COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
JUNE 11, 2013
18:45:37
Councilperson Leslie LaCorte: “ I also wanted to talk with, ask Ray, he actually was out last week when Jim (Graham) brought forward this, um, when we were discussing the codes and stuff like that. I don’t know, I just feel that, um, I’d just like to hear an explanation on the ‘right of entry’ to when we feel, what our standards are, what our codes are as far as when we feel its right to enter a property Ray”.
Former Service Director Ray Ogden: “Well, the Property Maintenance Code does give the city the right of entry and, um, unless somebody tells us no. Rarely do we enter a property, we don’t normally have to…the Property Maintenance Code does have that in the code”.
(By his own admission, Mr. Ogden says that they do enter property but never mentions the permission or warrant process as outlined in the 4th amendment. Also, according to Mr. Ogden’s conveniently incorrect interpretation of strictly worded law, (by he who sends officers out under color of law to serve violations regarding the letter of the law, that which he can’t, by this example, understand himself. As well too, judged by a Magistrate that assumes violations have been brought to him by means of lawful actions on the part of code officials) the IPMC’s #104.3 Right of Entry, the entire Service Departments, Code Divisions, and as such, the City of Whitehall’s positions are, that the entire city is one big YES! for their traipsings unless an arbitrary entity known as “somebody” comes out of their structures and yells “NO!” at them (Very convenient for them being that their operations take place during the weekdays when most people aren’t in their homes to yell “NO” out at them in the first place). Obversely, the law actually states that they can’t just go anywhere they please, that first they must try every reasonable measure to get permission from an occupant or owner. Once that avenue is exhausted, if no one answers or explicitly gives permission, then they must seek entry by means of a warrant signed by a judge. So, in actuality, the entire city is one big “NO!”, unless someone says “YES”, the exact opposite of what his interpretation conveniently misinformed Ms. LaCorte with. That which began the muddying of the core issue; are code officials allowed by law to step onto private property without aid of permission from an owner/occupant and/or a warrant signed by a judge. The Supreme Court decision, Camara v Municipal Court, says no.)
LaCorte: So, as far as when, um, someone has the ‘No Trespassing’ sign, and again, I just want to clear up to why I’m asking this because for, you know, a year now I feel like I’m in the middle of Administration/residents, um, or resident (meaning Gerald Dixon) I should say, and um, I’m getting to feel like it’s unfair. I don’t know where, I mean, we are here for the community and I totally understand that and I’m here to back up the Administration and the job that they do but when I’m getting phone calls and I feel like I can’t give answers and I feel that I can’t help, I feel like I need to come to you guys for help…(bad mistake if you’re going to get any ‘help’ from them)
(Councilperson LaCorte very briefly starts to stick to the topic but quickly veers into self-defense over her motivations in challenging Service Director Ogden and the city’s code enforcement practices. It is difficult to not only buck power but so many people who are opposed to your efforts and not helping)
Mayor Kim Maggard: “Mmmmm-hmmmm”.
LaCorte: “…um, I know you’ve gotten calls, you’ve gotten calls, you’ve gotten calls (indicating various councilpersons) and I feel, um, not that I mind the phone calls, I mean I don’t want to offend anybody at all…”
Maggard: “Mmmm-hmmm”.
LaCorte: “but I just feel like, why is there a continuing problem, why are we struggling to, um, have a clear code as far as the entry of property when there’s a ‘No Trespassing’ sign, I know, there’s been meetings with the Mayor and, I’m still getting phone calls, so I don’t know, I don’t know what the…”
Ogden: “Well, would you address the nature of the phone call with me so I could answer your question?”
(Mr. Ogden’s confusion in understanding what Councilperson LaCorte is driving at is in conflict with what Mayor Maggard claims later in the evening, to “have actually talked to Ray and the city attorney about that (the issue at hand) and we are doing the right* thing per our city attorney.”)
*Note the mayor uses the term “right”, not ‘legal’ or ‘lawful’.
LaCorte: “Okay. Alright, well, and again, Jim was here…”
Councilperson Bob Bailey: (interrupting) I don’t disagree with what you’re saying (has she really gotten out a cogent statement yet?) but, you know, here’s one thing I looked at, cause I kind of researched this, how many code violations are written annually? Several thousand.”
(His interruption has nothing to do with my concern and the topic at hand. It is a nattering nuisance and one of several times Councilperson Bailey veers the conversation off the meat of the matter by interrupting. It has nothing to do with the heart of the concern/complaint/issue (code officers on property without aid of permission or a warrant and a moratorium of code enforcement in light of this charge) and only serves to derail the momentum and thread of Councilperson LaCorte’s investigation and verbal examination from reaching adequate and proper outcomes, that which she, standing up for citizens and the law, deserves professional patience, courtesy, consideration and respect from the council table to achieve.)
Ogden: “Are you talking about notices or violations?”
Bailey: “Well…”
Council President Jim Graham: “Yea, cause there’s probably more notices than actual violations.” Maggard: “Yes…there is.”
Bailey: “Let’s say notices, that’s what I checked.”
LaCorte: “Yea, that’s a good way to start it.”
Bailey: “That would be compact.”
LaCorte: “Where do we start…?”
Bailey: “Notices. Several thousand.”
Maggard: “Yea.”
Bailey: “And you really only have issues with a small number of those, and not to diminish the importance of those concerns…”
LaCorte: “Right.”
Bailey: “…those people have but, I don’t think the things broke so much as, um, you know, like, when a policeman comes to your house, if he feels there’s a safety issue he may enter your house, I looked at it, as code, with code enforcement, cause we had this in our neighborhood, a broken fish tank and a broken down truck in the backyard, kids playing on it, bad safety situation, it was Wynn Stafford’s (sp?) property, anyhow, uh, code enforcement had to get back there to see it, so they had to enter the property and it was rectified rather quickly, now he was upset, this was before I was a councilman and he was in here. Maybe his (Wynn Stafford) concerns are legit that he’s entering, the code enforcement entered a rental property of his but its still a safety situation. Now granted, if its grass, that’s not a real particular safety issue.”
(In the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution it says; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, (which includes the cutilage** as found in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)) against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In Camara v. Municipal Court- 387 U.S. 523 (1967) it states:
“With certain carefully defined exceptions, an unconsented warrantless search of private property is “unreasonable.”
Search warrants which are required in non-emergency situations should normally be sought only after entry is refused.”
“A search of private property without proper consent is “unreasonable” unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.”
“When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, notby a policeman or government enforcement agent.”
“…the possibility of criminal entry under the guise of official sanction is a serious threat to personal and family security.”
“The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable government interest. …If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant.”
Councilperson Bailey’s assertion then that mere non-emergency safety issues require the immediate attention and unlawful intrusion of government agents onto citizen’s private property is utterly incorrect and misinformed anyone at that table who may have been ignorant of law and simply wholeheartedly accepted Mr. Bailey’s assertions. No one, including the chief law enforcement officer at the table, Mayor Kim Maggard, corrected Councilperson Bailey. Given then the information proffered by Mr. Bailey, this had the power to skew the forward movement of the proceedings as initiated by Ms. LaCorte. His assertions are, at best, a heinous ignorance. At worst, they’re a scary and telling peek into the mindset of those who are governing the city of Whitehall.)
LaCorte: “No.”
Graham: “It could pose a, um, varmint problem.”
Bailey: “It could…”
Councilperson Van Gregg: “If its too much…”
Bailey: “…but, you know, I just don’t think it’s a, I don’t think a big alarm should be going out that people are being mistreated, I think that each individual case needs to be handled…”
LaCorte: “Right.”
Bailey: “,,,worked out…”
LaCorte: Right.”
Bailey: “…and resolved.”
LaCorte: “I think that’s another thing, are we working them out, are we, you know, instead of, um, getting the constant phone calls, are we trying to address things to the point that we’re solving a situation instead of being contacted, I mean its like a merry-go-round, I think if it goes around the table…”(Councilperson LaCorte continues to try and stay on point…)
(Excellent counterpoint to Mr. Bailey. Are we working out all these individual complaints against code enforcement or are we just sweeping them under the rug until everyone forgets and they start getting more calls again?)
Maggard: (interrupting LaCorte’s thread…) “Well, I…I think people, people feel that’s their property and its very personal to them when somebody says, hey you need to fix up the property. To them I think some people take that as an insult, so of course, their feelings are hurt, they are upset. Uh, if anything on a property is visible to the naked eye we can write a citation or a violation, we don’t even have to come onto the property, we can see it from there. However, please remember that many, most of our phone calls are from neighbors…” (two utterly different trains of thought she added, one was people’s feelings being hurt by code enforcement, the other letting everyone know their power when it comes to enforcement.)
( The mayor interrupting Councilperson LaCorte with the utterly unrelated ‘feeling’ as to why people get upset with code enforcement has the same effect that Councilperson Bailey’s interruption did just a moment ago. Councilperson LaCorte isn’t given the professional courtesy of patience and time to fully articulate what she wants to say about this important topic before others unprofessionally, disrespectfully and consistently interrupt her train. It is also telling that they, as citizen’s representatives and elected officials, don’t extend to her the professional courtesy, equal interest and willingness to help her find the best and most just conclusion they can for the citizen’s sake. By not actively participating in the understanding of the issue brought forth and addressing the matter at hand in the clearest and most concise manner possible, they do a great disservice to the citizen’s concerns and welfare, those they chose to represent and ostensibly fight for.)
Graham: “Mmmmm-hmmm.”
Bailey: “Exactly, and they want to remain, they wanna remain anonymous.”
(Here Councilperson Bailey is asserting that neighbors want to snitch on their neighbors without those neighbors ever knowing who called the city code enforcement on them. Sort of like a secret police. If the citizens can’t stand with courage when it comes to their actions, they should remain silent, as well, the city should never entertain the odious practice of citizens secretly informing on neighbors. Haven’t we seen the scary results of secret informants working with government agents? Have we learned nothing from this? The fact that the city is all in for this anonymous, secretive code enforcement policing says volumes about the character of those running things at City Hall. Its gross and telling and frightening.)
Maggard: “…and they are looking at that across the street or right next door and they call and complain. And so, we need to check that out. We go, they say you can come on our property and look at the next door neighbors. (gross) We don’t look over a solid fence but if we can see through it or our employees can see through it, they can take pictures. (Gov’t. agents taking photos of your property through spaces in your fences. When did this become normal, or okay?) If its visible to the naked eye and there is no, um…”
LaCorte: (train of thought now derailed)“So we just serve them a citation first and give them a…”
Maggard: “…a warning.”
Graham: “No, they get a warning first.”
Maggard: “They absolutely get a warning first.”
LaCorte: “…and from there we go to a further action.”
Maggard: “…and, um, if council would like to change the code on that, you wanna make it less restrictive then of course that’s your prerogative. But please…”
(She actually told them what they can do and no one heard her or paid attention.)
Bailey: “I would also like to add since I started, and one of the reasons I ran, um, one of the things I heard campaigning a lot and then engaging with residents to hear their voice, I hear, more compliments about how their neighborhoods are more looking better since the code enforcement is educating…”
Maggard: “Right.”
Bailey: “…these homeowners, or residents that, hey, you need to mow your grass, cut your bushes, whatever. I hear more positive things, really about code enforcement than I actually hear negative things, so, and not to diminish anybody that has an issue,”
(Councilperson Bailey, with Mayor Maggard’s affirmation, uses his interruptions of Councilperson LaCorte’s defense of my charges and concerns to illogically add misplaced positive praise for code enforcement and the job they’re doing. It is employed as a tactic to throw concern and attention off the ugliness of the true issue in order to diminish and de-fang its power, and with it, the awful attention and any responsibility put onto the code division and Mayor Maggard’s administration. (This tack will continue later on in the meeting.)
Serious concerns should be dealt with in a serious manner by able people with an unbiased professional ethic. This is not the time for cheerleading, it is a time for serious examination. The issue at hand is not about ‘positives’ and ‘negatives’; it is about the law and the citizen’s rights, plain and simply. I feel Councilperson Bailey does this with intent due to his personal ill will towards me and because he wants what is happening within code enforcement to continue without the nosy (and noisy) intrusion of outspoken citizens like myself.)
LaCorte: “No, that’s not it…”
Bailey: “That’s not the point.” (So then why did you confuse the issue by making it Mr. Bailey?)
LaCorte: “…because I’m here, I feel like I’m the middle person and I feel like, what can I do to help both parties resolve, what can we do as leaders and as, cause I believe in code enforcement one hundred percent, I mean look at the house next door to me that I see just falling apart, um, that, I just know they’re not,… they’re not educated on keeping their property up, I mean their gutters are full of…”
(Trying to find a middle ground with them is not keeping and stabilizing the one that should be found, the right one.)
Graham: “Trees.”
LaCorte: “…trees coming out of them and its heartbreaking. I go over there and I’d gladly, you know, wacky-weed his yard, you know, just because its either I do it or its gonna look like that, so…”
Bailey: “That’s actually how ‘Neighbors helping Neighbors’ was born.”
LaCorte: “Right”.
Maggard: “Yea”.
LaCorte: “…so, I know…”
Bailey: “…but it was overwhelming to be honest with you”.
LaCorte: “…and I’m one hundred percent Code but that’s just it…”
Maggard: (listening to Bailey, not LaCorte) “Mmmmm-hmm”.
LaCorte: “I just wanna make sure that, you know, if there is a situation and I think, because I feel like I’m in the middle and I don’t have the answers, I don’t have the solutions, um, and I’m not educated on that, I’m sorry, I’m not a Code guru, I can’t, you know, I can’t answer the questions…”
Maggard: (now listening to Councilperson LaCorte) “Mmmmmmmm…”
LaCorte: “so thats just where I feel like I’m coming here to the table tonight to say, you know, I mean…”
Maggard: “Mmmmm-hmmm”.
LaCorte: “I wanna respect all of my, um…”
Maggard: “Mmmm-hmmm”.
LaCorte: “…citizens and when they come to me and just to make…”
Maggard: “Mmmm-hmmm”.
LaCorte: “…them feel that, you know, I wanna listen, I wanna try and make a difference, you know, if it stops here, it stops here, there’s nothing more…”
Maggard: “Mmmmmmm…”
LaCorte: “…I can say or do, um, but I just wanted to see, what is our code as far as, you know, like you said, if the neighbor next door doesn’t say ‘you can come on my property to look at this situation’, do we just enter, do we, um, have to get a warrant or anything like that to justify…”
(Councilperson LaCorte tries in vain to explain her position and peppers it with a lot of her ‘feelings’ but she seems intimidated by the lot of them (Mayor Maggard with her numerous condescending ‘mmmm-hmmm’s) and is certainly outnumbered in her efforts. Despite this, she is still trying to pursue the matter at hand.)
Maggard: “No”. (‘No’ to just entering or ‘no’ to getting a warrant?)
Ogden: “I would first of all need to know specific situations. Now, you went out with T.J. (Code Enforcement Officer Walt ‘TJ’ Sural) and I several years ago”. (Again communicating with Councilperson LaCorte from the standpoint of being out-of-the-loop.)
LaCorte: “Yes, I did”.
Ogden: “Basically we’re doing the same thing we did then…”
LaCorte: “Mmmm-hmmm”.
Ogden: “…now”.
LaCorte: “No.”
Ogden: “…nothing has changed and I don’t know, so I don’t know what your concern is because at that time you weren’t especially concerned.”
(Service Director Ogden’s nonsensical argument here is; because Councilperson LaCorte went out on rounds with a Code Officer a few years ago (which was, no doubt, a very by-the-book tour) and she had no issues with what was being done then, that means she couldn’t possibly have any problems with code enforcement now because its all exactly the same. This tack from Ogden effectively intimidates Councilperson LaCorte and eviscerates the weak structure of her ill-understood, ill-prepared argument taken up to defend a citizen’s position. That which no other councilperson did.
Regardless, his argument is not the issue at hand and is given in that same manner of oblivion towards Councilperson LaCorte’s inquiries, despite his meeting with the mayor and city attorney. Her experiences on her ride with a code officer several years ago have nothing to do with current concerns with them stepping onto private property without permission or a warrant now.)
Councilperson Wesley Kantor: “We had a gentleman come to town, I think his name was Mr. Matthews, two weeks ago, three weeks ago tonight, lives on St. Rita Lane, over a landscaping fence, um, and that’s where the, we should actually, we need to look at the code on that. I mean, that needs to be changed. (He then talks, again, about the landscape fence issue.)
(Now it’s Councilperson Kantor’s turn to further deflect and derail the conversation away from the truth with a matter thoroughly unrelated to the issue at hand.)
“My question is (regarding the landscape fence issue) why in the world are we going out there with two Whitehall Police Officers?”
Maggard: “I believe it was because they tried to contact him numerous times, and, it wasn’t just one time and it was numerous times and they didn’t want to move the property themselves so they thought if they could get an officer out there and knock on the door then perhaps that they would then come to the door then. They had tried numerous times to knock on the door and nobody came to the door so, I think that was the issue.”
Kantor: (over the landscape fence) That should’ve never happened, we should be able to work with the citizens.”
(They all continue to go on and on about the topic of fences, variances, landscape fences, etc. but when the topic is code officers on private property without permission or a warrant, none can seemingly keep it on topic.)
Maggard: (Finishing out the endless fence conversation) “You probably don’t want someone with chicken wire in their front yard.”
(At this point the mayor mentions a “manual” of commonly-asked questions on the City of Whitehall’s website.)
Graham: “The people who are griping, I guarantee ya, no one who has, I gotta say this right, has not received a code violation has called to complain about a code violation unless its a neighbors. (?!) So remember, the people who are doing the complaining probably got a notice, just like the mayor said, people take things personally, there’s nothing personal about it (but what about lawful or unlawful?) its what the code is, its the same as driving laws, its the same as everything else.”
(The President of Council opines that people who just “gripe” just do so because they got served notice. The issue, whom the President of Council, being the one overseeing the movement of the proceedings decides that this is the real issue and does nothing to steer the conversation back to the meat of the matter.)
LaCorte: “I just think they need to be more cut and dry in places I guess, I mean, you know, because if I can’t understand it and I don’t know right from wrong, you know, what our, how our city goes about, um, trespassing, not trespassing, I don’t know that, that’s something I don’t know, I can’t answer that, and if…”
(Again, doing the Council President’s job, Councilperson LaCorte tries to steer it back to the original issue from all their unprofessional, unrelated, pointless-to-the-meat-of-the-issue tangents.)
Bailey: “Now we’re back to the original issue…”
LaCorte: “Right. Well, and again, I’m just sayin’, you know, that maybe as Kim is sayin’ this is something we need to start, you know, looking at and um, changing some things to making them more in a direct direction as its stated so that…”
(She heard the mayor, she knows they can change legislation to make code enforcement fairer if there are problems, with more direct, understandable language…yes, good for her.)
Graham: “Well, they have to have a reasonable cause.”
Maggard: “Yea, they can’t just come on property without any cause.”
( Both the mayor and president of council offer something which has nothing to do with what Leslie just offered and only serves to muddle and disarm the point she is trying to make. That which furthers their own aims and doesn’t respect the liberty and freedom and rights of the citizens.)
Graham: “So, an example…right, so, what you’re talking about is in very broad terms. If you get it down to specifics…” (What?!)
LaCorte: “Well, all I’m talkin’ about is, I’m getting phone calls, and, I can’t help, and I can’t fix, and, I’m not the only one, I know all of my council members are getting phone the phone calls…”
Maggard: “I’ve only received one phone, er, um, one complaint about that particular issue.”
(The mayor minimizes my concern and complaints because the concern over or notion that city officials could possibly be violating laws really has merit and only deserves attention when a majority show concern over it.)
LaCorte: “But I’m just saying that, I’m in the middle.”
Maggard: “Mmmmm-hmmm. Well…”
LaCorte: “…and sometimes after…”
Bailey: “Its kind of the nature of the beast.”
(Councilperson Bailey offers a platitude to placate Councilperson LaCorte. In essence saying, ‘There’s nothing wrong here Leslie, these things happen and it just comes with the territory of being an elected representative. Let’s move on.‘)
Maggard: “Yea, it is, its part of…”
Graham: (seeing my hand raise for an opportunity to speak.) (Quietly…) “There’s no audience participation.”
LaCorte: “But we’re not, we’re not resolving the issue to…”
Maggard: “Yes we are.”
(Disrespectfully interrupting Councilperson LaCorte at the council table and rebutting the very thought she won’t even allow her to finish. They really won’t allow her the time to adequately define her position due to the unprofessional bullying of their constant interruptions of her train of thought and allowing her to get out exactly what she wants to say.)
Ogden: “Well, why don’t you go to the source because I have not heard from you about anything that relates to my department concerning code enforcement, so I don’t know how to respond to an issue I don’t know exists.”
(The gall of him to say this given what the mayor says 6 lines down from here)
LaCorte: “Well, the mayor knows it exists, she had a meeting with the situation, so I don’t know why you wouldn’t know about it, but I would think you two would communicate.”
(Good for her!)
Maggard: “Are we talking about Mr. Dixon?”
LaCorte: “Yea.”
Maggard: “Alright, just say it.” LaCorte: “Well, I know he’s sitting back there.”
Maggard: “…and I have actually talked to Ray and the city attorney about that and we are doing the right thing per our city attorney.”
(Here, the mayor drops the city attorney’s ‘feelings’ on the matter (no legal opinion) which usually sends a chilling effect to a group of people who are sorely under-educated on various matters. This also reveals the artifice of Mr. Ogden’s confusion earlier regarding Leslie’s inquiries.)
LaCorte: “And I’m not saying you’re not doing the right thing.”
Maggard: “But, per our city attorney.”
(Dropping it again.)
LaCorte: “This isn’t about what you guys are doing, its just about getting it resolved and moving forward, and past it.”
(Perhaps this is Leslie’s take on it but in actuality, it is about what they’re doing.)
Maggard: “As long as, uh, the city attorney says we’re on good, legal standing, I’m willing to keep on doing what we’re doing.”
(Dropping it yet again but also, she says “good legal standing”, not, ‘we’re following the law’ or, “we’re lawful”. This sounds like verbal play.)
LaCorte: “Okay.”
(Sufficiently cowed by the mayor repeatedly dropping the spectre of the ‘law’, the ‘city attorney’, into the mix.)
Maggard: “So…and that’s what’s gonna happen.”
(But what is the truth of the matter? This isn’t sought or asked. As well, when I later asked Mike Shannon for the law which overrode or overturned ‘Camara v Municipal Court’, he offered nothing.)
Kantor: “I also contacted Mike (City Attorney Shannon) and he told me the same thing.”
(Confirmed by Councilperson Kantor, no need to check further. Unless the city attorney can’t be trusted…)
LaCorte: “Mmmm-hmmm.”
Kantor: “I also contacted Whitehall police and gave ’em a ‘what if’…”
LaCorte: “Mmmm-hmm.”
Kantor: “…and what our code officers did, they did the right thing.”
(In agreement and siding with the mayor. Did Councilperson Kantor do any research on his own or did he only rely on the sacrosanct word of City Attorney Michael T. Shannon (whose relationship to ethics is questionable) and the police department, the head of which is Mayor Maggard herself, who also heads up the Service department and thus, the code enforcement division whose practices are in question? Did he, as the people’s representative and for their ultimate benefit, do any searching on his own to see what the truth is, or did he just lazily and perhaps, self-servingly, only rely on their words to end the matter regarding the people’s concerns?)
Graham: (Once again spotting me showing interest in sharing information) (Quietly…) “…can’t, can’t participate.”
(I believe one of the reasons they did away with citizens speaking up at council committee meetings was because their thoughts and opinions may have gotten in the way, contradicted what the elected officials wanted to do or wanted to communicate, right or wrong. Council President Graham has the ability to make an exception to allow me to speak but I feel he didn’t, not because he didn’t want to be a ‘rule-breaker’, as I have seen him be in the past, (and since in these very committee meetings) but because my adding to the conversation would have utterly centered it on the meat of the matter and where Councilperson LaCorte may have made weak, assailable arguments, mine would not have been. This shows that what Council President Graham wants is not to do the right thing or ensure justice and citizen’s rights but, to do, in a self-serving way, what he and his fellow Whitehall Democratic Club member Kim Maggard want, regardless of the way its administered. That is wrong.)
LaCorte: “Maybe this meeting tonight at this table will help answer some questions so that we can (Inaudible). That’s all I have.”
(Bailey, Graham, Maggard and Kantor have won, she can’t stand against them any longer. Her fight is not completely dead, but almost.)
Gregg: I think most of the time when people call, and they call me they usually complain about a neighbor or they get a violation and they want, you know, like a, the car and the sticker, like I’m gonna get ’em out of it, you know, like I’m, that’s really what they want when they call you. Most of the time. Now I do have neighbors that walk and say what about this or what about that.”
(Again…this is not the issue.)
Maggard: “Mmmm-hmmm. Right.”
Gregg: “And what I’ve always done is check with Ray and they’ll take a look at it and then I’ll explain it to, whatever the situation is, if they don’t, if it is in violation or if it idn’t. But most of the time the phone calls are…they’ve got a violation and they wanna say, what can you do about it?
LaCorte: (inaudible crosstalk) “I don’t know if they’re in violation and that’s what I’m saying, I’m not educated (on codes) so I don’t know if they were in violation. I don’t know.”
(Still trying to make some point.)
Graham: “…and no one…I can’t believe that anyone would expect people on city council or the mayor or anyone else to know what every rule and regulation is.”
(Then look it up!)
Maggard: “Oh, but they do.”
(General laughter)
Graham: “Well, I know that they do, but its not realistic.” (I agree)
(If a citizen has a complaint that suggests laws may be being broken or there is a pathology of behavior by city officials reported which harm the citizen’s rights or justice served them, I would think that would be sufficient cause to start doing some homework and knowexactly what is going on. Otherwise, there is no excuse and little reason for a convivial outbreak of mirth over such a serious subject.)
Kantor: “You’re pretty close.” Gregg: “Check with Ray.”
Graham: “Yea, if its a code problem, that’s what I do, I call Ray or T.J. And I say, you know what, I had a complaint about this, let me know what you find so that I can tell the person, you know, um, give that person an answer and that’s usually the way I handle because I’m not the code.”
LaCorte: “I’m not either.”
Graham: “I don’t do code enforcement.”
(The issue is not about code enforcement, it is about the law and citizen’s rights. If the problem lies in a particular department, you don’t call that department for an answer, you find out the answer on your own. If there is troublesome behavior in a specific department, what makes them gullible enough to think that calling the department in question will garner them the most honest and forthcoming answers. Particularly if citizens are calling into question their behavior? If they are guilty, they’re not going to give the answers to those seeking justice. Self-investigation and Council’s ability to launch an official investigation, per the City Charter and for the citizen’s sake, is the only avenue.)
Ogden: “Well, that’s just it, everybody around the table has contacted our department from time to time about issues. We respond to them the same way that we respond to any other residents that are calling us, asking us questions, or complaining or just giving us notification, whatever. So, that’s the same response you get, the same response you get but if there’s any concern among council members about the process you’re welcome to meet with ray Hamby or Walt Sural or even our building inspector and travel around, I mean Bob’s done it, Leslie’s done it, um…”
Gregg: “I’ve done it…”
Ogden: “Leo…” (Councilperson Leo Knoblauch)
Kantor: “I did learn somethin’, I didn’t even know our chief inspector could do that. I didn’t know he did that.”
(General chatter)
(Riding around with those who run a department doesn’t give you the insight a citizen has that is in the sights of the code enforcement division itself. Proof is in the pudding, not in what perfectly arrayed presentation they give those who could affect their jobs and make trouble for them. Its the difference in how an employee acts when the boss is around and when he’s not.)
Bailey: You know Ray, I wouldn’t last a week doing your job. There’s some ruuuuuude people out there.”
(Instead of fighting and inquiring exhaustively for the citizen’s rights and the law, Mr. Bailey instead opts to heap praise on those who are at the center of these charges.)
Ogden: “We want you to see what’s out there so you can tell us how, how you, what kind of codes you think we need (or should abolish!) because otherwise, you know, there is a disconnect. So, I would welcome each of you to take a half a day and go around and see what’s goin’ on, whether its with Walt or Ray.”
(Riding around will only reveal what they’re doing while having this elected representative with them, not what they’ve been doing. You really wanna see what they do, follow them around secretly and spy on them)
LaCorte: “Well, I’ve been cited, you know, I’ve gotten, I’ve gotten tickets from code enforcement.”
Graham: “Well, everybody makes a mistake once in awhile, ain’t no big deal.”
(How is living your life in the way you wish to with no malice or violence but which goes against these human-constructed codes, ‘a mistake’? To live your life outside the restrictions of their codes is ‘a mistake’? *sigh)
Bailey: “I had to tear down a fence once, between my house and garage and then put it back up.”
Graham: “You had it in the wrong place?”
Bailey: “No, I just didn’t get a permit. It was twenty foot long.”
LaCorte: “Mine was more the brush out in front of my yard that the neighbors put out there that they didn’t know what couldn’t go out after November,…”
Maggard: “Oh, yeah.”
LaCorte: “…so I got cited for it…”
Bailey: “At the end of the day I was ignorant of code its not the city’s fault…” Maggard: “Right.”
Bailey: “I couldn’t help it if Lehman (sp?) could see my fence as I was buildin’ it from his house…”
Maggard: “Oh, oh…man (laughter) yeah.”
Bailey: “…you know, but, he made me take it down…”
Maggard: “Yeah.”
Bailey: “…go get a permit and put it back up.”
Graham: “Woulda been nice if he’d told you before you got it built though.” (laughter)
Maggard: “Yeah, yeah, that would’ve really been nice. Darn.”
Bailey: “But, it happens to everybody.”
(Take your lumps citizens! Being cited for code infractions is not the same as due process not being served or city officers skirting the law, which is the actual topic of the table)
LaCorte: “It does, it happens to me, it happens to everybody, and I believe in code, I really do. I, want to be proud of our community, you know, I have a lot of concerns with, you know…”
Bailey: (overtalking) “I have found that these guys typically bend over backwards to correct issues and help people…”
(Again, choosing praise over thorough investigation, asking hard questions or getting to the nitty-gritty bottom line of the issue.)
Kantor: “We do. Yes we do.”
LaCorte: “…some of these houses that we’re looking at right now…”
Bailey: “…even out-of-state owners that get in a bind, you know, this has helped corrected the issue but, there’s always gonna be that small percentage that no matter what you do, ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’.”
Kantor: “You know, Ray, Its like I said (inaudible) first started talking, when he came in her, I realized there’s two sides to every story, and I seen T.J. Out there, you know, and I call him and everything and…” (there is cross-talking patter, inaudible) “I’ve seen TJ working, he does a good job.”
(Councilperson Bailey apparently didn’t sprinkle enough sugar over code enforcement, code officer Walt Sural or the Service Department, so their other enabler, Councilperson Kantor, pours it on.)
LaCorte: “Well, no ones doubtin’ that TJ doesn’t work, that’s not it.” (correct)
Kantor: “No, no, he does a good job!”
Bailey: (referring to Wes Kantor) “I think he’s speaking in terms of ethics.”
(The issue is not about code enforcement’s ethics, its about whether or not they’re violating law to enforce it on citizens. If anyone’s ethics are in question they’re Mayor Maggard’s for allowing any impropriety or lawbreaking in the first place, and I quote, “So…and that’s what’s gonna happen.”)
LaCorte: “Oh, I’m sayin’, you…”
Graham: “Some people probably think he does too good of a job and those are usually the people that call you and say, fix this.”
Ogden: “I hear him on the phone or talking with somebody in person and he’s outstanding.”
Bailey: “He’s great.”
(Disgraceful)
Ogden: “He was in customer service before, down at Dick Masheter, he knows how to deal with people.”
Kantor: “Right.”
Ogden: “He can deal with people as well as anybody I’ve ever seen in my life in terms of, you’ve got a situation that isn’t comfortable for people and they don’t necessarily (stammering) like the fact that they’ve got to do something differently…”
LaCorte: “Mmmm-hmmm.”
Ogden: “,,,but then again, he has a way of communicating with them to where, my gosh, they leave out of there or they hang up the phone and all is well. I couldn’t have found a better code officer and I’ve told him that, he, there wouldn’t be anybody in the State of Ohio I would find that would be any better than him to do that job. So, uh…”
(This entire exchange between Kantor, Bailey and Ogden practically deifying Code Officer Walt Sural and the Code Enforcement division exemplifies one of Whitehall governance’s major pitfalls; concerns over behavior and actions by officers of a division of the city that may involve violation of law that have been shared with city council by a concerned citizen and instead of treating such a weighty charge with the full attention its seriousness demands, they instead spend valuable time building up the men and department at the very center of the charge. That which seems to benefit each other and their jobs within city hall brought on by their inappropriate personal relationships with each other (See: conflicts of interest and why they matter) When concerned citizens can’t get a proper hearing for their charges, complaints and concerns because of this practice, then that practice is obstructive and harmful to the citizens and the processes in place to adequately and properly serve their interests, as they’re supposed to. In this, they have traded their commitments to the citizens they swore to serve to commitments for their friends, donors and buddies. It is an appalling lack of principled restraint on their part. This orgy of praise over serious inquiry for a citizen’s passionate concerns made me so upset and frustrated that at this point in the meeting, I walked out. It is the only one in the four years I’d been going, at that point, that I ever walked out on.)
Kantor: “Right, I think Ray (Animal Control and Code Officer Ray Hamby) does a good job too. I’ve seen him talking to people and neighbors and, you know, he’s…”
(Might as well throw Ray Hamby into this pile of glorification too.)
Maggard: (getting philosophical)“Well, its difficult, I mean, like there’s always personal feelings involved with Ray Hamby, you know, you love your animals, so, you don’t want anybody tell you anything bad about your animals or handle your animals and, the same with your home and property, its so personal, I think its its even more personal than a police officer stopping you for speeding.”
Kantor: “There’s times where a neighbor or somebody contacts us…”
Graham: “Yes, cause its your property and its an invasion.”
Maggard: “Mmmmm-hmm, yeah.”
Kantor: “Well, they contact us and they’re afraid to contact, for fear of, somebody would say…”
Bailey: (interrupting) “…and I admire how they’ll protect anonymity…”
Kantor: “…and I’ve called them and I’ll tell them that.”
Bailey: “…they will not say your neighbors here, here and there…”
Maggard: “They, they will not do that.”
Bailey: “…are complaining, they won’t do it. It’s (somewhat inaudible, sounds like ‘hostile’.)
Kantor: “I (inaudible) a deputy (inaudible) in my yard and looked back of my yard and looked three doors down and I said, ‘Thank-you. Thank-you so much….so.”
(Here Bob Bailey is trumpeting the anonymous aspect of code enforcement, making of it City Hall’s Secret Police. Where neighbor can snitch on neighbor and no one will ever be the wiser. Is code enforcement acting as an equalizer in neighborhood squabbles? Are they acting in the interest of one neighbors petty jealousies or vindictiveness or flat out revenge because the neighbor has been watching their drug activities or slept with the accusers husband or any one of hundred’s of scenarios where code gladly acts as ‘the punisher’ for a multitude of personal picayune citizen biases, those which act against Americans and their constitutionally-guaranteed liberty? Where authoritarian busy bodies can make other citizens life in Whitehall a living hell. What an awful community that is.)
Councilperson Karen Conison: “I love the idea of us coming up with some questions and with some answers…”
(Not helping, not doing her duty as the people’s representative.)
Graham: “Yea, that’s a good idea.”
Conison: “…because, just recently, I mean, this kind of hit close to home, is, my parents were, code enforcement came to their house, their grass was, terrifically high, Mark will attest to that, because I mowed it, um, and he received a citation (her elderly father) but didn’t quite understand what the citation really meant or what it did, and you know,…”
Ogden: “let’s clear up, it was a notice, not a cita…”
Conison: Right, it was a notice, it was a notice, but, right away he said to me, I was cited and I have to pay two hundred dollars or whatever it was and I said to him, I go, that doesn’t sound quite right, and…”
Maggard: “Mmmm-hmmm.”
Conison: “So, I went over and I was, basically read it for him but, maybe a little simpler than what was on there, so I think a question/answer would be good for our citizens, I think a lot of times, you know, I think you put more into things anyhow because it is so personal for you…”
(A story that added nothing to the core issue nor ensured the citizen’s rights are being maintained.)
Maggard: “Right.”
Conison: “If you’ve received something and you’re so upset about it because its your property…”
Maggard: “Yeah.”
Conison: “So, I think something like that would be a great idea…(inaudible)”
Ogden: “I’d be perfectly willing to draft something up, you know, if its just a matter, how do you, how do you communicate? We have the, we put a lot of things on the website…”
Conison: “Right.”
Ogden: “We do have the guides that go out annually, and so, we’re a age of technology where we have the ability to get information out there, so, you know, whatever we can do because our goal is education. Nothing makes us happier than if we do see a violation, whether we’ve seen it or whether its been reported to us or whatever, and we’ve given that person notice, explained what the violation is, given pictures to make sure they know what the violation is and, started that communication and then we go out there, we see that issue has been resolved, that’s a feather in our cap, not writin’ a frickin’ ticket…”
(I’m so glad herding the citizens like sheep to comply with a litany of man-made rules makes him so happy. Apparently, people don’t have rights to live their organic lives, they only have as many rights as the city affords them. The rest is bundled up and served to them like a text book to “educate’ them on precisely how to live their own lives.)
Kantor: “Right.”
Ogden: “…because that’s the worst case scenario.”
Bailey: (inaudible)
LaCorte: “(inaudible) trespassing.”
Bailey: “Well, with the grass alone, that’s a three to four week cycle before anybody gets cited. Once they’re warned, they got seven days to cut it anyway. And he’s not writing people up for eight inches, its closer to ten, sometimes a foot.”
(Defending the code division again and discussing something which has nothing to do with the core issue.)
Kantor: (laughs)
Bailey: “All those folks on that grass cutting list, (makes a ‘chhhhh’ sound) go cry somewhere else.”
(Councilperson Bailey has shown himself for the authoritarian he is and his obvious preference for Whitehall city government over its citizens.)
LaCorte: “Maybe we can work on something on the trespassing (inaudible)”
(Still trying valiantly to do something about the issue she brought to the table in the face of people who obviously don’t want it to be dealt with, as shown through the dominance of their interrupted, unrelated tangents and fountains of praise and/or with their silence on this important matter.)
Gregg: (inaudible)
(inaudible chatter)
Graham: (in a quieter, more hushed tone towards Councilperson LaCorte) “Leslie…it’s not trespassing.”
(Here is how Mr. Graham is wrong;
Trespassing is defined as; ‘An unlawful intrusion that interferes with one’s person or property.’
Again, taking the 4th amendment and Camara v Municipal Court into account, re; 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. Camara v Municipal Court: With certain carefully defined exceptions, an unconsented warrantless search of private property is “unreasonable”.”
“one governing principal, justified by history and by current experience, has consistently been followed: except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is “unreasonable” unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.”
“…the possibility of criminal entry under the guise of official sanction is a serious threat to personal and family security.”
“…broad statutory safeguards are no substitute for individualized review.” (meaning that not all grass can be “inspected” across the board. That that alone is not sufficient reason to consider each case individually)
Therefore, if trespassing is an unlawful intrusion that interferes with one’s person or property and the 4th amendment guarantees people to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches and ‘Camara’ states that unconsented warrantless searches are unreasonable, then… any foot stepped onto private property in Whitehall by code officers, unconsented and warrantless, wouldbe trespass, per the law.
One wonders then what criteria it was that Council President Jim Graham used to conclude for Councilperson LaCorte that it wasn’t trespass?)
LaCorte: (also whispering)”Well, I know, but, you know what…”
(Does she know?)
Bailey: (joining in on their hushed conversation) “Hey, he’s (meaning me) gone through every one of us.”
(Very disrespectful of Councilperson Bailey to diminish my efforts to right wrongs for the citizen’s sake. As said before, if you are not immersed in the shower of kisses and rose petals they give each other then you’re persona non grata. If I’ve had to go through so many councilpersons to be heard or find resolution for that which I’ve found so troubling and meritorious to address, what does it say about them that nothing has changed or been properly addressed? It is absurd to think that I would be so dogged, as a singular citizen, to fight an entire city over several years, along with the toll such a confrontation would take on me, if the merit of my focus was empty and worthless.)
Maggard: (having heard Graham, chimes in) “Yeah, its not.”
(See above movement of laws and reasoned conclusion)
LaCorte: “Yea, I know, but, you know what…”
Bailey: “At some point you just say (inaudible)”
(No, Councilman Bailey, at some point you stop defending your friends and start defending the citizen’s rights.)
LaCorte: “When you can’t say “I’m right or wrong” or “we’re right or wrong”, I don’t like that.”
Maggard: “If we go into a home, then, and if we don’t have a warrant to go into that home, that’s trespassing. However, if it’s on the property and we’ve sent notice and nothing’s being done and it’s a health issue then we are allowed to go onto their property and even high grass and brush, especially around those creeks, and the rats can go in and out, un…”
(She is trying to convince LaCorte why she is wrong in her position. However, it is incorrect, as per Camara v Municipal Court. It specifically mentions ‘private property’ ‘searching private property’. There was no warrant issued to search that property with or without rats, none of which I or my family has seen in the 50 years living next to Turkey Run.)
Kantor: “Coyotes.”
(Not helping… hindering.)
Maggard: “We need to get in there and mow that stuff down. So, that’s actually a health hazard and we can get on.” (Has anybody specifically spotted and anonymously alerted code enforcement or is this vermin problem an assumption on their part?)
Kantor: “Thank-you Ray.”
(Shameless. ‘Mr. Dixon is terrible for having challenged their behavior with reason and logic. The real heroes here are the unsung workers toiling for pennies at City Hall like Ray Ogden and his code officers. Sorry for this affront to your jobs boys. No thanks from any councilpersons for this citizen though. Those are reserved only for each other)
Councilman Leo Knoblauch: “I’d also encourage people to go to our website and look at the ordinances. That’s what I always do when…”
(Councilman Knoblauch finally enters the conversation, not to steer the topic back to a relevant place but only to offer up advice unrelated to the topic at hand.)
