TheAgitator.com
Bureaucrats, Scorned
Monday, October 20th, 2008An 83-year-old La Quinta, California woman may soon go to jail because city officials say one of her home’s bedrooms should really be a garage.
“What right do they have to call this a garage?” she asked, walking around the room with its cabinets, sink, bathroom and refrigerator. “I never called it a garage. How do they know it’s not a bedroom? If this is a garage, then they owe me a bedroom.”
For 18 months now, code enforcement officials have been after Camargo to turn the bedroom back into a garage. Insisting that her home is her castle, she has ignored more than a dozen warnings.
Her resistance crumbled last week when a local judge ordered her to comply or face possible jail time.
“It’s traumatic. It’s like tearing my house down,” she said. “I bought this place 30 years ago, and it was always a bedroom. And now they are trying to shove this down my throat.”
City building and safety director Tom Hartung said that an illegally converted garage poses health and safety risks but that going to court is a last resort.
“To say we should not enforce the ordinances based on the demographics of the owner of the property is unrealistic,” he said. “We can’t do that.”
Camargo says the room was a bedroom when she bought the house. She doesn’t want or need a garage, and doesn’t have the money to turn it into one. I’m not an architect or building inspector, but I have a hard time envisioning any “public safety” concerns grave enough to make all of this necessary.
I expect it would have to do with fire safety regulations. That’s my best guess.
I guess we were all in danger these last 30 years….
According to the article her violations include:
-light shining from her garage into the street
-trash cans in front of the house
-weeds poking through the concrete, and
-garage doors that wouldn’t open
Thankfully the public will be free from these safety hazards when they send her to jail.
I’m sure there are various regulations on the books preventing doing so. First off the original conversion probably didn’t get permits or inspections.
Of course it’s ridiculous. People should be able to do what they want with their private property. It’s none of the government’s business telling a homeowner how to use their property. Of course that’s never stopped them in the past.
It’s a safety hazard because the “safety director” says so.
Send her to jail. The government knows best.
What makes this necessary is that there are regulations on the books that must be enforced.
“A garage-bedroom is illegal because it’s a bad thing for someone to turn her own garage into a bedroom without a permit (never mind that it wasn’t her, and it’s been this way for 30 years). Oh, and did we mention that it is therefore bad because it’s illegal.”
No discretion possible.
Sound familiar?
A victory of bureaucracy over decency, common sense, and individual rights. Regulations have to apply to everyone, all the time, with no exceptions, except for congressmen, governors, presidents and their spouses. Tom Hartung, a professional bureaucrat, probably reads this article over and over in lieu of porn.
Why did her grandson need handcuffed? I did not understand that part in the least, of course I do not understand much in the ways of the mighty bureaucrats. He said they asked for ID, and when he asked why they cuffed him?
So it has come to showing papers even when awoken from your sleep? We need to sleep with our papers now?
Yesterday when I pulled some money from my wallet I saw Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and even old Abe Lincoln with a tear in their eye.
We are, of course, taking her word that she bought the house that way as she claims. The article did not offer evidence either way, and I get the sense the big mean inspectors don’t believe her. Just think about how often they are lied to, it’s understandable they are skeptical. Still, let’s assume she is correct:
There are good reasons for code enforcement, but often, it goes too far. Common sense is too often forgotten, and rules are followed without any discretion.
We are doing a remodel on our house right now. A big one. Many of the codes make sense. They protect people who know nothing about construction and safety from unscrupulous or incompetent builders, and good builders from their own inevitable mistakes. For example code requires glass within a certain distance and height of a bathtub/shower to be tempered. I guess since people slip and fall more often in a bathroom, it makes it a bit less likely you’ll go through the window. Overkill, maybe, but who would think of it unless it was part of a code?
In this case, it seems to me, the rational thing to do is to inspect the place and make sure it’s not going to suddenly fall down after 30 years, and then leave her alone.
OTOH, if they cut her the slack she should get, people who are really guilty of violating code want the same treatment, common sense is trumped by the rule that everyone has to be treated exactly the same…..
“Her resistance crumbled last week when a local judge ordered her to comply or face possible jail time.”
