HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-2014 pc schmidtKremke, Kate
From:
Mejia, Anthony
Sent:
Monday, June 02, 2014 11:07 AM
To:
Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: Grass and Blight: Agenda Public Comment Correspondence
Attachments: council grass and blight.doc
Agenda Correspondence for 06/10/14 — Public Comment. FR-ECEIVED
UN U 2 2014
CITY CLERK
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
c.111V of sail iota coal po
o Palm Street AGENDA
San I t.tis Obispo, CIS, 9.3401 CORRESPONDENCE
toy I 8o5.781.7'102. Date - 10, 1 + Item# LC,
From: Richard Schmidt [mailto:slobuild @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 10:51 AM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Jan Marx; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Grass and Blight: Agenda Public Comment Correspondence
Please see attached letter regarding the liberation of grass, and the city's double standard on "blight"
RS
Dear Council Members,
I wish to commend the city on liberating the feral grasses at Laguna Park. Driving by, I
was struck by the beauty of that tall grass waving in the wind (and noted as well what
splendid habitat it provides), and thought — "The city finally gets it!" I was sufficiently
moved to stop, take photos, and to measure the grass — a stunning 5 -feet tall just off
Madonna near the park entrance. I do hope this is an indication of a more "natural"
approach to landscaping in the city that will become a permanent ethic. (Of course,
cannot be too optimistic that the city "gets it" when it allows the Madonnas to totally
remove the awesome songbird willow habitat that proliferated in the creek along LOVR
in front of their shopping center! Why in the world did you allow that ?)
The only problem with your beautiful grass is it violates Municipal Code Section
17.17.075 F, which prohibits "lawns" more than 12 inches tall. That in itself wouldn't be
a problem — the city has many laws it flat -out refuses to enforce, like, for example, the
one that prohibits second units in non - owner - occupied houses. (One such in my
neighborhood has actively been "in enforcement" now for 6 years, and still remains
unenforced. There are a dozen unlawful second units within a block of my place, the city
knows about them, and does nothing (all the impact fees you're missing out on!) — a big
example of unenforced law. And inspectors suddenly become blind when called about a
converted garage that's being rented.) But you do "enforce" 17.17.075 F, at least when
it comes to the "neighborhood wellness" organized campaign of official harassment
against law- abiding homeowners. Last November, for example, I was cited under the
ordinance. Puzzled, since I have no lawn, I was told that the offending plant matter was
a bird of paradise, which clearly doesn't fall under the ordinance's purview. No matter —
I was harangued and harassed for two months, ruining my holiday season while you
enjoyed yours and the enforcer claimed she took more vacations than I ever imagined
city employees were entitled to. So, in light of this, your grass looks like a pretty crass
hypocritical act by the city. I'd suggest you dial back, or even eliminate, "neighborhood
wellness," and let the grass be grass.
Regarding my enforcement experience under 17.17.075 F, I was told my bird of
paradise's offense was that it made my driveway look like I don't use it. (I searched and
searched the Municipal Code, and could find no mention that driveways must look like
they're used. Am I not free to choose my own landscaping ?) I was further told that my
property was blighted, and that I was harming property values of surrounding properties.
I held my tongue, but couldn't help thinking about the house across the street that had
just sold for an astounding amount, nearly $800,000, and wondered what it might have
sold for but for my blight's dragging down its value. The city person was officious, and
had an attitude; she treated me as if she'd just fingered the most heinous global criminal
around (Russian mafia perhaps ?). The original notice, courageously taped to the door
even though someone was home, was unintelligible. It ordered me to correct things, but
listed nothing to correct, only code references allegedly being violated. And those code
sections made no sense, since neither applied to anything in my front yard. In addition
to the overgrown grass which I didn't have, it cited a section prohibiting visible "Furniture
or other equipment, including but not limited to stuffed couches and chairs, household
appliances, sinks, heaters, boilers, tanks, machinery, other household or commercial
equipment, or any parts thereof." Since I had none of the above (though uncited and
thus apparently non - blighting neighbors do have such things visible in front yards), I
was puzzled. It turned out she was annoyed that I had a wheelbarrow off to the side of
my driveway — as many of my neighbors also have visible wheelbarrows, this was
surely excessive, but easy to move and not worth arguing about, so I moved it — and
hacked off the bird of paradise. After discussing everything, I thought all was settled.
Some time later, after a vacation, she memorialized our meeting with a letter in which
new demands and new allegations never raised before were listed. These were clearly
so excessive they should never have been made — and certainly should never have
been made with no explanation. I sat there for weeks, waiting for Derek Johnson to
come out to hear my appeal and look for himself. Then, again after I thought everything
was settled, a month after my meeting with Derek and she'd returned from another
vacation, she gets around to sending me a "clearance" letter which — and this I find
totally incredible — listed another cause of enforcement that had never been cited
before, so the city's records now show that there was enforcement on that matter as
well as the other two bogus issues. (This record - padding matters. When this
enforcement began, the city waved in my face a 1998 "enforcement" to prove I'm an
established scofflaw which, I'm not kidding, consisted of a rat -faced little police
department "volunteer" coming out and screaming at me and raising hell that I had
some old carpet neatly rolled up next to my garbage can waiting for garbage day of
cleanup week, which was THAT week! This is how scofflaw criminal records are built
under this ridiculous and abusive "enforcement by complaint" regime you've created.) If
this behavior by "neighborhood wellness" isn't systematic deliberate resident
harassment, I don't know what it is. It's certainly got nothing to do with making
neighborhoods well, and is just one more reason why responsible people are exiting this
city and turning the place over the landlords and speculators. You are actively tipping
the balance to turn this once - wonderful place to live into a dump like Anahiem, or San
Bernardino.
Now, regarding the fact that according to the city I am a bonafide blighter of my
neighborhood, here are the unenforced facts.
• Neighbors' yards contain vegetation far more "overgrown" than my bird of paradise
(but remember, the ordinance doesn't apply to their stuff any more than to my bird of
paradise); they also contain visible wheelbarrows, piles of tires, fuel tanks, boats,
trailers, cars on blocks, driveways that don't look like they're used, you name it — and
have no problem with that other than that your selective enforcement is abusive, and
feel abused to be accused for neighborhood norms.
• There are, as stated before, a dozen illegal second units within a block radius, which
do object to, as they turn the neighborhood into an overcrowded slum.' This is actual
blight.
1 If you know your urban history, you will remember that the slums of American cities
came about by plan, by the allegation density was necessary for housing workers
( "workforce housing "). This tenement housing was regarded as "progressive." You are
2
• There are in the same radius probably close to that many occupied converted
garages, many of which are visible from the street and quite obvious. When some of
these have been reported for enforcement, nothing happens; city inspectors suddenly
lose their visual capacity. Again, this is blight, a bird of paradise is not.
Using "blight" as a pretext for the city's neighbor harassment program is specious, for
there is little actual blight in the city's neighborhoods, and birds of paradise and
wheelbarrows simply don't contribute to what blight there is.
But there is actual blight in our neighborhood. City- sponsored blight.
The landmark corner of Chorro and Foothill has been turned into a permanent
contractor's yard, for more than a year now. There is building - material storage, pipe
storage, dirt storage, gravel storage, heavy equipment storage — all plainly visible — for
more than a year, now. Contractor yards are only permitted in the industrial and service
commercial zones, which Foothill - Chorro is not. And even there, they must be screened
from view! If the city actually cares about blight, why does it permit this blight to exist
right in the middle of our neighborhood? I think it's because you just don't care.
The College Square shopping center is another case in point. Half of it, plainly visible to
all passers by on Foothill, has been boarded up for more than a year — some if it for
much longer than a year — after the owner chased out the tenants, thus making the
city's last locally -owned full service and compounding pharmacy collateral damage. This
is genuine blight that doesn't need to exist. And about which the city does absolutely
nothing because you're playing footsie with the owner over some ridiculous General
Plan amendments that will further blight our neighborhood. Again, you really just don't
care.
Further afield is the disgraceful mess at Taft and Kentucky, a service station that's been
abandoned and derelict for more than a decade and is both ugly, blighted, and,
according to the newspaper, a hangout for drug activity that makes the surrounding
neighborhood unsafe. This is the first thing southbound visitors to the city see when
they leave the freeway to go to Cal Poly or Hearst Castle, and it looks like some derelict
slum in LA! You should be ashamed to have allowed this mess to stay there. Any other
city would have declared it a public nuisance, ordered its removal (a weedy lot would be
far preferable), given the owner 90 days to remove it, and if he didn't, gotten a court
order to remove it, and sent the owner the bill. Damn, that's the officious way your
neighborhood wellness people behave! Why the double standard when it's "business"
property? Why the continual genuflection to developers? I guess it's because you care
more about developers than you care about residents. Again, you really just don't seem
to care.
headed down this same stupidly mistaken 19th century path with your planning kool aid
about density uber alles.
3
Which, of course, brings us to the longest running and most disgusting blight in
downtown, the boarded up Copeland block of Monterey and half block of Chorro, right in
the heart of downtown, across from our prime tourist attraction, the Mission, blight which
exists purely because you've decided to give the Copelands a pass because they're
your developer cronies. So, you are official sponsors of blight, the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo. I hope that is something you'll brag about in the upcoming
election campaign — "I like blight!"
I started by speaking to the grass, and am serious that I think it's an improvement.
But that took us into the incredible double standard by which this city operates — one
standard for homeowners, a totally different standard for business and developers — a
double standard your staff and big city planning consultant are about to bamboozle you
into consolidating into the city's General Plan.
I'm going to conclude by asking you to shut down the "neighborhood wellness" program
because it is based on a massive level of civic indecency and hypocrisy, and to redirect
those resources towards handling actual problems in the city.
I expect you will brag about your "neighborhood wellness" program in the upcoming
Measure Y re -up, and in your re- election campaigns, but if you do, you will be slapped
back for doing that. I, for one, will not shut up about what the city really does with its
precious resources, directing them AGAINST residents' well -being rather than doing
anything constructive. Sponsoring and coddling, rather than chasing, blight.
So, please, shut down that program now, before it becomes a campaign issue. Long
may the tall grasses grow!
Richard Schmidt
4