Dick Zscheile and County Officials Defeated by an Oracle
October 25, 2008 - A three year battle over a legal fence has ended between the neighbors with unlimited patience, perseverance and wisdom of an Oracle. Seventeen false complaints were filed with the County of Santa Cruz. The County illegally violated State statutes, its own ordinances and the U.S. and California Constitutions.
Alice Daly, an uncertified plan examiner, Ken Hart, the uncertified Code Compliance manager, along with Kevin Fitzpatrick and Laura Madrigal, uncertified code compliance inspectors, mishandled this property. They were under the direction of Tom Burns, uncertified Planning Director, Mark Deming, uncertified Assistant Planning Director, and Paia Levine, uncertified planning examiner manager. The 1995 Assembly Bill 717 that became State Health and Safety Code 18949.28 et seq, the International Code Council and the Civil Service Commission require certification and continuing education. The county also violated California Building Code 108.8 by not providing an independent appeals board for the hedge property owners to find relief from county abuses.
Read this amazing story.
June 24, 2009 - Update:
A Federal lawsuit is going through the courts to overturn the corrupt arbitrary and capricous customary practices of the county supervisors, county counsel, CAO and planning department. Ellen Pirie, Supervisor for this district, denied State, Federal and Constitutional rights due the property owners, in violation of her mandatory duties and oath of office.
IS THIS A MEETING OR A CIRCUS? De La Pena story.
By Ely Reynolds
October 1, 2008 – Those were the very words that Ken Hart, uncertified manager of Code Compliance of the Santa Cruz Planning Department, uttered as he and Jacob Rodriquez, an uncertified Inspector, walked down the driveway of Mr. Juan De La Pena’s private rural residence located in Corralitos. Hart was referring to the crowd Read story.
County Illegally Denies La Selva Parcel Subdivision
Metro Santa Cruz April 24, 2008 - An attempt to revive a previously denied subdivision was rejected 4-1 by the Supervisors. Chair Supervisor, Ellen Pirie erroneously stated, "We can't just suddenly reverse it after 30 years." We wonder why Pirie even has a law degree when she continually violates the laws of the country. Property owners have the right to return parcels to previous division. We will post the lawsuit on this matter under court cases shortly. Read more.
County Tries to Go After Santa Cruz Mountains Property
Subject:
Santa Cruz
County Planning Department
From: "ElaineKennedy"
Date: Tue, August 05, 2008
HI
I have two stories for you. One on the permits and one on road conditions.
In 1998 or 1999 I applied for a permit to add on to my home in the
Santa Cruz
Mountains. When the architect presented our application, he was told there was no record of my home ever being built with permits; and I would have to have the entire place inspected and brought up to code before they would consider the permit application.
Read more.
Collette Marie McLaughlin:
It's time to end county planning abuses
Ignorance is bliss, especially for those profiting from others' gullibility. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors' apparent ignorance of unconscionable planning practices generates, and then protects, high-paid planning positions. County lawyers also profit from enabling planning abuses. These well-compensated attorneys freely misrepresent facts because courts tend to focus more on procedures than justice. When supervisors our representatives fail to prudently supervise county employees, residents of Santa Cruz County are the ones who lose. The public deserves better and is working to demand supervisors end Santa Cruz County government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats.
Supervisors are well-aware, but have chosen to ignore, ongoing planning improprieties. Their inaction as a board encourages self-serving employees to run amok. A 2003 Santa Cruz grand jury report exposed obstructions to the Planning Department's orderly operation. The jury's conclusions attributed an array of problems to either planning staff lacking the ability to perform their duties or being influenced to favor certain individuals. Read more.