“The penalty is always death.” — Mike Gogulski
From what relatives in construction tell me, converted garage rooms can have some significant safety issues if not done properly, mainly fire as mentioned above. I am remarkably unsympathetic to her argument.
Some other relevant snippets from the LA Times article below:
“He began yelling orders at me and said he wanted to bring in inspectors,” Camargo said. “He wanted to come in, and I said, ‘No way am I going to let you in. Are you telling me this isn’t America anymore?’ ”
Jarrod Head, Camargo’s 29-year-old grandson, who lives with her, was sleeping in the disputed bedroom when they arrived.
“They pushed right in,” he said. “I said, ‘What’s this about?’ but they were busy taking pictures. When I asked why they were taking pictures, the police asked me for my ID. I asked why they needed my ID, and they put me in handcuffs.”
Camargo was indignant.
“I didn’t like to see my grandson handcuffed,” she said. “The inspector went into the bedroom and said, ‘I can tell this has been added on.’ They gave me two weeks to put it into compliance.”
Mark Moran, a member of the Riverside County Advisory Council on Aging, called the situation “elder abuse.” He filed a complaint with Adult Protective Services, which has opened a case.
“You would think Ageda Camargo was hiding Osama bin Laden in the house, given the way they have come after her,” he said.
I am remarkably SYMPATHETIC to her argument. And contrary to her son’s comment, I don’t find her behavior “dingy” at all. Hell I wish more people 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 her age had her spunk.
I’m a registered Civil Engineer and have designed buildings before and I’m torn on this issue. On one hand, you should be able to do anything to your property which is not a safety hazard to others. But what so commonly happens is that a few unscrupulous builders have taken liberties with clients, someone gets hurt, city gets sued, knee jerk reaction is to stop anything that remotely is close to this and throw any common sense out the window.
All due to our litagous society.
My guess is that it’s ingress/egress problems. Lots of garages don’t have windows, and I know in the local code, windows are required in any bedroom/sleeping area, and for good reason(escaping during a fire).
Pass it on as a reminder that all laws are enforced by threat of violence, including the seemingly innocuous laws nobody frets much over like building codes.
Disclosure: I slept in a walk-in closet through much of college.
My guess is that it’s ingress/egress problems. Lots of garages don’t have windows, and I know in the local code, windows are required in any bedroom/sleeping area, and for good reason(escaping during a fire).
The requirement is that every bedroom room have two independent modes of egress. If the “bedroom” has an operable door to the outside and a door to the house, it should satisfy that requirement. If the door to the outside is inoperable, then some other mode of egress would be required.
We are, of course, taking her word that she bought the house that way as she claims.
I believe recorded property descriptions usually indicate things like the number of bedrooms. If the description of the property on file from when she bought it describes the property as having a number of bedrooms that would only make sense if the garage is counted as a bedroom, that would strongly suggest that the garage was a bedroom when she bought the place.
My guess would be that the bureaucrats think every house should have an enclosed space for vehicles. Whether someone should be required to have such a space if they don’t have a vehicle, well…
“Public safety” issue, I don’t think so, this is a private dwelling.
Reminds me of Fearless Fosdick in the L’il Abner comics, he would shoot jaywalkers to keep them from being in danger.
Land of the free?
Not by a long shot!
Pikes. Heads. Heads on pikes. Real Heads. Real Pikes.
I mean, I know the economy is tanking right now, but SOME companies have to be poised to weather the storm, right? So, does anyone know what company makes pikes anymore? That’s gonna be a hot stock soon, I tells ya.
The real problem is, buildings last longer than people do. This old lady has owned the property for 30 years. Prior to that, someone did illegal modifications. Perhaps she did not do a good job of due dilligence when she bought the property, but by buying this place, she assumed any liabilities arising from the place. When she sells the place, the new owner likewise assumes any perils. From the point of view of the city, the property is their only concern, and avoiding criticism and lawsuits are their motivators. If they do not administer the law fully and equally, they are assuming some responsibility for the consequences of the illegal modifications. Bureaucrats ALWAYS avoid taking blame, so they overdo the rules and enforce them strictly, so they always have plausible deniability. IF they do not do so, they are open to both criticism and lawsuits, and will lose in the court of public opinion even if they win in the law courts. What alternatives to enforcement of overly comprehensive laws by overzealous bureaucrats would you suggest?
La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. She bought the house in 1978. Make of that what you will.
“What alternatives to enforcement of overly comprehensive laws by overzealous bureaucrats would you suggest?”
Anar … oh, nevermind.
Cynical, since every one of your comments is about anarchy, I was hoping you could answer this or point me to someone who can. I haven’t read much political philosophy in a decade, but I would be very interested in a coherent explanation of how an anarchist area wouldn’t eventually create a government. Basically, I can see the merits very easily but I’m at a loss on how such a set-up would be sustainable.
Also, I assume you’re not coming from wherever Chomsky is. If so, nevermind.
I was nearly electrocuted in my house when doing a little (permitted) remodel because the previous owner had done some electrical work that wasn’t up to code and then buried it the wall.
Houses are built to different earthquake codes than garages, as we have seen recently in China buildings not up to code are a significant danger to people. The average person doesn’t have the knowledge or expertise to judge whether a particular building is safe. Thankfully due to building codes we don’t need to.
Yeah, but there is no call to retroactively enforce a whole bunch of codes on houses that do not change hands. Like the person above said: House bought in 78, town incorporated in 82. I can see that if she was doing remodeling, trying to get a new permit, they could require bringing the old work up to code. But I see no call for them to come in, with no action on the woman’s part, and start demanding changes based on newer codes.
Even if she tries to sell it, the buyer should get a home inspection (only idiots buy houses without them), and these things will be pointed out. But to burst in and jail and go to these lengths is just thuggish behavior.
Back in the ’70s, I drove a friend home to the house his family rented. No one was there (not unusual) but a county building inspector had stopped by and “red tagged” the place. Apparently the house had been built without benefit of permit and subsequently sold to their landlord.
My friend’s father worked for the county and took considerable ribbing from his co-workers over the matter… that is, until the landlord threatened to sue the county for approving his purchase of three nonpermitted houses, none of which were up to code.
The county backed down immediately and granted retroactive permits and variances on all three dwellings.
I’m not sure what the situation is for Camargo, but if the county took it on themselves to approve the sale of a house with a bedroom instead of a garage, I’d think that’s exactly what she bought. If she’s being hit with a loss, I hope she has the means to recover. (I would also wonder how a jury in a civil case would view the county’s imposing that loss on her some 30 years after they cleared the sale.)
Maybe the law is different there, but it seems that due diligence should work both ways.
No one, as far as I can tell, is arguing that building codes and inspections don’t serve a purpose. No one is arguing that garages should necessarily be converted into living space.
The point is this: private property. This means if people want to make a dad decision they should be allowed to do so. For example back when I used to live at home with my parents I lived in the basement, in a windowless room, an obvious fire trap. Yet, I understood this risk and so did my parents. The government has no business telling me, or anyone, that it’s not allowed. It’s the exact same thing with this case. If this woman wants to have a room which is less safe than standards dictate, then that’s her prerogative, not yours.
What the main complaint, from the cities throughtout California,that you seem to be missing is not about fire hazards. It’s about number of occupants. Typically, here in LA these additions are created to add an income generating studio apartment. The city opposes this because you end up having more cars, traffic, noise etc. as a result of this. I personally feel you should be able to do what you want with your house as long as it’s safe.
My next door neighbor faced this same situation. He ended up being forced to tear the “apartment” out and made it a garage. Which then forced him to do an addition to his house to add the suddenly missing bedroom for his oldest son. It took him about 3.5 years to complete this project on his own dime and labor. It was bullshit. In hindsight he now has a more valuable property, but lost those years in frustration, anger and sweat.
While I do agree she should be able to have a bedroom if she wants, the real question is did she vote for the people who passed this stupid law? If she did, she’s only getting what she deserves. If not, she has my full sympathy.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Alex. Since there were no building codes that La Quinta could enforce when the property was purchased, any codes thereafter don’t apply and she should be grandfathered (or grandmothered) in. This, of course, if the bedroom was already a bedroom when she purchased it.
