I wrote a letter to the State
Attorney, Mr. Curtis Golden, dated July 11, 1999.
---------“I received your letter dtd June 15, 1999 where you state:
In my letter, I had covered the apparent illegal/criminal actions on the part of City Officials, in detail, and asked, again, that he investigate the matter of the trick concerning the certificate of occupancy illegal requirement.
--------
I had repeatedly stated that City
Officials did not follow Florida Statute 166.041 “Procedures for adoption of ordinances
and resolutions” which states that “Each ordinance or resolution shall be
introduced in writing and shall embrace but one subject and matters properly
connected therewith. The subject shall be clearly stated in the
title.” It is Mr. Golden’s job to enforce Florida State Statutes.
I received a letter from the State
Attorney, Mr. Curtis Golden, dated July 16, 1999.
---------
“This will acknowledge
receipt of your letter dated July 11, 1999. I am sorry to have to advise
you the State Attorney has no authority to challenge the validity of the
procedure followed by City Councils or County Commissions. I must
regretfully refer you to a private attorney for advice in this regard.”
Signed Curtis A. Golden
State Attorney
---------
Mr. Golden’s statements appeared to
be untrue as it was his job, as State Attorney, to address violations of
Florida State Statutes as the actions surrounding the illegal ordinance,
effective date Feb 11, 1999, did violate Florida State Statutes.
I wrote a letter to each of the City Council members, dated July 27, 1999, relating the apparent illegal/criminal actions of City Officials against me and my husband and the people of the City of Pensacola since this secret illegal ordinance affected every building in Pensacola. Not one answered.
I wrote another letter to DeeDee Ritchie, the State Representative for my area, dated July 27, 1999, in which I related the details of the apparent illegal/criminal actions on the part of City Officials regarding all buildings in Pensacola and especially harmful to our historic building.
While no Pensacola City Council member answered my letter of July 27, 1999, I later found out that Councilwoman Rita Jones had made an inquiry to the Pensacola City Attorney, Mr. Caton regarding this matter. I was able to obtain a copy of his answer to her, dated August 2, 1999. Remember that Mr. Caton is the City Attorney and was one of the authors of the change to the LDC which is not the authorized construction regulation for Pensacola.
------------------------------------------
“This is in response to your inquiry about the controversy between Mary Mead and the Inspections Department. Ms. Mead objects to the Inspections Department’s interpretation and administration of a portion of the City Code. We have been informed that Ms. Mead argues that she should not be required to have a new certificate of occupancy before she can obtain an occupational license for her intended office use at her property because a certificate of occupancy was previously issued several years ago for an office use at the same location. (Ms. Mead may have other related arguments, but it has been reported to this office that this is the heart of the issue between her and the Inspections Department.)”
….
(Mr. Caton discusses Sec. 7-2-4 and Sec. 12-12-6(A))
….
“It should be noted that Sec. 12-12-6(A) quoted above was amended by the City Council as one of several amendments to the LDC by adoption of Ordinance No. 8-99 on February 11, 1999. The only significant change to this section was to add the word “tenancy” for clarification purposes. A public hearing on this amendment as well as the other amendments was held on January 20, 1999, at which time the proposed ordinance was passed on first reading. The ordinance was then adopted by the City Council on second and final reading on February 11, 1999. This was the proper procedure for adoption of amendments to the LDC.
Based upon the foregoing provisions of the City Code, it is the opinion of this office that the City staff is correct in not issuing a business or occupational license until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the business and that the Inspections Department is reasonable in requiring an inspection prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
According to the Director of Inspections, there were 205 such certificate of
occupancy inspections for existing buildings in the fiscal year which ended
September 30, 1998; and there are projected to be over 280 such certificate of
occupancy inspections for existing buildings in the present fiscal year.
In other words, the Inspections Department routinely makes inspections and
issues certificates of occupancy whenever there is a change in the occupancy,
tenancy, or nature of the use of an existing non-residential building.
This has been the City’s practice for over twenty years and is the same
procedure being followed in Ms. Mead’s case.