Bailey: “Its all right there. Its all there.”
(Get to studying citizens! They should retitle the codes, ‘How To Live Your Life; The Whitehall Way!’)
Knoblauch: “Yea. Now sometimes its kind of hard to find (inaudible, with laughter) …cause some of, the search is not always the best in the world.”
(not on point)
Conison: “But, I know what you mean because you were saying, you know, how do you communicate it, you know, I mean, not everybody does go out to the website, not everybody does go to the city guide so it is, you know, it is…”
(Not advocating for the citizen’s rights)
Maggard: “Yeah.”
Conison: “…very hard to communicate out to all of our citizens, it is something that we will need to think about and work on and…”
(Not supporting the Constitution)
Maggard: “We definitely are gonna work on that Karen. I’ve been doing some research and just some other, how other cities do it and there’s different ways and I’m, Ray is willing to work with us, we’re going to make our information more assessable and hopefully more easy to understand. We can put it out there, but we can’t understand it for them, they have to take that effort to do that themselves. We can say it but we can’t understand it for them, however there’s different avenues in which we can get that message out there.
(Not changing policy which is immoral, harmful or detrimental to citizen’s and their rights. That she doesn’t care about!)
Graham: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. So you can put all the information on the internet or in the guides or anyplace but if people don’t take the time to look at it, that’s where the problem come in.”
(This adds nothing to a serious dialogue nor accomplishes anything.)
LaCorte: “I have no desire to read it. (laughs) I’m sorry…”
(general laughter and cross talk)
(This is very sad. Councilperson LaCorte delivers the death blow to the topic herself with this utterance. Her defeat is so complete at this point she jumps on their bandwagon for the purpose of amiable relations and no longer feeling ‘in the middle’. She alone doesn’t have the strength to fight the lot of them. They have bullied her into coming over to ‘their’ side. A shame.)
Maggard: “Well, people are so busy. It takes time to do that. People are busy.”
Graham: “Right, right.”
(They convivially welcome her to their side with this pleasant, welcoming chatter)
LaCorte: “That’s not luxury reading, I’m sorry.”
(To agree with them, I don’t think anyone has read all of them. Their volume alone makes them daunting)
@ 19:29:35 Council President Jim Graham calls on the Infrastructure, Maintenance Services Chairperson Gregg but says, “Infrastructure, Maintenance, Service and Code Enforcement Chairperson Gregg.” There is then stifled laughter among several at the table.
@19:31:23 Councilperson Wes Kantor finishes speaking regarding youth soccer as part of the Parks and Recreation Committee.
Graham: “Is that like code enforcement?”
Kantor: “Yea, code enforcement.”
Maggard: (laughs)
(The meeting finishes out with the awful Gerald Dixon gone from their presence, only friendly faces now, with Council President Jim Graham making attempts at humor with mocking allusions to code enforcement in otherwise misplaced areas of the meeting, to stifled delight and laughter. The laughter of Kim Maggard is clearly audible)
** Four of the factors used to determine whether to classify the area as curtilage include:
The distance from the home to the place claimed to be curtilage (the closer the home is, the more likely to be curtilage);
Whether the area claimed to be curtilage is included within an enclosure surrounding the home;
The natire of use to which the area is put (if it is the site of domestic activities, it is more likely to be a part of the curtilage); and
The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by (shielding from public view will favor finding the portion is curtilage).
My acquaintance with Kim Maggard goes back to 2009 when I first started attending council meetings. By all accounts she seemed amiable enough and, being the auditor, somewhat numbers driven in her dry, toneless accounts at meetings. When things started ramping up in council with my objections to John Wolfe’s corruption and most of city hall’s inappropriate relationships with conflicts of interest, she started to become more verbal with me. I noticed that her arguments justified and defended others at city hall instead of right and ethics. That’s when my attitude first changed towards her. Everyone has an obligation to the truth and sense if they want what’s right, be it for community or workplace ethics or the family dynamic. When I see people not actively engaged in the pursuit of that goal, I know something is wrong and its usually a flagging of their character . This turned out to be the case with Kimberly J Maggard.
What ultimately did it for me was her incessant avoidance of the principals of ethics and trust in public office. I’m just an actor and waiter and yet, my sense of ethics regarding what was right and what was wrong was stronger than hers, someone already in public office. It didn’t seem right to me when I saw clear conflicts of interest being ignored by her and them instead of being heeded, that which builds a true trust with the people. There are only two reasons someone in these positions ignore conflicts of interest; a) they’re not very bright or b) they ignore them on purpose. Now, Kim Maggard, as well as City Attorney Mike Shannon, have a litany of degrees and education, (in particular attorneys who are weaned on conflicts of interest) and yet, the conflicts of interest weren’t heeded. Their degrees alone say they’re bright and educated which leads us then to the conclusion this naturally leads us to; that they are ignoring them on purpose, within the realm of public office. This is done by people with questionable ethics because principals get in the way of what they’re trying to do (which is usually in a self-serving way). Of course, in ones private life, what conflicts of interest you do or don’t heed doesn’t matter to anyone other than your family and/or friends. However, when they are ignored in public office, that is something which has the actual power to harm peoples lives. There is an entire post on this very topic;
As I uncovered the underlying complexities of their shared corruption, I liked her less and less and distrusted her more and more. (One well-known long-time resident told me, “Jerry, this towns always been run by about 10 to 15 people. That’s the way its always been and that’s the way I like it.”) So, Whitehall is apparently, not only a ‘good-old boys club’ but it truly is a corporation, a company town, the company of Whitehall. ‘Whitehall Corp.’, if I may. We’ve got the boss and the chain of underlings, on down to you and me, the drones. Well, apparently someone forgot to tell them that this is a democracy, a people’s government, run by and for the people themselves. But, I came to understand this intra-familial government more fully once I started to go deeper. I saw the underhandedness of John Wolfe, the utter lack of regard towards conflicts of interest (Which is a slap in the face to citizens. It says, I can do untrustworthy things and believe, because you people aren’t paying attention, that you’ll still give me your trust. She never did truly earn it and so it really should never have been given to her.) and the familial considerations and closing in of one another. When she ran for Mayor, John Wolfe himself waited so long to decide to run again that there were no other takers who wanted to take on his juggernaut until, conveniently, Kim Maggard stepped in. (Chris Parkevich too but, too late to be on the ballot other than as a write-in.) Despite her having an actual phyical opponent, the WCCA made her and John Wolfe the Grand Marshals because they were “the Mayor and the next Mayor” (don’t the voters get a say?!).
Myself, Dave Deluca’s sister and neice protesting Mayor Wolfe at the Independence Day parade.
In the meantime, underneath, was how he was using code enforcement; looking over fences, harassing citizens into leaving and yet, no one spoke out on it. When I asked Kim Maggard at her Meet and Greet at Tim Hortons about all this, she answered by saying that “the courts will tell us if we’re wrong”. Not sense, not an inner code of principals and morals that guide our sense of right and wrong but, the judicial system, that which most citizens in Whitehall can’t afford to pursue against the city. Shameful.
Through the election and into her administration, she consistently ignored conflicts of interest, denied citizens their civil rights and prized property values over the law of the U.S. Constitution. Also, again enforcing this attitude that if the citizens don’t like what she does they can hire (expensive) attorneys (which they can’t afford). When I rightfully protested over the summer of 2013 against her policies she called me a ‘performance artist’ In her response to the Dispatch instead of giving a mature, reasoned response to my upset and concerns. She changed the format of the State of the City address from the dais, where John Wolfe simply and without fanfare gave it, to one at a lectern on the council floor with lighting and glossy tax dollar funded pamphlets and slide presentations. It was apparent to me she was trying to impress people but I’d be more impressed were she to follow the law and respect the citizens and actually build the public trust by doing trustworthy things. Hoopla isn’t worth a dime if underneath there is treachery.
I can go on about several things which I already have addressed on this blog but, overall, here is why I can’t vote for Kim Maggard as mayor and why I didn’t the first time.
She is of questionable character. She doesn’t truly do the things which build the public’s trust of her so I claim she is untrustworthy.
She gets in the photo in every charitable situation she can as a means of self-aggrandizement, a lot of which she didn’t even have a hand in bringing to fruition. Using poor people as a photo-op while there are kids going hungry in Whitehall is gross, to say the least.
I believe that Kim Maggard is a climber, she has her sights set on things much higher up than Whitehall and so she is using our community as a means to get there. I don’t believe she truly cares about our citizens, which is seen in how code enforcement treats long-time residents, those who deserve greater consideration and appreciation than what she gives.
Anyone that would participate in schemes that essentially steal people’s rightful property for their and others gain is not only despicable as an elected official representing the people but pretty sorry for a human being too. I’m sick and tired of these fevered egos getting themselves into public office only to use it in turn to hurt those they’re supposed to be helping and raising up.
Its her notion of herself as the boss and not the leader, best represented by this piece of literature she was working on and accidentally slipped out in which she doesn’t liken herself to being a mayor of people but rather the CEO of a corporation. It is a very telling peek into the truth of Kim Maggard… http://shoutout.wix.com/so/2785efa5-9901-43cd-845a-4d40eaea68f9#/main
Ramps up her image by not actually being a good leader but pretending to be one. This has been seen in her State of the City speeches where she says things which are inorganic to her personality, like, “I will NOT put up with drugs and crime in Whitehall!” (Which the numbers then show she has failed at) I was there for that speech and just from the standpoint of an actor and speaker, she was badly acting like a tough mayor. (And Mike Shannon accused me of using council chambers as my stage!) It was to create an effect for the public consumption that she is a good and strong leader but in actuality she’s a bad actor and a poor speaker which, in itself, is neither here nor there, (nor something I would ordinarily criticize) but in this instance she is the leader of my community and underneath things she is not truly suited for the position and is only presenting this to convince you that she is something she’s not, and I have a problem with that. And why is this, you may ask? I see it as self-aggrandizing, that which promotes her forward and upward movement. If she were only simply herself I could have accepted that so much better but, like most politicians, they believe they have to be something they’re not in order to get elected and public office is so important to them that they’re willing to put on another face to achieve and keep that goal. This is not people who care about people, it is people that care about themselves. Their power, their ego, their rise as a public figure.
The other instance of this is putting on a hard hat and tearing down the Schumaker apartment house at Fairway and Hamilton. This was a stunt designed to bolster her public image. NYC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (one of my personal political heroes) would have put on that hard hat and done the same thing but he would’ve done it because he enjoyed running the city and getting things done for the betterment of the people and their/his city, all of them. Mayor Maggard does things because they increase her power, bolster her image and further her aspirations. LaGuardia did things because he was earnestly there to serve and represent the people of New York City. Maggard does things because it increases the value of Kim Maggard. Thus then her ‘War on Blight’. This is a catch-all term used by politicians, usually to increase developers and realtors’ business and appear to the citizens like they care about you and me, and that she’s some genius of city planning that knows what she’s doing.
One of my avocations over the last 16 years has been, nerd-ily enough, city planning. This old Whitehall boy has observed, listened to and read the record of the big boys and I can tell you from this that she doesn’t know what she’s doing. Fine if you’re a citizen that doesn’t know city planning, bad if you’re a mayor. It appears someone in the city finally read the book I brought to Whitehall 6 years ago
which was summarily dismissed by the then Development Director Dan Lorek as he threw it back at me and ignored by John Wolfe. This is evident by Mayor Maggard recently referencing it at her ‘Town Hall’ meeting where she couldn’t name the author (Jane Jacobs) but called her “a really smart lady” (on that she’s correct). Even the Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) brought forward its plan for the central Ohio area to council chambers to address the increase of population here by, I believe, 2050. It pretty much presented a lot of what Jane Jacobs addressed in her book in what is healthy for city planning. Whitehall doesn’t have the luxury of sitting around while the future closes in on them and this book and MORPC’s presentation can greatly clue them in on the route to get their. However, a mayor that’s not direct and honest with the citizens (or the citizenry who can’t bear hard truths) is bad for the city. She wants to knock down buildings but isn’t being honest about paths and what’s underneath. That is duplicitous and that should be most unwelcome in a healthy turn towards the future.
Hires friends and associates over exhaustive applicants for jobs that will actually bring us the best talent for the money, as opposed to those she knows or are her friends.
The bottom line is this, character truly does matter. We can’t sit around and bitch about the state of things and then do nothing about them. We are either a decent society or we’re not. The representatives of decent societies don’t make profit from housing prisoners or from people’s health. They don’t use their positions in government to steal people’s private property or lead, in any way, with underhanded avarice, all while wearing masks of decent humanity. These things are not okay to good people. If we can’t run our communities with ethics and principals and scruples for the benefit of the citizens themselves and be citizen-centric then what are we doing pretending to be good people in a good city within a good country? We either are or we’re not, and if we’re not then if we believe in our better selves and the better communities we can muster from that, then we should in actuality do something about it. Not worry what Reynoldsburg or Gahanna or Upper Arlington is doing but what we, Whitehall, are doing, right here, right now. You cannot have that with characters that care more for themselves than the people they’re serving and the trajectory of their ego’s path. Anyone can surround themselves with good people who will help see the city’s path go right but not everyone, apparently, can do it with common sense, reason, decency and considerate, caring, people-centric principals. If you want an avaricious, money-hungry, ego-driven figurehead which won’t be there to improve the life of the community but rather her friends and the lives of businesses, then you can’t expect to live in a good community among good people, because those traits are antithetical to that goal.
I say then that if there is any war which must be waged in Whitehall, I pray it is against the likes of Kim Maggard herself and her ilk. They are and have been harming the decency and integrity of our good community, that whose spirit I see rising in spite of her actions and behavior. It is a community of decent people, I believe their leader should be a reflection of that and so, I truly believe Kim Maggard is the wrong person to lead good people.
Again, this is how I believe Code Enforcement is used by Whitehall City Hall, in part. It is used as a weapon against:
The fearful and timid
The poor
Those ignorant of law
This is done to:
“Make the city look nice”
exert Authoritarian control
Chase out ‘undesirables’
It is hostile to:
Freedom and Liberty…
…which disrespects veterans and dishonors their service and sacrifice.
There it is, all lined up from A to Z. Now lets look at them and also I want to offer some heinous examples of all this.
I heard from a timid elderly lady who code enforcement wanted a couch off her front porch. At some point she’d had it moved to her back porch, code enforcement saw it there and simply took it away, without due process. She told me her story, I sat with her in her living room on Ural Avenue, and although she told it to me, she didn’t want to be filmed. She was afraid it would get back to her with ramped up code enforcement. This is a fear I’ve heard too often from the citizens. This lady didn’t know her rights, didn’t have the money for an attorney and was afraid of their authority and was too timid to fight them. All of that right there in the first 3 lines.
In the building codes, it gives exacting measurements about fences;
“Fencesin front yards in any residential or apartment district shall not be more than fifty percent (50%) opaque, when viewed at right angles of the vertical plane (the area within a rectangular outline enclosing all parts of the fence in its vertical plane). Match this with an exact quote from Mayor Maggard on code enforcement’s ‘rights’; “We don’t look over a solid fence (no such thing allowed in Whitehall) but if we can see through it or our employees can see through it, they can take pictures. If its visible to the naked eye and there is no…” “…if anything on a property is visible to the naked eye we can write a citation or a violation, we don’t even have to come onto the property, we can see it from there.”
Code enforcement compiling photographic evidence of the property right behind Family Video from the vacant property next to it. This is SNOOPING, it is SPYING, it is IMMORAL.
Isn’t this convenient. The city insists the citizens fences have spaces in them and yet, the city itself uses that very code for its advantage to spy on the citizens. They don’t respect our right to privacy. They take advantage of that code’s specs to immorally write violations for the citizens. Doesn’t our putting up fences in the first place state an unspoken desire for people to leave us alone? Why doesn’t the city respect that?
A few years back I got to talking with a couple who live on Simpson Drive. They told me how code enforcement had taken photos of their backyard over their privacy fence from a bucket truck (!). At first the city denied it but once photos were proffered they said that while the code officer was in Dick Masheter’s parking lot there had been an AEP truck doing work and saw code enforcement. They offered to take pictures of the backyard for code enforcement and so they did. Were this outlandish story even true, what are the morals of a city officer who would even allow such a thing? Beyond belief!
After both elderly parents passed away (The father a resident of Whitehall for 87 years) the youngest daughter was put in charge of the property, which included the house. At some point it was in need of a paint job and code enforcement alerted them to this. Because of snafus of communication in the family, the daughter was not alerted to the paint situation rising to a violation which she had to appear in Mayor’s Court for. As a result of her non-appearance then, a warrant was issued for her arrest. While driving in Westerville one day she was stopped by a police officer for something or other and it was found she had an outstanding warrant in Whitehall. She was cuffed right there by the side of the road and put into the patrol car (Had never been arrested or anything in 40-some years of life) and driven to Whitehall where she was handed off to another police officer. All this because of peeling paint. Good and decent citizens treated like dirty criminals because of weeds and paint. Despicable.
In 2008, Code Enforcement stepped 54 feet onto my property, above the top of the driveway to turn around and take photos of my brother’s cars which were in need of new registration. I had purchased my childhood home 5 months before and was wrapping up things in NYC before my return. I was never asked permission and there was no warrant issued for his search which resulted in a violation which pulled me into court. I hadn’t even returned yet to start my intended rehab of my childhood home and already they were hounding me. *As a sidenote, when I asked for my code enforcement file a couple years later, in it there was a copy from a Dispatch article in which I’d commented negatively on code enforcement thereby making it, not my Code file but rather, a political dossier.
There is a gentleman who lives in Whitehall who has six kids, works to pay his bills and is not on assistance. He is the third generation of his family who has lived in the house. Granted, they’re not the cleanest or most orderly family in the neighborhood but, they never were. I’ve known the family 50 years and they’ve always been this way. They lived in the neighborhood and that’s the way its always been. Decent people though. His Grandparents were very civic-minded and active in the local church. Code enforcement has been after them for some time, both this gentleman and his father before him. Recently code had stepped up their efforts against this Whitehall family who’ve lived in their house 65 years. He told me that they started issuing warning after warning after violation after violation. Just as he thought he’d complied, they bothered him with more and when those had been attended to they continued to nickle and dime him. He said they wanted to take his house. They said he wasn’t doing enough and so took him to court where they actually tried to seize his property claiming he was a public nuisance with so many code violations. (Mayor Kim Maggard’s War On Blight!!! War on Children!!! War on self-sustaining members of society!!! War On Long-Time Residents!!! War On People’s Personal Property!!! War On Morality!!! War On Sense and Reason!!! If this sounds familiar, see my pieces on Woodcliff.) Instead he was put on ‘probation’ (!) which meant that if he got one code violation in a year, he would be sent to jail for 30 days. Lo and behold he was given a violation for weeds behind his garage (how they saw them behind his garage is yours and my best guess)and a warrant for his arrest was issued. He says they stalked his house to find and arrest him, this in the same week that the three people were murdered here in Whitehall. He was able to avoid them and got an attorney and with that got the warrant lifted to fix the problem but is still under probation. For weeds.
I ask you then, what is the aim of a government that hounds long-time residents to the point of throwing them in jail for grass and weeds? A city which values property over the people who make up the community, pushing longtime citizens around and making ordinary, hard-working citizens into criminals over grass and weeds? Would Whitehall be better off if the breadwinner of this family were thrown in jail and his kids made to fend for themselves and have to find either public assistance, food stamps or foster homes? Apparently the value of property has taken precedence over the value of humans. Screw his kids, screw regular people trying not to be on assistance. Screw simple common decency. Everything about their actions say how completely awful they are. Is taking his kids away from him the next step? Shall he end his families long-term investment in this community (that which Whitehall sees as no more important than a rotting banana peel) move out and rent his house out? Both I and he feel they’re trying to chase out blue collar people (‘undesireables’, as mentioned above, who aren’t very ‘Upper Arlington’, as per Mayor Wolfe’s dreamscape) and, as this gentleman says, “for who and for what?” Whitehall was and is a blue collar town, hard-working families who are the backbone of our community. What are we replacing them with, Section 8 and HUD housing? Has Mayor Maggard completely lost her mind along with her scruples, trust, common decency and sense?! Does this gentleman not represent the kind of Whitehall that Mayor Maggard apparently aspires for us? Her inorganic, punitive, crushing, authoritarian drive to create a Whitehall that exists in her mind but doesn’t in actuality? This is exactly why code enforcement needs to be re-evaluated in Whitehall and doubly shameful that your representatives on council (with the exception of Leslie LaCorte)won’t do that (see my next post), because it doesn’t align with what their friend and donor, Kim Maggard wants, despite it being so reprehensible to those citizens they’re supposed to be representing. I’ve gotta say it, I’ve been avoiding it but it is an excellent word and one someone must say. Even at the cost to my attaining office….Bullshit! Every sense I have and was raised with and that I’ve fought against and have honed a sense about, tells me that this screams…bullshit. If you don’t like the word or think its offensive a candidate for city office would use a word like this, then I ask you; what is more offensive, the word ‘bullshit’ when used appropriately or a city government that would send a working father of six to jail for grass and weeds? If the word bullshit is your answer then you are part of the problem that exists here in Whitehall and certainly not the solution.
The final heinous example belongs to Mr. David Deluca. Granted, he left during the Wolfe administration but his is a ripe example of the abuse code enforcement heaps on some people that can be called by only one word, and that is harrassment. I can’t address it all here because time has become constricting but suffice it to say that Mr. Deluca was also deemed ‘undesireable’ by those down at City Hall.
‘Jesus’ by Dave Deluca made with cast off materials.
A Beauty salon chair Dave rehabbed and gave to me as a gift.
Code enforcement photo taken while in Dave’s backyard.
Photo taken over back gate marked with a ‘No Trespassing’ sign into his backyard to show ‘violations’. Note the marked infractions.
Photo taken at the threshold of Dave’s enclosed front porch. Apparently ‘cardboard’ is a severe enough infraction to cause further misery to an older veteran on a fixed income who eats peanut butter and crackers for dinner.
Dave’s artificial flowers. Again, code enforcement cracking down on senior citizens fouling the neighborhoods of Whitehall with their tacky, subversive and cheap artificial flowers. Seeing this, its understandable why they drove Dave Deluca out on a rail.
Dave was a senior citizen and Vietnam veteran as well as an artist. He made extra money salvaging cast off items which he would then rehab and sell to supplement his small income. Again, not on assistance, except what was his as a senior citizen or veteran. In this pursuit he accumulated a lot of things which became visible to the city. Mr. Deluca alleged to have had words with the then Service Director Ray Ogden one early Mother’s Day Sunday. Mr. Ogden was in his personal vehicle without identification or a uniform and stopped to tell Mr. Deluca he couldn’t put up a lattice against a post in his front yard that he was trying to train vines on. Words were exchanged including choice words for Mr. Ogden from Mr.Deluca and Dave felt that’s where his troubles began. (He alleged that Mr. Ogden told him that Whitehall would be a better place without him in it) Seemingly like no other citizen, the code violations piled up. Mr. Deluca had little income to fight them and had to rely on court-appointed attorneys. Occasionally I made him dinner, particularly when I found out he could afford no better than peanut butter and crackers for dinner. No one seemed to listen or care that the code officers were trespassing on his property without permission or a warrant or they snapped photos from his neighbors roof into his backyard. Code Officer Walt Sural would take photos of his enclosed front porch by walking up his driveway to it and taking them from the open threshhold. I was at an on-site (hearing?) that included Judge Harland Hale when Mr. Sural admitted as much. Code took photos over a fence gate clearly marked with a ‘No trespassing’ sign into his backyard to note infractions. What this ultimately all did was wear Mr. Deluca down to where he finally left, depressed and disillusioned, to live with his sister in Florida. (to City Hall’s delight no doubt). He left in 2010. When I was trying to defend him in online posts before then, some anonymous wag suggested I go live under a bridge with Mr. Deluca. Not have sympathy for the man or appreciate I took my personal time to help him but only snotty derision for the both of us. It was saddening and disgusting how some people would defend the inappropriate and inhuman actions of those at City Hall here in my own hometown.
Here was a man who’d served his country with honor, ostensibly for freedom and liberty, those values and rights which those at City Hall enjoyed due to hissacrifices, then using the law to take those very things away from him. It is the ultimate disgusting, traitorous behavior and every decent American should be as equally appalled by their actions and behavior as I am. To call for and demand support of our armed forces and then not see these actions as non-supportive and traitorous to troops that they are, is to have an utter disconnect to what it is you’re purporting to support. It cannot be. Support is support is support and what this city did to Mr. Deluca is a stain on our service men and women and Whitehall itself. Without question.
Here’s the thing then; the police department is hired to drive up and down our streets looking for crime and criminals, that which we all desire and support, ‘we’ being the non-criminals. Now, imagine that there is another group of officers employed by the city who, unlike the police which are part of the safety department, do their job but which are part of the service department. Service, not safety and yet, the code officers have the ability to issue violations and take you into court and have you thrown in jail. Also, what does it feel like to be in your house or yard and have a city truck with a man with a uniform and a badge drive by your house several times a day. To me they’re just like police but this time they’re like City Hall’s police. Whereas the regular police are there for us, code enforcement are there for the city. Wolfe’s police and Maggard’s police. They’re watching you. Did you trim that bush Mr. Dixon? I see leaves in your gutter! That vehicle’s registration has expired! Are those artificial flowers Mr. Dixon? Did you say something negative about code enforcement in the paper? We’re going to have to put a copy of that article in your ‘file’.
What happens if they don’t ‘like’ you, what if the mayor or someone else in city hall doesn’t like you or holds political grudges? Can you trust them not to use code enforcement as a political tool when they can’t mind conflicts of interest that build public trust in the first place? (I say no) Does it feel like harassment after awhile or you think, ‘Oh my God, is everything okay, did I take care of everything? Are they coming for me? Will they find something and take money from my pockets, take me to court? And…will you get treated reasonably and fairly? ( I say no to that too) While Mr. Deluca was given a violation for, among other things, artificial flowers, everyone else in Whitehall, which included that which ringed the gazebo on city owned property, continued to have artificial flowers, some up to the present day. When so much attention is paid to Mr. Deluca but the same is not paid to others with the same infraction, that is not equal protection under the law. Unfortunately for Mr. Deluca, Code seemingly didn’t notice all the others. As well, when I was vocal in my opposition with code enforcement back in ’09, I didn’t hear anything from them in their efforts to get me to deal with my house getting painted (despite my waiting for MORPC (the Mid Ohio regional Planning Commission) and starting the job myself). Finally though, I did get a violation in the mail asking me into court, (where I was spoken harshly to by the prosecutor for Whitehall like I was a miscreant dog and scofflaw instead of the decent, hard-working, home-owning taxpaying citizen that I am.) that which was written on, of all days, election day, sadly for me, too late to make a public fuss about it. Very telling that whatever problem they had with me could only have reached its apex of alarm and pique on election day itself. This ultimately shows then how they use code enforcement as a political tool, all so their butts wouldn’t be called out before the election and maybe cost them votes. It is both disgusting and dangerous. Everything I listed at the top of this page is true. As well, it must be stated, that without an acceptable moral code, code enforcement is just a political tool used to manipulate the citizenry. There are many instances where sense and reason and basic morals siad that doing what you were going to do, while available to you, would be immoral to do (bucket trucks, artificial flowers, etc) but…they did them anyway because the code is more important than the citizens themselves, its more important than decency and morals. Those things MUST take a backseat when forcing code infractions on the citizens (and more importantly) people that don’t fit into what our notions of the city should be.
Granted, there may be ordinary uses regarding code infractions but there have been too many stories of its abuse of the citizens to ignore and remain silent over, despite its efforts which may have benefited situations with yourselves. Because, while it may spruce up your neighborhood or improve your property values, it undermines personal liberty and freedoms and immorally attacks and degrades human’s experience and the Constitutionally-guaranteed happiness given us by God himself. All for the sake of aesthetics.
I have simply heard too many citizens, wary of code enforcement, tell me their stories, afraid to go public for fear of retaliation by city hall. If code is abused by the city against its citizens in whatever form or means, that is wrong. If there is a good and decent reason to enforce codes and it is done respectfully towards the citizens then that is fine. I claim it is awful people who have gotten into office and abused it for their selfish needs, wants and gains to the detriment of the citizens, their organic lives here in Whitehall and most egregiously, the U.S. Constitution and the law. The very people who enforce the law and have the power to fine you and send you to jail, they themselves, break it. It is not only unlawful and despicable but it is completely unacceptable. They need to be booted out of office…pronto!
This is an old mansion. It sits on the property known as Woodcliff/Midcliff. It is probably dated from the teens or twenties in the Twentieth Century. It is a grand building on the ridge of the Big walnut watershed, kind of Arts and Crafts in style but it seems a hodgepodge. It was a twelve room mansion built for a commanding officer of The Depot I am told, long before the community of Woodcliff sprang up around it. It is no doubt one of the largest houses in Whitehall with huge fieldstone chimneys and dormer windows. It is also callously slated for demolition by the City of Whitehall. It seems Steve Close, the owner of so many properties in Woodcliff also owned this old beauty. For some reason he claims he gave it to the city because they wanted to demo it. This seems to act publicity for Mayor Maggard to show how tough and re-electable she is by fighting wars; wars on crime! wars on blight! (wars on poor people! wars on sense! wars on Whitehall!) and so, she set her guns on this rare old beauty. She doesn’t understand preservation or keeping traditions, she’s a firebrand out to show everybody what a tough, take-charge, take-no-prisoners kinda leader she is. Unfortunately for the community who has to live with her gung-ho actions, sometimes, more than blight is destroyed in the process.
Whitehall has little to no historical buildings left, they are torn down as frequently and with as little fanfare as they are in Columbus when it tears down historical prisons or 19th century buildings for replacements that are nothing more special. To simply tear down a faded but glorious old dowager like this is to show what lack of care one really has for Whitehall and its traditions and keepsakes. It’s a careless betrayal to our shared historical past, that which we can never retrieve, much like all the old school buildings parents of Whitehall’s children past paid for with their hard-earned dollars and where so much of our small-town’s spirit and life passed through. Torn down because grants were proffered. Sure, we have shiny new, technologically-advanced buildings now which will soon fill with their own memories but it is nevertheless a sad thing that so much was lost with nary an affectionate goodbye or sliver of remorse. I love history and I love architecture and I love the spirit that imbues old buildings and things. Outside of homes, there is so little left from before all the suburban houses were built for post-war families. So little left from Whitehall’s military depot and farming days. This though, is still here. Here’s the rub though…
Steve Close called me today and told me that he spoke to a realty manager/agent(?) and they told him that the Veteran’s Administration offered Whitehall $75,000 for the house and that they want to rehab it and use it to house veterans. The City of Whitehall, who got it for free, is tearing it down at a cost to taxpayers of $85,000. (wars on blight cost money)
The city said “no” to the sale.
Whitehall has the ability to not only do right by veterans and to save an old part of its history but also save $85,000 of the taxpayers money AND take in an additional $75,000 for the city, for a total gain of $160,000, but, Kim Maggard must wage her war on blight (a blighted mansion?!) and tear it down anyway because regardless of added revenue for the city or helping veterans or saving historical Whitehall treasures, that grande dame on the bluff would ultimately stand in the way of her larger schemes to develop the entire parcel once it’s ‘acquired’ from its rightful owners. Yet another historical building gone in Whitehall, not because it couldn’t be saved or because there was no money to salvage it but because of the aggrandizement of one person’s mercenary ego. This is not a war on blight. It is a war on Whitehall itself and principals and things we hold dear. It is waged as a facade, a means to ratchet her climb to bigger and better political levels fed by her hunger for power and self-promotion. To show everyone that Kimberly J Maggard is a winner and that her rightful glory will not be forsaken or denied. That glory which will ultimately be our misery and that gain which will be our loss.
This is a stack of papers (just some) that I’ve picked up from Steve Close, the owner of so many of the properties in the Woodcliff area. I put a good old ‘Dixon Ticonderoga’ next to it for prospective. Interesting reading this stack. Let me share some of it with you…
As stated in the previous blog post, some time back Whitehall hired Pizzuti Solutions and Bird Houk Collaborative to work on their ‘Strategic Land Use and Economic Re/Development Plan. It is an extensive piece of work focusing on several areas for redevelopment troughout Whitehall, including the Big Bear, old Swimland site and of course, Woodcliff. Lots of papers. Take a look. I’ll make comments below each paper and at the end.
An invoice from Bird Houk for $48,000.
A reimbursement request for Pizzuti solutions showing the amount for their contracted budget, $125,000.
Woodcliff at Broad and Hamilton overview with redeveloped land
Woodcliff at Broad and Hamilton. The fountain is where the Speedway is now.
A critical overview of the Woodcliff properties
The critical overview continued.
Redevelopment of strategic sites, the Woodcliff area
First two paragraphs finish the redevelopment strategy from the previous page
Tax values for employment income for the strategic site. Looking at the differences between the public pool and the woodcliff area in terms of tax advantages, you can see where focus on Woodcliff would be so much more advantageous than recreation for Whitehall residents.
Real estate property tax values for strategic sites. Again, note the vast differences for something for the community and something from the Woodcliff acquisition.
A public hearing from 2011 where the development Director Dan Lorek introduced representatives from Pizzutti Solutions and Bird Houck Collaborative.
From the public hearing where councilman Leo Knoblauch inquires about Woodcliff/Midcliff
Kim Maggard-Dan Miller email where the mayor mentions Woodcliff/Midcliff. (The Jerry written on the letter refers to Mr. Close’s attorney.)
Forwarded email sent to Development Director about Woodcliff and land banks from 2013
Paper referencing ‘slums and blight’ (Mayor Maggard’s favorite word) and ‘identifying proposed acquisitions and demolitions.
An email sent to our Development Director rgarding Woodcliff and the COCIC (Central Ohio Community Improvement Corporation, Franklin County’s largest land bank, using the word ‘demolition’. (Again, the Jerry mentioned is Steve Close’s attorney.
Something self-explanatory from Bird Houk paid for by you and I.
The emails Robert Broadley was told were lost, incidentally, were all emails with the word ‘Woodcliff’ in the subject heading from 2004 to 2013. Imagine what a loss that is for all the owners of the Woodcliff properties. (But what a gain for the city of Whitehall! Particularly all those people in charge who hired the person who ‘pressed the wrong button’! Plus! Think of all that sweet, sweet tax revenue the lost emails may end up bringing them by possibly helping them in their acquisition of the properties! Yum!)
So…again, this is my thought on the matter; If Whitehall wants to progress itself into a bigger, grander realm of community, fine. That is not my issue here. What I see are people with grandiose notions of Whitehall far beyond its traditional realms but without the income necessary to see these grand plans come to fruition. It is a quandry for those in power who want Whitehall to be both something its not and something more but without foreseeable funds to get them there. In my view, as well as Steve Close’s and others, their avenue to reach this is merely to take it, simply because the city can’t afford it otherwise. Its as simple as that. That even the law won’t stand in the way of Mayor Kim Maggard’s ‘visions’. However, no one asked me or the other citizens of Whitehall how we felt about that. How we would feel if Whitehall started nickle and dimeing individuals to do this and do that and then when they complied, ordered them to do more things and yet, it’s never enough and then they threw roadbloacks in your path and you find out Whitehall spent a bunch of your own money to look into what they could develop on your property and that some people, including the city, are gonna reap big piles of money from your property and then they started talking about your property with land banks, using words like demolition. How would YOU feel about that? Its wrong to do that to you and I, its wrong to do that to anyone, including the rightful property owners of Woodcliff. You don’t ruin people’s lives in order to improve others, at your discretion. If they want to use eminent domain to buy the properties, so be it. If they don’t have the money to do so, leave them alone or find rightful alternatives. They’re like modern day pirates, sailing the streets of Whitehall, deciding whose booty they’re going to plunder, taking what isn’t theirs for their own gain, and if, unlike Steve Close, you don’t have the money to do everything they want or fight them, what are your recourses to fight this pirating? Now, instead of cutlass’ and cannons, they bear code violations and red tape. What is someone to do if they can’t afford to fight them on their level (a galleon versus a dingy) or with the tools they’re experts with? Pirates sailing the sea robbing decent people or pirates preying on the weak and vulnerable in Whitehall, robbing them of what isn’t theirs to take, they’re both the same.
It appears then that, despite the mask of humanity Mayor Kim Maggard wears for the advancement of her climb up the political ladder, she is actually Whitehall’s version of Captain Kidd. With your vote November 3rd, I pray you sink her, and with her these actions and her upward climb in politics. Whitehall is not Treasure Island.
Several months ago I was attending a council meeting when a gentleman stepped forward claiming to be a part of the Woodcliffe Condominiums, his name was Steve Close. He admonished the council and the Maggard administration for what he feels is the continuing harassment of the owners of the Woodcliff/Midcliff condominiums. He made a claim that the City of Whitehall has spent upwards of $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 trying to get Woodcliff to bring their properties up to code and abate what the city feels are nuisances. This coming at the time when the endless talk over the much-promised Recreation Center was having problems finding all the money needed to fund it. It was an outrageous consideration that while we can’t find enough money to serve the citizens needs, which include so many of Whitehall’s youngsters, we have an extra 1.5 million dollars to hound a group of property owners for shabby dwellings over a period of 8 years? Outrageous if true. Given this then, one has to ask if Whitehall spent this much money collectively to go after everyone else in Whitehall who had nuisances or was it just Woodcliff?
When I pressed City Attorney Mike Shannon about the issue, he said the number was closer to $500,000. (Still!) When I asked council for an official investigation of the mayor’s and city attorney’s offices*, Council President Jim Graham felt it best only to give a casual assessment from his own point of view, without documentation of interviews or anything else to allay the fears, concerns and anger of citizens over what the Maggard administration is up to regarding Woodcliff.
At another meeting, another gentleman, Robert Broadley, spoke before council and told them the city had told him they’d ‘lost’ a great many emails pertinent to the case with Woodcliff. He said the city had told them that a new computer operator had inadvertently pressed the wrong button and erased the emails that they sought. (Convenient for Whitehall, and incrediblyinept for the IT department.) Mr. Broadley rightly chastised Mayor Maggard and her administration as “incompetent”. I have since spoken to Mr. Close and he’s told me that, by his estimate, the City of Whitehall has spent $1,000,000 in legal fees and $250,000 to an architectural firm and a real estate developer to draw up plans for the land where Woodcliff sits. The contracts are from 2007/08 and renewed in 2011/12. As well the city (according to an email he did get from the city) is spending $24,000 to $25,000 a month in legal fees to an outside law firm for this affront.
It is an outrage.
Outrageous for this reason; It appears the City of Whitehall has plans for that valuable triangular parcel of land which sits at the entrance to Whitehall along Broad Street and as an entryway into Whitehall from the airport. Prime real estate for anyone who wants to develop it. So, you may ask, why would the city of Whitehall be spending yours and my hard-earned tax dollars to draw up architectural plans on a parcel of land they don’t own? Whitehall’s kids have no where to recreate because there is purportedly no money for such things. We’re a city that has to beg for grants to repair our streets, as just announced in the Whitehall News regarding San Jose Lane getting curb and gutter repair. http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/whitehall/news/2015/10/26/city-applies-for-grant-to-fix-san-jose-lane-curbs-gutters.html
(that which, btw, the .5% income tax raise a couple years back seemingly couldn’t afford to finance) but they have all this money to pursue that which isn’t theirs in the first place? And for whose benefit, whose egos are these monies being spent? Whitehall citizens? The citizens of Woodcliff/Midcliff? The rightful owners who have spent $4,000,000 of their own money to fix problems and fight the Goliath that is Whitehall? Here is how the owners have ultimately responded;
They’ve brought a civil case against the City of Whitehall and the Franklin County Public Health (FCPH) in a Complaint for Abuse of Processes.
Here, essentially, is the gist of the lawsuit; In 2007, Whitehall and the FCPH filed a complaint with the Franklin County Municipal Court alleging part of Woodcliffe was a public nuisance and asked these nuisances be abated. The owners/receivers, etc. acted in good faith and abated many of the nuisances, spending “substantial funds” to cause the abatement of these nuisances, which included filling in an Association public swimming pool,trash collection and grass and weed cutting. Despite all of the efforts put into trying to satisfy the city, the city itself is charged with continuing to get in the way of them accomplishing their goals. In the Complaint’s ‘Factual Allegations’ it reads;
‘Whitehall and FCPH have intentionally, continuously and systematically interfered with the sale of units in an attempt to prevent the abatement of nuisances in an effort to acquire title to Woodcliff.’
‘ Whitehall and FCPH have intentionally, continuously and systematically interfered with the abatement of nuisances so as to advance its arguments and position that the Woodcliff units should be demolished.’
‘Upon information and belief, it has been the intention of Whitehall to acquire ownership and/or acquire control of the land upon which Woodcliff is located in order to demolish the existing residential property and use same for future commercial development.’
‘Defendants (Whitehall and FCPH) admitted, through counsel,that it was previously refusing to issue permits because it was attempting to purchase the property.’
‘Whitehall’s and FCPH’s actions demonstrate that each maintain the Environmental action in bad faith and their continuous and systematic interference, has caused substantial damage to plaintiff by way of lost rents, diminished values, lost sales, legal fees, and other monetary damages.’
In the ‘Claim for Relief’ (Abuse of Process) section, it reads;
‘Through the continuous efforts of defendants to interfere with the sale of the Olander Units and abatement of nuisances, Defendants (Whitehall & FCPH) have perverted the process in an effort to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed.’
‘If not for Defendants continuous and systematic interference in sales and nuisance abatement, all nuisances of previous and existing Olander units would have been abated.’
They’ve asked the court for compensatory damages of $1,000,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest, the cost of the action, and attorney fees.
What it looks like to me, and what Steve Close charges, is that the city is misusing nuisance laws in order to ‘acquire ownership and control’ of others rightful private property for their own ulterior motives, that which is to develop the land for specific use the City has already been planning. They’ve been ordering Woodcliff to jump through hoops to comply with their exhaustive demands and then stymieing those efforts to comply by abusing the processes of our justice system in order to, essentially, steal their property, instead of acquiring it lawfully or morally with eminent domain, giving them a fair price to begin with (which I’m sure Whitehall doesn’t have the money for anyway. We can’t even afford to fix our own curbs and gutters!). So, no matter what Woodcliff does, its never enough and when they do comply, Whitehall puts up roadblocks to further stymie their advances and compliance and then turns around and says they’re not meeting their demands.
This is an outright indictment of the morals and character of those running our city’s government. Anyone of decent reason and moral fiber would see the right and fairness in giving someone a fair price for that which they’ve worked hard to acquire, that which they deserve and have a right to. What I and other good and fair citizens of this city must certainly see is that the actions of some elected officials are not this at all. This is rotten, predatory, underhanded greed. It is immoral, unprincipled, self-aggrandizing crookedness using the power their elected office brings them to manipulate that system for their vainglorious plunder. All of which is aided and abetted by the people’s voices on council who are not without blame. Those who are, and allow themselves, to be cowed into silence by these people through threats of litigation against the city in these stymieing, silencing executive sessions, where no citizens they represent can or will be apprised and alerted to the actions of their city. It is yet another black mark branded onto the reputation of Whitehall by these duplicitous elected officials. In a community whose motto is ‘City of Pride’, it seems behavior like this, acted in yours and every citizens name, offers little to nothing for our community in the way of pride. It is grotesque, unethical behavior carried out with masks of caring humanity. I blame City Attorney Mike Shannon and Mayor Kim Maggard along with those who abetted these actions with never-ending approval for funds for the city attorneys office ‘legal fees’ without proper knowledge of how the money was being spent and on what, or, asking in the first place, and if they did, shame on them for allowing this exaggerated amount of funds to be so misused for the ostensible purpose of abating nuisances in favor of street repair and recreation for the citizens. (If one recalls, this country almost tilted into the abyss only six years ago with a great deal of hardship. Are we to say to people, ‘to hell with you and your problems!’?) If you do not speak out against this sort of behavior or fail to exhaustively ask questions, or simplemindedly cheer lead those who are a part of this abuse then you are a part of this outrage and affront to decency and ethics and fairness, not only in government but as human beings among your fellow man.
Are these truly the kinds of people we want representing us in City Hall? It is an embarrassment and leaves a foul miasma hanging over Whitehall’s reputation.
As a post script, I will say this; for 6 years now I have complained loudly about their ignoring conflicts of interest; government insiders donating money to fund a citizens campaign to oust one of their elected peers, Kim Maggard ignoring conflicts of interest in a candidates forum she was intimately associated with, etc. I remind you again of this thoughtful analysis of why ethics matter in public office on this very blog.
and I quote from it…“Democracies and free markets absolutely rely on the integrity of their systems for the free flow of information and objective decision-making. Conflicts of interest act as a cancer that eats away at those institutions.”
“The three fundamental values in play are trust, integrity and fairness…they are at the base the fundamental concepts that inform the instrumental value-e.g. avoiding conflicts of interest”.
“The trust the public gives you, and that you have freely asked for by running for office, should be earned before it is merely handed over, for it is sacrosanct. Without the trust, the integrity of its systems begin their free fall and the institutions we rely on in America begin to not only fail us but deteriorate into something other than a Constitutional Republic.”
To ignore conflicts of interest is to show contempt for the public trust as well as disregard and underestimate the public’s power to allow you to rise or see your rightful defeat. These are people who shouldn’t be trusted with public office. When the public sees them show sound judgment and reasonable behavior in heeding conflicts of interest, (that which the informed public must demand) it builds a trust in them for you which relaxes them towards you and is good for achieving results with the public’s wholehearted approval. Here in Whitehall governance, too often conflicts of interest are ignored due to their getting in the way of self-serving interests. They believe they can do whatever they want (as long as too much information is not released) and you won’t do anything about it because you’re not paying attention…and they’re right. It is only when people speak out (who aren’t subsidized by them) and inform you of the whole story are you then made aware of the underlying layers they’d prefer to keep quiet. Here they want respect without accomplishment and trust without earning it (or a vote without aid of information proffered). Mayor Maggard’s yard signs, for instance, say the word ‘Trustworthy’ but in truth it is only eleven words printed on cardboard as far as its merit towards her is. She’s got political aspirations and she truly doesn’t care about earning your trust but instead gets it by your ignorance of her deceitful actions, that which she hopes you’ll stay ignorant of.
This is why, while I am not a judge or jury, I just can’t trust that they did the right thing with Woodcliff, simply because they too often did the wrong thing in other areas. It has been a pattern of theirs. It is my default setting for them based on history and observation. They have built up no trust with me, the one who’s been watching them closely now for 6 years. This is why I feel strongly as I do in this matter. They never built trust or earned it and now when things look bad, I simply can’t rally behind them and cheer lead for them. They themselves are responsible for my bad attitude towards them.
p.p.s.- I must also add that criticizing public officials does not show a contempt for my city but rather a care for it. If I feel there are those who are bringing harm to it, particularly in the public arena, it is my and your duty and obligation to do something about it. So, before anyone gets up in arms about these sort of posts, I say to you that what there is that’s wrong and however great a volume of it there is, there must be a light shone on it for it to be identified and eradicated, for in the end run, I owe these people nothing but I owe the city and its citizens everything.
*Mike Shannon donated a total of $200 to Kim Maggard. Jim Graham donated a total of $175 to Kim Maggard. Jim Graham donated $35 to Mike Shannon….
The following is from a council committee meetings in which code enforcement was discussed by our city leaders. (I know, sounds exciting) It is verbatim, taken from recordings, so it should be taken into account there are a lot of ‘ums’ and verbal jumping around, which is different than writing and quite natural in speech. While boring on the outside, there is importance here, it tells you what they are doing at City Hall in your name. I say they’re up to no good and this is just one example of this. I promise, it is ultimately interesting. I have taken the liberty to add my comments to the proceedings, highlighted in red. Enjoy.
City of Whitehall Council Committee Meeting
May 28, 2013
19:04:00
Council President Jim Graham: “In our last council meeting there were some comments regarding code enforcement. Just so, I just wanted to make sure that, just to remind everybody on council if you’ve forgotten, what the code enforcement officer’s rights are as far as property is concerned. So, this is right out of our own book here* and it’s (A) 104.3, its ‘Right of Entry’. ‘Where it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this code, or whenever the code official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition in violation of this code, the code official is authorized to enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or perform the duties imposed by this code, (this next part is the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) provided that if such structure or premises is occupied the code official shall present credentials to the occupant and request entry. If such structure or premises is unoccupied, the code official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the code official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.’” (He has to ask permission to inspect something, if he doesn’t get permission, either verbally or with no communication, he then has to ask a judge’s permission via a search warrant)
(He then goes on to read from Section 106, Violations, Section (A) 106.5 Abatement of Violations) “The imposition of the penalties herein prescribed shall not preclude the legal officer of the jurisdiction from instituting appropriate action to restrain, correct or abate a violation, or to prevent illegal occupancy of a building, structure or premises, or to stop an illegal act, conduct, business or utilization of the building, structure or premises’”. J.G. Cont.’: “Basically, what a lot of this means, if the code enforcement officer, I should probably have Mike (Shannon) explain this, he could probably do it better than me, but if he has, if he believes that there is a violation he has a the right to go and check, he has to have reasonable cause that there is a violation and if he believes he has reasonable cause…”
Councilperson Leslie LaCorte: “…to enter private property?”
Graham: “…yes, then he can go and check out the situation and see if in fact there is a violation. Now here’s something thats, that this actually goes on…should he see a violation on another piece of property while he’s on a piece of property he also has the opportunity to inspect that code violation so, anytime the code officers are on a piece of property or any other piece of property, on a piece of property and they see violations on another piece of property…not that they would (but they have), er, and I’m not, I’m just saying, you know, you just get, you’re leaving and you happen to notice there’s a violation…”
Mayor Kim Maggard: “Mmmmm-hmmm…” (The Mayor doesn’t catch the verbal sidestep that Jim Graham has taken. Who exactly is watching out for the citizens here?!)
Graham: “…at the adjacent property he has the right then to go and take care of that, so that question came up and I know we all know what I just thought it would be a godd thing to remind everybody just to make sure, uh, we’re all aware of what, what code enforcement can and can’t do when it comes to being on property.”
(If the council members only took into account what Jim Graham offered them regarding code enforcement, instead of their own self-research, they’d have been more confused than before he ‘helped’ out. And what was his ‘help’? He used his position as President of Council (that was simply handed him, having run unopposed) to “remind” the council members what the Code Enforcement Officers (CEO”s) “rights” are (Not what the citizens rights are. Why hadn’t they done this for themselves?). He reads from the International Property Maintenance Code**, specifically 104.3 ‘Right of Entry’ and 106.5 ‘Abatement of Violations’, saying that if the CEO “believes” there is a violation he has the “right” to go and check (if he has reasonable cause). He then posits that once CEO’s are on a property they have a right to notice violations on other properties and “go and take care of that”.
Council President Graham is dead wrong in his public assertion of the CEO’s “rights” as he so misinformed the Whitehall City Council members that evening. In Camara v Municipal Court- 387 US 523 (1967) it specifically states; “search warrants which are required in nonemergency situations should normally be sought only after entry is refused.” “When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided bu a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent”. “…the possibility of criminal entry under the guise of official sanction is a serious threat to personal and family security”. “The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable government interest…If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitablt restricted search warrant”.
What he never stressed to council was that they first had to ask permission from the owner/occupant and if it is refused or not given, seek out a warrant from a judge. Apparently the citizens representatives didn’t need to be ‘reminded’ of those little details by Jim Graham. He thought reminding them all what the CEO’s rights are was more important than reminding them of what the citizens rights are. When I pointed this out after the meeting, he sheepishly grinned and said, “I know”. I asked him, since he’d publicly said all this, that he should correct it for the public record. I asked him several times to do this and he never did, allowing the incorrect misinformation to stand as the public record. To them, if its not in the public record, it doesn’t exist.
In light of my concerns, the troubling photographic evidence supplied and my understandable request, for the citizens sake, for a moratorium on code enforcement that I submitted to them the prior week, this presentation by Jim Graham was all that was offered. He spoke on the topic a mere three minutes and thirty seconds before veering off to discuss a landscaping fence issue for a full eight minutes and thirty seconds, nearly three times the length afforded a constitutional issue.)
The International Property Maintenance Code is distributed by the ‘International Code Council’ or, I.C.C, a self-described “member-focused association”. On the surface it seems their business is creating codes, like a law-making entity would do, but if you dig a little deeper there is also a business goal that seems to help increase their presence and power, both with self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, bringing in money from sales of memberships, materials, books, etc. From their website; “In 2004, the International Code Council developed a long-term business plan for the newly formed association” A business plan.
Here are some of their goals (with my thoughts in red);
Objectives Goal 1: Business Growth – The ICC will evolve and expand toward new opportunities while focusing on its core competency of developing codes and standards. (Why must more codes be developed? Aren’t we sqeezed by them enough already?) 1.4 Develop and maintain a comprehensive strategy for dealing with competitive threats, 1.5 Implement a strategy to reduce variability in revenue, and 1.6 Pursue strategies for emerging markets that have positive financial implications.
Objectives Goal 2: Core Function – The ICC will continue to ensure the I-Codes are the most universally used and accepted model codes and standards in the built environment. 2.2 Build and expand the support mechanisms of the core codes in the areas of training, certifications and adoptions , and 2.3 Build and expand the reach of the ICC outside of current geographies.
Objectives Goal 3: Customer Value (Who are their customers? Cities?)– The ICC will be acknowledged for exceptional products and services and as the best source of solutions for Member and all customer needs. (Writing codes that cities buy and utilize is like selling a product, except it is the communities that suffer by a anti-unique, standardized sameness) 3.1 Develop and implement a segmentation and channel strategy that aligns costs to serve with value and revenue, 3.2 Develop and implement solution-based products and services that address ways to deal with the current economy, 3.3 Develop and implement a professional development strategy for the markets that the ICC serves, and 3.4 Foster collaboration between Membership groups.
Goal Four Objectives Goal 4: Policy and Thought Leadership (What in the world is ‘thought leadership’?!)– The ICC will be recognized (not hopes to be but WILL be) as the advocate and credible expert for those involved in the built environment. 4.1 Communicate the ICC Mission and role of Code Officials at the local, state, national and global level, (This will seemingly give them a great deal of power, I’m not comfortable with Whitehall using them for this reason) 4.2 Develop a strategy for collaboration with federal governments to protect the interests of the ICC and influence decision making on built environment issues, (This says it all and is frightening from the viewpoint of our community’s interests. Law is made for man and not man for the law. If a business whose objective is to protect their own interests is providing cities with codes to adopt as law, are those things in the best interests of that city or the ICC? Is anyone paying attention enough in City Hall to differentiate this sort of thing? ) 4.3 Identify and institutionalize a method to ensure the voices of non-governmental interests are heard and considered, (Why would anyone need this, particularly in America, when we already have the United States Constitution? ) 4.4 Increase the relevance of the ICC to elected officials,(Hopefully not more than or to the detriment of the citizens themselves.) 4.6 Develop and implement a strategy to impact thought leaders. (!!)
Objectives Goal 5: Social Responsibility/Visibility – The ICC will support Members in being visible and socially responsible in their communities through expertise and professionalism with the use of ICC products and services. (Yes, but are there any ‘products’ which will teach Whitehall City Hall how to be ethically responsible and not abuse codes against citizens and their rights?) 5.1 Ensure a position for the ICC as an authoritative leader ( Whitehall City Hall, the Mayor, council, the Service Department and the code officials have already fully embraced this stance) in sustainability and other emerging areas when supported by relevance and market demand, 5.2 Implement a brand strategy that will position Members as part of a recognized and respected profession
In my view, I see the ICC as a business who has grand plans for themselves selling a global standardized vision for the built world where their agendas take priority over everything else, that which Whitehall has seemingly jumped on board with no reservations. Adopting codes for us, written by others, making our city government then, not a people’s government but rather, a self-appointed, ersatz ‘home-owners association’. Driving the community with a myriad of codes, written by others, which seem designed to shape and affect communities with an authoritarian hand from a business standpoint. Those which municipalities like Whitehall adopt in part due to laziness or ineptitude in writing and adopting codes more specific and respectful to an organic dynamic which actually exists here. In so doing, these communities foist and enforce the arbitrary natures of this ‘association’s’ codes on the unsuspecting citizenry, that which pleases the interests of a few but which can disrespect the freedom and liberty of many.