However, I, too, am torn on this issue. I can see both sides and it’s hard to argue against a little old lady. But the city has a point because if some carpet salesman or house painter goes into that “bedroom” and something happens to them due to the room being out of code, the city will likely face a lawsuit for not enforcing the code (if it’s not to be grandfathered in, of couse).
[...] public health while also restricting the availability of affordable housing. Not good. That’s via Radley Balko. Comments 0 [...]
Robert S. Porter wins the thread.
I’ll give it a go, Alex, please allow me a mini-fisk.
“since every one of your comments is about anarchy”
Not to nitpick, but that’s not true. However, point taken. :)
“I was hoping you could answer this or point me to someone who can.”
Please read Murray Rothbard, Robert LeFevre, John Hasnas, Sheldon Richman, Roy A. Childs, Ronn Neff, and Charles Johnson (RadGeek) from the modern era, and Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Herbert Spencer and Emma Goldmann and others from the classic era.
“I haven’t read much political philosophy in a decade, but I would be very interested in a coherent explanation of how an anarchist area wouldn’t eventually create a government.”
In statism, the State and government are unified, so the nature of government as oppressor takes root. Anarchism differentiates between State and government. Under individual sovereignty, the government as it might exist would be administered by each individual (actively defending his/her rights) and would not be oppressive. In fact, any spontaneous order could be termed a government. Government can be neutral as long as power is devolved to the smallest possible unit — it is the State (centralization) that introduces force to government.
I believe these are the ideas that Jefferson was after, equality before the law, government existing to secure natural rights, right of revolution, perpetual “jealousy” of government, separation of powers, etc. Turned out that he was only interested in serving his class, too bad.
“Basically, I can see the merits very easily but I’m at a loss on how such a set-up would be sustainable.”
Rothbard is your man here. Essentially, it’s central planning (statism) that is unsustainable, as past, recent and future events will demonstrate. In a very small population, individual sovereignty might thrive. Contracts and non-violent methods of moral suasion like shunning and ostracism might be enough to perpetuate anarchy. Grow the population, and it gets more unsustainable over time — entropy applies to society as well as physics. Once a population exceeds a certain threshold, the State becomes inevitable in my opinion, as it appears that large populations can only be administered by force.
“Also, I assume you’re not coming from wherever Chomsky is. If so, nevermind.”
I respect Chomsky’s views on the nature of power and his work in language, but he is a socialist, so we part company there.
I understand the difficulty of anarchism, but it is the only rational alternative to statism. Every complaint on this site is derived from state control over individuals. Restoring control to individuals is the only real solution, as risky as that might be. Everything else is just navel gazing.
Thanks, Cynical.
“Not to nitpick, but that’s not true. However, point taken.”
Touche.
I have For a New Liberty somewhere. I’ll try to find and re-read it (it’s been awhile). I assume that’s my best bet with Rothbard; if it’s not, please let me know.
Finally, a problem that W didn’t cause!!!!…..hold it. Where was he 30 years ago?
hmmmmm…..maybe he did cause it.
Cynical in CA and Alex:
Your exchange was excessively polite, respectful and designed to explain, examine and evaluate the point at issue.
Turn over your internetz licenses and leave the building at once.
Cynical has left the building!
Peace out.
If she really bought the house before the building code in question existed, and the conversion was done before she bought the house, wouldn’t it be an ex post facto law as applied to her home?
“If she really bought the house before the building code in question existed, and the conversion was done before she bought the house, wouldn’t it be an ex post facto law as applied to her home?”
Yes. I see two possibilities here: 1)The city is sure she is lying. The picture indicates the room has at least been remodeled. 2) There was an existing California or Riverside County code at the time she bought the house. 3) The inspectors are just being assholes. I’d probably assume this one if the case hadn’t already been reviewed by a judge.
If the LA Times, like every other MSM, wasn’t completely devoid of competent reporters, we’d know the answer.
Make that three possibilites.
With the sink and appliances in the back, that doesn’t look like a “bedroom” to me. It looks like an illegal “in-law” or studio apartment.
And while jumping up and down and waving the my-home-is-my-castle flag is easy to do, there is also a reason why (some) zoning laws exist.