4 ms·

That was not mentioned as anything that was part of the $573,000 fine. Not sure why you are mentioning it as a justification. Do you feel people will be ok with

That was not mentioned as anything that was part of the $573,000 fine. Not sure why you are mentioning it as a justification. Do you feel people will be ok with fining someone $573,000 for having rats in their yard vs. having vehicles?

crooked-v 4y ago
It's in the city's response to this article: https://sacramentocityexpress.com/2022/04/19/city-corrects-misleading-article-on-code-enforcement-from-the-sacramento-bee/ https://sacramentocityexpress.com/2022/04/19/city-corrects-m... Reading between the lines here, the most likely course of events is pretty obvious: he let non-operational vehicles sit in his backyard indefinitely while 'working' on them (i.e. thinking about working on them and putting it off until next week every time), those turned into rats' nests (fed, at least in part, by the uncollected fruit from the trees on the same property), and the neighbors started complaining about rats everywhere that they couldn't do anything about because most of them were living on the guy's unmaintained property.
- Clubber 4y ago
  Now which part of that do you think justifies a $573,000 fine?
  - salgernon 4y ago
    The part where when he was cited 8 years ago and told that the fine was $250/day for non compliance. It’s about 90k per year.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      You didn't justify it, you enumerated it. Explain why you believe fining someone $573,000 for having cars in their back yard working on them is reasonable and justifiable.
      - salgernon 4y ago
        Because there was presumably no or minimal fine for violating this civil ordinance, should he have complied with mitigating the violation. There are then penalties for continuing the violation. So should the state have just given up? At what point? If there were a maximum, what would it be?
        Clubber 4y ago
        Personally, maybe $5000, but that might be too much. The guy is 83 years old, probably living on a fixed income (social security) making side money on fixing cars, or just has cars in his back yard. The amount fined is way higher than appropriate for such a "crime." You shouldn't beat people into compliance for minor transgressions, wether that be as a police officer with a baton/taser/fist/knee, or a clerk issuing fines. When we live under a government with no empathy, as shown by this example, we're doomed.
        salgernon 4y ago
        I don’t know why I keep coming back to this - maybe because he reminds me of people in my life that have had similar problems. He was 75 when he was first cited, not 83. He was given a chance to mitigate the code violation and he refused, which incurred a 250 per day penalty which he refused to pay. He dragged it out for 7 years by being his own lawyer and and presumably has also not rectified the code violation. As an aside, if he had actually fixed these cars they would not be in his back yard. He’s a hoarder. I’d be willing to bet that he could settle this for less than the full amount. There’s just something about this mindset of (a) he’s too old to be held accountable (b) free will/it’s his property to do what he wants with it (c) he’s just a hacker and we should be encouraging people to ignore civil law when it’s inconvenient. It’s also likely that his dragging this through the court system for so many years has probably cost more than he owes - and when he dies or abandons the property the state will likely have to pay to clean up after him. Sorry, bad mood rant today. All that being said, I have no skin in this game, it just touched a raw nerve.
        4y ago

crooked-v 4y ago

It's in the city's response to this article: https://sacramentocityexpress.com/2022/04/19/city-corrects-misleading-article-on-code-enforcement-from-the-sacramento-bee/ https://sacramentocityexpress.com/2022/04/19/city-corrects-m... Reading between the lines here, the most likely course of events is pretty obvious: he let non-operational vehicles sit in his backyard indefinitely while 'working' on them (i.e. thinking about working on them and putting it off until next week every time), those turned into rats' nests (fed, at least in part, by the uncollected fruit from the trees on the same property), and the neighbors started complaining about rats everywhere that they couldn't do anything about because most of them were living on the guy's unmaintained property.

Clubber 4y ago
Now which part of that do you think justifies a $573,000 fine?
- salgernon 4y ago
  The part where when he was cited 8 years ago and told that the fine was $250/day for non compliance. It’s about 90k per year.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    You didn't justify it, you enumerated it. Explain why you believe fining someone $573,000 for having cars in their back yard working on them is reasonable and justifiable.
    - salgernon 4y ago
      Because there was presumably no or minimal fine for violating this civil ordinance, should he have complied with mitigating the violation. There are then penalties for continuing the violation. So should the state have just given up? At what point? If there were a maximum, what would it be?
      - Clubber 4y ago
        Personally, maybe $5000, but that might be too much. The guy is 83 years old, probably living on a fixed income (social security) making side money on fixing cars, or just has cars in his back yard. The amount fined is way higher than appropriate for such a "crime." You shouldn't beat people into compliance for minor transgressions, wether that be as a police officer with a baton/taser/fist/knee, or a clerk issuing fines. When we live under a government with no empathy, as shown by this example, we're doomed.
        salgernon 4y ago
        I don’t know why I keep coming back to this - maybe because he reminds me of people in my life that have had similar problems. He was 75 when he was first cited, not 83. He was given a chance to mitigate the code violation and he refused, which incurred a 250 per day penalty which he refused to pay. He dragged it out for 7 years by being his own lawyer and and presumably has also not rectified the code violation. As an aside, if he had actually fixed these cars they would not be in his back yard. He’s a hoarder. I’d be willing to bet that he could settle this for less than the full amount. There’s just something about this mindset of (a) he’s too old to be held accountable (b) free will/it’s his property to do what he wants with it (c) he’s just a hacker and we should be encouraging people to ignore civil law when it’s inconvenient. It’s also likely that his dragging this through the court system for so many years has probably cost more than he owes - and when he dies or abandons the property the state will likely have to pay to clean up after him. Sorry, bad mood rant today. All that being said, I have no skin in this game, it just touched a raw nerve.
        4y ago