Is this global code-creating entity what Whitehall wants to be associated with? Where do the citizens come into play in all this ‘business’? It seems like alot of legal jargon and business but little of what truly makes up any community, the human factor, the people who bring their individuality to the table. I saw little nod from the ICC towards an actual care for these community’s people. I fear this sort of ‘business’ will eventually wipe out individual character in our community, that which makes it as special as it is, bringing about an inhuman, bland, vanilla-based standardization, not only of Whitehall, but America too. Where individual character and expression is discouraged and fined out of existence for the comforting ‘compliance’ of those in power (and who are doing business). Where messy liberty is cast aside for the tranquility and control of a few who don’t really appreciate the loud, boisterous full range of humanity, nor respect the ‘freedom and liberty for all’ that entails.
The thoughtless banality of this standardization rose here because citizens paid no attention while all this was being foisted on them by their own neighbors who they elected to watch out for and govern their interests but instead acted in their own self-interests, investing in powerful entities who seem to have more care for business objectives than a community’s organic character and spirit. Our elected leaders, due to their own foolishness, allowed this pernicious standardization, dangerous to freedom and liberty, to rise in our community. Given this then, it would seem more appropriate to call Whitehall by what it is they’re working towards; instead of ‘City of Pride’ it should be renamed, ‘Standardized City of Punitive Compliance’, or, as Mayor Maggard tagged it ‘Opportunity Is Here’. (Just not if you’re a homeowner or veteran or senior citizen or anyone else with individual character and/or who’ve invested their entire lives in Whitehall or anyone who feels one has a right to their personal liberty in America) Welcome to Somewhere USA!!
I created this montage of signs (all captured in Whitehall) as a response to code enforcment. I call it ‘The People’s Flag of Whitehall’.
Spring, 2013 I observe code enforcement officers Walt Sural and Ray Hamby on property across the street from my house. There are two separate parcels of property there, both owned at the time by a private individual. One of the parcel’s grass was cut that day but not the other. (Why a grass cutting had to be observed by both code officers was a mystery to me) There is a chain link fence dividing the property from the street and nearly the entire lot is visible from the right-of-way on Doney Street. At some point, the code officers decided they needed to inspect this clearly visible from the right-of-way, simple-grass-cutting operation up close, so they stepped onto the property, that which, knowing the code departments past actions, (which included my own property in 2008) there had probably been no permission granted either by the owner or by a judge with a warrant (The procedure of which only seems to be a nuisance for them). I am, having been a friend of the property owners family for 48 years, been intimately familiar with the exact boundaries of the various parcels. The code officers didn’t seem to be as aware of this as they stepped from one parcel to the next (from the one being cut to the one not being cut). They both moved towards the creek on the other parcel looking down at the grass, up at the trees (I don’t remember the landscaper being up there), with one of them (uniform on and gun on hip) moving northerly onto the parcel and while there, looking up into the backyard of yet another unrelated parcel, all under color of law. I ask, if you were a homeowner and looked out into your backyard and saw a uniformed officer with a gun on his hip, how would you feel? Violated? Trespassed? Alarmed that your government is watching and keeping tabs on you…with guns?!
Their casual attitude as they strolled around the properties, looking up into people’s backyards was arrogant in my view, particularly so given my issues with code enforcement’s actions and behaviors in the past, that which I’d been very vocal about. (see next photo)
A photo taken down into Dave Deluca’s backyard by code officers from the neighbors roof.
So, here they were, acutely aware of whose property they were across from, with me standing in full view of them. I was incensed and so, called the police. The police said they’d come and then called back and asked if I was the property owner. When they found out I wasn’t and that it was code officers (who aren’t a part of the Safety Department) they declined to send a cruiser, before they found out what the facts were. They never inquired whether they had the right to be on the property (via permission or a warrant), the same question they would’ve asked a non-governmental person if found on another’s property.
May 21st, I ask City Council, based on my concerns with this activity (one of several through the years) that they consider a moratorium on code enforcement until the Mayor and her code enforcement division can act within the law and rein in what I feel are tactics abusive of the citizen’s rights.
May 28th, Council President Jim Graham touches on the matter in a Council committee meeting for three and a half minutes but nothing is accomplished. None of the citizens’ voices on council speak.
June 10th, I send Chief Zitzke a letter detailing my concerns about the police department’s lack of response togovernment agents stepping onto private property. I quoted him the Ohio Revised Code that states;
2911.21 Criminal trespass.
(A) No person, without privilege (note this word) to do so, shall do any of the following:
(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;
(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;
(1)Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
I argued to the chief that since they were on private property, without permission or a warrant, inside a fence with a ‘No Trespassing’ sign, that, according to the Ohio Revised Code, their actions were a criminal offense, thus requiring action from a police officer. Chief Zitzke wrote back giving me legalese about privilege (there’s that word again. Notice it doesn’t say ‘right’.) and property owners and that they’d stepped onto property owned by a bank (Untrue. At least one of the parcels they wandered onto was owned privately but, the notices they sent to the property on Robinwood were both addressed to the same private individual, not a bank). I sent the Chief two follow up letters over the next month, neither of which I received a response.
I then asked for a meeting with Mayor Kim Maggard. She and I sat down in her office and I questioned her on this incident. Her response was that she had a right to “maintain property values”. I reminded her that her obligation and duty, as per her sworn oath, was to first support and protect the Constitution. (Private property’s value is the sole responsibility of the property owners themselves, NOT the city’s) She suggested that if I didn’t like it I could hire a lawyer.
June 11th, At a council committee meeting, at my behest, Councilperson Leslie LaCorte brings up and presses the issue. Between the Mayor and Councilpersons Bailey and Kantor and the Service Director, Ray Ogden, Ms. LaCorte’s attempts to get answers and seek resolution are unprofessionally interrupted and obfuscated to drive the topic away from the core issue. After several attempts to stay on track, Ms. LaCorte feels defeated by so much opposition and so the matter is dropped. It is the only meeting I was so angry with that I left.
As well in this meeting Mayor Maggard stated that she’d talked with the city attorney about this issue and quote, “we are doing the right thing per our city attorney” (She only expressed the city attorney’s ‘feelings’ on the matter, not a legal opinion). The next day I sent her a letter asking her for a copy of the legal opinion Mr. Shannon shared with her so I could cite with specificity the law which enabled the code officers to step onto the parcels lawfully. She sent a letter back saying that since Mr. Shannon’s opinion was “verbal” she couldn’t provide me with a copy of it.
June 14th, I contacted the Service Director and asked to see copies of the permission or warrant to step onto the said properties. It took me two more requests before he finally responded two and a half weeks later, supplying me with copies of notices mailed to the property on Robinwood (where the owner didn’t even live) but, no copies or proof of permission or a warrant granted by a judge for code officers to step onto either parcel.
July 5th, I asked City Attorney Mike Shannon to provide the law which overturned or superseded the Supreme Court law, Camara v Municipal Court, which is very specific in what is permissible with code officers. With no response, I sent another letter dated July 16th asking for the specific law that gave the code officers the right, not the privilege, to step onto private property without aid of permission or a warrant.
July 19th, City Attorney Shannon finally responded saying, “Please accept this as a formal and final response from my office in regard to your inquiries about code officers stepping on private property”. He then mentions “notices of violations”, inspectors returning to determine compliance and that the contractor had done their work. He also said they had the right to inspect for “rodent harborage” which could only be done by “closely inspecting the property”. (I’ve lived next to Turkey Run since Lyndon Johnson was President and I have never seen a rat). He also said they had to make sure the building on the property was secure and that if anybody is aggrieved, “it is the property owner, not a neighbor”. That was it. Firstly, my concern was that code officers stepped not just onto property that was being maintained, but also stepped onto a completely separate parcel (fenced in, ‘No Trespassing’ signs clearly visible) that was unrelated to the work being done at the time, and, all without aid of permission from the owner or a warrant. This was the crux of my charges and concerns and yet, he didn’t respond to the crux of the topic at hand. In the supreme law of ‘Camara v Municipal Court’, (that which all the other laws must obey) the Supreme Court ruled; “The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable government interest…if a valid public interest (like rat feces!) justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant.” as well, “When the right of privacy (the basic purpose of the 4th amendment) must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer (a judge!), not by a policeman or government enforcement agent.” So too, “…the possibility of criminal entry under the guise of official sanction is a serious threat to personal and family safety“. Given this response then from the city attorney I sent him a letter in return stating my disappointment over not offering the specific law which overturned or overruled Camara v Municipal Court and as such, I felt the code officials (the city) then had acted outside the law.
Summer, 2013, As a result of all the inaction by the mayor and city council, I decided to take my complaints where someone might actually listen; the streets. I protested in 90-some degree weather at Broad & Yearling, Broad & Hamilton, Main & Hamilton, Main & Big Walnut Creek, Krogers at Maplewood, Walmart, City Hall (where Mayor Maggard, in her vehicle, pointed and mock-laughed at me as she was leaving a council meeting) and at John Bishop Park on July 4th.
Whitehall Family Picnic July 4, 2013
As well, I took my protest down to the Statehouse grounds with a sign that said both, ‘WHITEHALL GOVT. DEGRADES CITIZENS FREEDOM & LIBERTY’ and ‘WHITEHALL MAYOR MAGGARD IS A DANGEROUS FOOL’. Apparently it got the attention of a Dispatch reporter who came out and interviewed me. In the small piece featured in the paper the next day, she’d also asked Mayor Maggard for a comment. The Mayor said that Whitehall residents largely ignore Dixon and that I am “a bit of a performance artist. When he doesn’t get the reaction he thinks he deserves, he steps it up a bit” (Of course I did. Justice was not being served and none of my elected officials (outside of Leslie LaCorte) were doing anything to remedy it. What could I do to get justice but take it to another level? Her calling me a ‘performance artist‘ was much like the mock laughter she exhibited while I was protesting, done so to minimize the seriousness of myself and my claims).
I believe the city simply doesn’t follow the law in code enforcement because, (a) most people wouldn’t give their permission for them to enter their private property, (b) its easier to use the power of ‘law enforcing’, ‘City Hall’ and its obfuscating red tape against powerless citizens ignorant of their rights, to get what it is they want, (c) getting warrants for niggling code infractions would require a great deal more work and time and money spent which would slow down income streams for the city, (d) if they had to seek a warrant from a judge who lacked familial ties with them and who deliberated such matters using only law and justice as his considerations before proceeding, they would never be allowed to get away with using it, in a controlling and authoritarian fashion, as a weapon against the poor, the weak, those hostile to them or those they don’t like or whom don’t fit into their inorganic programs, as they have in the past, and (e) most any reasonable and competent judge would throw them out with their constant irksome demands for warrants, particularly over some of the simple and silly things they issue violations for (like artificial flowers). See following photos…
Artificial flowers as noted as proof to issue violations to senior citizen and Vietnam Veteran Dave Deluca (who sometimes couldn’t afford more than peanut butter and crackers for dinner)
(Camara v Municipal Court says, “Warrantless administrative searches cannot be justified on the grounds that they make minimal demands on occupants; that warrant in such cases are unfeasible; or that area inspections could not function under reasonable search warrant requirements.“)
Notation of ‘cardboard boxes’ (GASP!) on Dave Deluca’s enclosed front porch as shown in his code enforcement file.
As is usually and unfortunately the case, citizens took little interest due to a myriad of reasons. Between them and those at City Hall, it seemed that nobody cared or would do anything to right wrongs. It is a sad shame that people get all up in a froth about wrongdoing on the streets but barely lift an eyebrow when its going on at City Hall, that which has the greater impact on their daily lives than miscreants on the street. So, as the weather got colder and no one did anything, I again backed away to regroup for another day.
In June I had also written a letter to the editor of the Whitehall News detailing my visit with Mayor Maggard. In part I’d said, “Why do we fight tyranny abroad only to allow it to flourish here in America? When we send others off to fight and die for principles we ourselves don’t fight passionately for here at home (and which exist), we then become participants in their lives being sacrificed in vain. That is completely unacceptable to me”. A good question to ask of ourselves.
So the Mayor wants to increase focus on code enforcement this year, according to a recent story in the Whitehall News. Does this focus include the same behavior from officials as we’ve seen in the past, such as trespassing, violation of citizens’ Constitutional rights, bullying, harrassment, selective enforcement and governmental vigilantism? Has Mayor Maggard communicated to staff the wrongfulness of these past behaviors and her expectation of more citizen-friendly/constitutionally respectful code enforcement?
As a citizen, I remind Mayor Maggard that we have Supreme Laws in this nation which she swore to uphold in her oath of office and that supersede grass and weed inspection and her desire to make the city “look more appealing.” It is this goal alone that breaches her oath and shows a fundamental lack of respect, appreciation and understanding of our Constitution’s basic tenets, the ignorance of which is set to trample our rights further with her simplistic yet dangerous directive.
Strong-arming citizens into code compliance shows blindness to the nature of pride and civic responsibility in that it is and always was a choice in a free society. Robbing us of and making punitive that choice is clearly authoritarian in nature and contemptible for that which we hold so dear—namely, our freedom and liberty, ours without asterisks and uncontaminated from the treacherous adornments she is willing to attach to them in her misguided goals.
Further, I’ve heard her characterize Whitehall as lower income. Why then is she ignoring that fact and causing further misery for citizens in trying to wring more money from their already depleted pockets? It is with these kinds of dangerous, foolhardy, lazy, unimaginative, disrespectful governmental mindsets that my problems with her lie.
What is a mayor? What do I want for a mayor? What is essential for a mayor? What makes a mayor successful? These are all the things I and anyone need to ask when considering such matters.
Whitehall Watchblog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.