…..
To
summarize, this office agrees that the past and current interpretation of the City
Code by the Inspections Department to require a new certificate of occupancy
for a previously inspected facility when there is a change in the occupancy,
tenancy, or nature of the use of the existing non-residential building is a
proper one. However, it should be noted that the City Code provides for
appeals of the decision of the Director of Inspections to the Construction
Board of Adjustments and Appeals, a body that is authorized to overrule such
decision. It is my understanding that Ms. Mead has filed such an appeal
with a hearing currently scheduled for Wednesday, August 4, at 2:00 p.m.
Please let me know if you need any clarification of this opinion.
(signed) Don J. Caton
City Attorney
DJC:je
Cc: Thomas J.
Bonfield
Delmus Wilkinson, Director of Inspections
Jennifer Fleming, CRA Executive Director”
Mr. Caton
misstated as the hearing was held on January 28, 1999, and not on January 20,
1999.
Mr. Caton did not inform Councilwoman Jones that since the amendment (not to the SBC) was dated February 11, 1999 it did not apply to me since I had no change of tenant after July 1, 1998.
December, 1998, through September 30, 1999, City Officials
were still illegally requiring a new Certificate of occupancy on change of
tenant, when it was not legally required, was considered inappropriate
according to official construction regulations, and was against the official
Declarative Statement issued by the Florida Building Commission. Documentation
from the City Attorney, Mr. Caton showed that Mr. Wilkinson had required 205
new CO’s for Oct 1997-Sep 1998 and 280 new CO’s from Oct 1998-Sep 1999, or
approximately 331 new CO’s after they knew this policy to be illegal. It appeared that City Officials were
defrauding the 50,000 citizens of Pensacola with illegal demands under the
construction regulations.
Mr. Caton stated, “In other words, the Inspections
Department routinely makes inspections and issues certificates of occupancy
whenever there is a change in the occupancy, tenancy, or nature of the use of
an existing non-residential building.
This has been the City’s practice for over twenty years and is the same
procedure being followed in Ms. Mead’s case.”
Mr. Caton stated that the Building Inspections Department
will inspect properties and issue Certificates of Occupancy. This letter was issued on August 2, 1999,
over a year after we purchased this property.
During this time the Building Inspection Department had refused us the
use of our property as they proceeded, step by step, to make illegal demands
apparently designed to strip our property of all items of value. The Building Inspection Department “inspected”
our property at least 50 times and no technical violations or structural
problems were ever found.
In January, 1999, Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson forced us to hire
the contractor of their choice by refusing permits to contractors I hired. All work City Officials demanded was
cosmetic which, according to construction regulations, they had no control over
– they had control only over structural, electrical, plumbing, etc.
From January to August Mr. Bonfield, Mr. Wilkinson, and Mr.
Miller required the removal of artifacts from our historic building (over 500
spindles and the railing made of heart pine over 115 years old, three beautifully
carved overmantels with beveled mirrors and beautiful columns, antique
hardware, 4 decorative plaster sconces – all made specifically for the house in
1883) all of which were stolen by Mr. Miller.
He confessed to taking our property to the Escambia County Contractor
Competency Board investigator and to Mr. Wilkinson in an official hearing, to
the Pensacola Police Department Investigator, Mr. Stone, to his co-workers, etc.
Property owners in Pensacola have been forced to submit for
two decades to illegal procedures, since City Officials have
been illegally requiring a new Certificate of Occupancy on change of tenant for
over twenty years.
All buildings are subject to the Standard Building Code but
City Officials exempted properties owned by “slum lords” who appeared to be in
violation of construction codes but were not inspected and forced to make their
properties safe even though I have seen small children playing on balconies
with missing railings, unkempt yards, abandoned vehicles, and other dangerous
violations on rental properties. It
appeared that these properties had nothing worth stealing.
I have noticed a preference for older people, such as my
husband and I were, as the victims of the illegal requirements of City
Officials and the victimization by contractors.
© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter
