Rodan said:nimble may be deserving of the citation in this case... doesn't change the issues surrounding city/county ordinances that essentially criminalize working on your cars. Which is still a topic worthy of discussion.
Poorly written laws don’t criminalize anything. They just clog the court system until they get fixed.
That law is unenforceable.
I tried to watch the video, but you need a little more up bubble on the camera so we can see more stuff less dirt. But, yeah, while I agree that the zoning is overly restrictive, from what I could see (and from your description) I can understand why code enforcement has taken a shine to your place. Even if they're behind a fence and not visible, it doesn't seem like the ordinance allows for any vehicles to be inop for more than 24 hours. Next question is what the legal definition of "vehicle" is. Does that include trailers for the purposes of the ordinance? If so, I would say that the work you described absolutely fits their definition of major repairs. I also think that a lot of the things that I see in the video would count as "junk" per the ordinance (http://www.code-enforcement.saccounty.net/Programs/Pages/JunkRubbish.aspx) and they specifically state that just being behind a fence isn't good enough, it must be in a fully-enclosed structure.
So, basically, I think you're pretty much way out of compliance any way you cut it.
On the original point, however, about the whole "major repairs" and tools questions, I think that's overreaching. I'm all for not allowing people to operate a for-profit auto shop in the neighborhood, but if I want to cram a Celica drivetrain into a Mini inside my own garage over the span of 7 years, then that should be my own business - especially if it's all the way inside my home/garage.
wae said:On the original point, however, about the whole "major repairs" and tools questions, I think that's overreaching. I'm all for not allowing people to operate a for-profit auto shop in the neighborhood, but if I want to cram a Celica drivetrain into a Mini inside my own garage over the span of 7 years, then that should be my own business - especially if it's all the way inside my home/garage.
I suspect that even though the law is poorly written and leaves the door wide open to stuff like that, nobody is having code enforcement called on them because they did a motor swap in their own garage.
I watched the video.
So, you put up a fence, then did an extensive video documenting everything and showing it to the entire world?
Trailer that has not been registered in 50 years, unregistered cars, projects that will never be completed, cars that need engines. You describe your intent to install a trolley hoist in the barn, and use inadequate used building materials to build a structure. Not to mention the nearby pond which is likely used to irrigate food and crops being contaminated by your “projects”.
Sorry man. You are the textbook reason of why laws like that get written in the first place.
FWIW, I love your stuff. But I can’t offer any pity.
ProDarwin said:wae said:On the original point, however, about the whole "major repairs" and tools questions, I think that's overreaching. I'm all for not allowing people to operate a for-profit auto shop in the neighborhood, but if I want to cram a Celica drivetrain into a Mini inside my own garage over the span of 7 years, then that should be my own business - especially if it's all the way inside my home/garage.
I suspect that even though the law is poorly written and leaves the door wide open to stuff like that, nobody is having code enforcement called on them because they did a motor swap in their own garage.
I don't think so either, but my belief is that if a law (or regulation, or ordinance, or code...) is on the books, it should be fairly applied in every circumstance. Anytime there's a law that *could* apply, but people start saying that it wouldn't be enforced in such-and-such instance. I believe the law should be re-written so that it doesn't apply to that circumstance. With this one you might find some day that the powers that be decide that they do want to crack down on things like that and now they can. Yeah, there are edge cases and prosecutorial discretion and all that, but generally speaking, my inclination is to give those with authority very narrow and specific swim lanes.
SVreX said:.Poorly written laws don’t criminalize anything. They just clog the court system until they get fixed.
That law is unenforceable.
I am going to disagree a bit with you on that one. Poorly written laws like this allow for malicious and selective prosecution. That is not necessarily a huge issue if you have the time and money to defend yourself, but if you don't, you just have to take it (in which case it becomes enforceable by default).
E.g. if you made a law that said the lug nuts on all cars need to be torqued to manufacturer spec, you could get 99.99% of not brand new cars. Now, as a trooper, you know you can get anyone, so when you see someone in a Mustang (you know, one of THOSE people 
), you pull them over and give them a many hundred dollar ticket.
STM317 said:In reply to Rodan :
The motivation for municipalities seems to be 3 fold:
1: Eliminate unlicensed or unzoned businesses
2: Protect property values
3: Avoid environmental impacts associated with automotive fluids, chemicals, and old car parts laying around
None of those sound bad to me, but I'm sure the application of those policies could be seen as "reasonable" to some and "extreme and punitive" by others depending on the area and the individuals affected. The code enforcement people say "you can't have a paint booth on your property", and the car guy says "they're telling me it's illegal to work on my car". You have to draw the line somewhere, and it's going to be different for different people and different locations as it should be. You'll never make everybody happy, so all you can do is try to chose the path that is considered acceptable by the largest number of people in the local area.
None of those goals are inherently bad, in fact they're arguably good. It's the approach that's the problem. No work involving tools "not normally found in a residence", etc... That's wide open to interpretation and abuse.
I know a guy who has a commercial paint booth in his shop here. If he's doing it right, should he be prohibited from doing it just because he's on residential property?
SVreX said: Poorly written laws don’t criminalize anything. They just clog the court system until they get fixed.That law is unenforceable.
Sure they do... code violations in my jurisdiction are misdemeanors, and I'm sure they are in many other places as well. Push any civil violation far enough and it will become criminal.
Unenforceable is a relative term... how many here have the deep pockets to put an attorney on retainer and take the fight to city hall?
Edit: looks like Aircooled beat me to it...
One of the ironies of our government is that in some cases thousands, or even millions of people are negatively effected by something and our government stands idle or responds poorly. Case in point - car break-ins in San Francisco are epidemic. The thieves are being arrested, but the courts rarely throw the book at them so they repeat.
The other side of the equation is in situations where one complainant can make another person or group's life quite difficult. Frequently one finds building or improvement projects derailed indefinitely in a bureaucracy, and if one does the research, all the opposition can be traced back to a single person.
Part of the appeal of rural or semi-rural living is that one can litter one's yard with projects. If there's enough resistance to that, procedures need to exist to allow pressure to be applied to make a person clean up their act. But a single malcontent should not be able to run the show. If nobody cares about the yard clutter but one guy, tough. That guy should find a place that more accurately reflects his values. If the neighborhood is collectively sick of the "restorer" with the junkyard, it's a different matter.
Rodan said:STM317 said:In reply to Rodan :
The motivation for municipalities seems to be 3 fold:
1: Eliminate unlicensed or unzoned businesses
2: Protect property values
3: Avoid environmental impacts associated with automotive fluids, chemicals, and old car parts laying around
None of those sound bad to me, but I'm sure the application of those policies could be seen as "reasonable" to some and "extreme and punitive" by others depending on the area and the individuals affected. The code enforcement people say "you can't have a paint booth on your property", and the car guy says "they're telling me it's illegal to work on my car". You have to draw the line somewhere, and it's going to be different for different people and different locations as it should be. You'll never make everybody happy, so all you can do is try to chose the path that is considered acceptable by the largest number of people in the local area.
None of those goals are inherently bad, in fact they're arguably good. It's the approach that's the problem. No work involving tools "not normally found in a residence", etc... That's wide open to interpretation and abuse.
I know a guy who has a commercial paint booth in his shop here. If he's doing it right, should he be prohibited from doing it just because he's on residential property?
Right. The example you gave from this legislation is vague, which may have been done by mistake or may have been done because they wanted to pass something but couldn't agree on anything more specific. It's ripe for situational abuse which I'd say is a bad thing for rules and regulations.
As for the guy with the paint booth, what does "doing it right" mean? Can he be "doing it right" if those are not allowed in a residential area? Even if he's complying with all environmental and safety standards, those may have been written differently for a commercial area than a residential one. Is it inspected as frequently as a commercial booth would be, and by the same people? What if it were a small, private dry cleaning facility instead of a paint booth? Personally, I don't care what happens behind closed doors as long as the regulations for safety and environmental concerns are abided by and noise levels are kept to respectable levels at reasonable hours. But you can see that it's a pretty slippery hypothetical slope, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Different communities may draw that line in different places.
wae said:ProDarwin said:wae said:On the original point, however, about the whole "major repairs" and tools questions, I think that's overreaching. I'm all for not allowing people to operate a for-profit auto shop in the neighborhood, but if I want to cram a Celica drivetrain into a Mini inside my own garage over the span of 7 years, then that should be my own business - especially if it's all the way inside my home/garage.
I suspect that even though the law is poorly written and leaves the door wide open to stuff like that, nobody is having code enforcement called on them because they did a motor swap in their own garage.
I don't think so either, but my belief is that if a law (or regulation, or ordinance, or code...) is on the books, it should be fairly applied in every circumstance. Anytime there's a law that *could* apply, but people start saying that it wouldn't be enforced in such-and-such instance. I believe the law should be re-written so that it doesn't apply to that circumstance. With this one you might find some day that the powers that be decide that they do want to crack down on things like that and now they can. Yeah, there are edge cases and prosecutorial discretion and all that, but generally speaking, my inclination is to give those with authority very narrow and specific swim lanes.
100% agree
A construction project is always going to be messy and noisy until the construction is finished.
Now that it is mostly finished (although the barn extension was nixed by the Building Dept)
I still can't do any work on my cars without violating the law, and therefore subject to the whims of the Grumpies.
My wife was at a retirement party not too far away, and the guy had a barn and a lift and cars, and I told her,
he better not have any neighbors who don't like him, his retirement plan to fix up his cars can be ended.
I attend city council meetings! Got in a few shouting matches too. I have discovered that often, tight assed busybodies get a voice and pester council members into rash action. They may pass an ordinance that is unclear and can be interpreted in horrible ways. We had a new citizen with a targeted attack against a specific house and help word a proposed ordinance. I discovered it while paying my water bill on a piece of paper on a bulletin board as "Discuss and vote on Ord. 23-10, Nuisance vehicles and landscaping".
Curious, I asked to see a copy of the proposal and was told that since it was only a proposal that it was not a matter of public record yet and would be available after the vote or at the council meeting. I had to sign up to speak on this at the meeting and proceeded to badger someone for a copy while informing everyone in town that their cars were under attack.
I did get a copy that a clerk "accidentally" left in the city hall lobby. It was a horrible piece of work that could have been "interpreted" to prohibit anything! Oddly exempt were the 3 new gated subdivisions. Any vehicle would be illegal inside the city limits, storage of parts "New, used and unused", any foilage over 6 inches tall (shrubs?, trees?...yup!).
Council meeting was a riot and I was brilliant in my "extemporanious" discussion of the various illegal and unworkable aspects of the proposal.
3 months later they passed a clearer, more reasonable ordinance, but we nearly allowed our own government a club to beat us with! One of the tactics used is an obscure law that says that an ordinance cannot be challenged on its legality if it survives 3 years without a legal challenge. After 3 years the only options are guilty or not guilty of the law as written! You cannot challenge the law unless it is enforced, so don't enforce it for 3 years and then come out swinging!!
Label me a conspiracy nut if you want, but I find it odd that the State started a program about 4 years later to pay for a code enforcement officer with state funds 100% for the first year, 50% for the second year and 25% of the third.
Pay attention folks!
Bruce
Rodan said:SVreX said: Poorly written laws don’t criminalize anything. They just clog the court system until they get fixed.That law is unenforceable.
Sure they do... code violations in my jurisdiction are misdemeanors, and I'm sure they are in many other places as well. Push any civil violation far enough and it will become criminal.
Unenforceable is a relative term... how many here have the deep pockets to put an attorney on retainer and take the fight to city hall?
Edit: looks like Aircooled beat me to it...
Speaking as someone who has challenged stupid laws like this several dozen times and won every time, it doesn’t take deep pockets OR an attorney. It just takes logic, respect, and a judge or authority who is not an idiot.
I win crap like this frequently. I simply agree that I am willing to follow the law, and discuss it with the authority. The minute they realize how stupid it is, they drop it. No enforcement, because they realize it will fall apart in court.
”Tools not normally found in a residence” falls DEEP into the stupid column.
My HOA doesn't allow inop vehicles in driveways. I have 2 in mine. In January I received a letter about it. I called the HOA, clarified their position corrected the violations and moved on. I still have 2 inop vehicles in my driveway but have had no further issues. In March my neighbor asked me if I had gotten another letter. He keeps several dead cars/junk in his unfenced backyard and keep shuffling stuff around in an attempt to dodge a fine from the HOA. They refuse to give him time to correct issues or budge on enforcement.
I say all that to make this point. The code put in place may be a inadvertent attack on the automotive hobbyist. But being the poster child for the "bad guy" is not going to make the fight any easier. I'd recommend making use of your shop space more and if not being able to work from home until you can fight the ordinance doesn't work for you, then move.
SVreX said:Speaking as someone who has challenged stupid laws like this several dozen times and won every time, it doesn’t take deep pockets OR an attorney. It just takes logic, respect, and a judge or authority who is not an idiot.
I don't disagree, except when that final condition isn't met, or they have an agenda... which is unfortunately becoming more and more the case.
In reply to Rodan :
I know. Everybody loves to hate the authorities.
I win these kinda of disagreements over and over. It’s really not that hard.
But it is always impossible if you approach the authority like they are the enemy. They are just people doing their job, like you and me.
The law cited is clearly poorly worded and over-vague, but almost certainly targeted against illegal businesses and illegal dumping rather than weekend-warrior mechanics who build and work on a few of their own cars. Like many laws, it leaves a lot to the discretion of the enforcing official.
Now, I do engine swaps and restore cars at my house, wiht a 2-car-garage, in a quiet upper-middle-class suburb. By the letter of the law in Sacramento I'd be in violation of it. However, I am considerate of my neighbors, do almost all my work during the day when they're at work (I'll take a day off work to do noisy stuff like excessive grinding), and everything is "put away" when not in use - i.e. my parts car is hidden in a shed, my project car(s) in my garage, and my "normal" daily drivers in my driveway. I doubt the Sacramento enforcement officials would go after me, event though they technically could. Also, I give my neighbors no reason to call in on me, even the grumpy ones.
Our county doesn't have any crazy laws like that, just typical zoning and noise ordinances. That said, looking at your place, it would be in violation of dozens of laws here, regardless of what "tools" you own. I like building cars, I like projects, and I like building house stuff, but I woudln't want to live next door to you either, with a 40-foot container, a bunch of ramshackle sheds, junk cars, etc all over the place. It's absolutely no wonder your neighbor is grumpy.
As noted above, the Sacramento law is pretty lousy in many respects, but you should feel lucky to ONLY have gotten $350 fine or whatever, considering you freely admitted to far more violations than just the one they hit you with.
Perhaps move someplace where there is some actual distance from your neighbors - not right across the fence from where you put all your junk.
All of this merely reinforces my desire to live rural, and when forced to join a town I don't want, sell and move more rural. At this point, a berkeleying island in the middle of the pacific is starting to sound good.
irish44j said:The law cited is clearly poorly worded and over-vague, but almost certainly targeted against illegal businesses and illegal dumping rather than weekend-warrior mechanics who build and work on a few of their own cars. Like many laws, it leaves a lot to the discretion of the enforcing official.
Now, I do engine swaps and restore cars at my house, wiht a 2-car-garage, in a quiet upper-middle-class suburb. By the letter of the law in Sacramento I'd be in violation of it. However, I am considerate of my neighbors, do almost all my work during the day when they're at work (I'll take a day off work to do noisy stuff like excessive grinding), and everything is "put away" when not in use - i.e. my parts car is hidden in a shed, my project car(s) in my garage, and my "normal" daily drivers in my driveway. I doubt the Sacramento enforcement officials would go after me, event though they technically could. Also, I give my neighbors no reason to call in on me, even the grumpy ones.
Our county doesn't have any crazy laws like that, just typical zoning and noise ordinances. That said, looking at your place, it would be in violation of dozens of laws here, regardless of what "tools" you own. I like building cars, I like projects, and I like building house stuff, but I woudln't want to live next door to you either, with a 40-foot container, a bunch of ramshackle sheds, junk cars, etc all over the place. It's absolutely no wonder your neighbor is grumpy.
As noted above, the Sacramento law is pretty lousy in many respects, but you should feel lucky to ONLY have gotten $350 fine or whatever, considering you freely admitted to far more violations than just the one they hit you with.
Perhaps move someplace where there is some actual distance from your neighbors - not right across the fence from where you put all your junk.
I was scrolling through the thread trying to come to some conclusion on this, but irish44j summed it up pretty well. If you want to have your residence look like a dumping ground and salvage yard then you should instead have a dump or a salvage yard or live way the hell out in the boonies where no neighbors can see all this stuff, because it's a major eyesore.
irish44j said:The law cited is clearly poorly worded and over-vague, but almost certainly targeted against illegal businesses and illegal dumping rather than weekend-warrior mechanics who build and work on a few of their own cars. Like many laws, it leaves a lot to the discretion of the enforcing official.
Now, I do engine swaps and restore cars at my house, wiht a 2-car-garage, in a quiet upper-middle-class suburb. By the letter of the law in Sacramento I'd be in violation of it. However, I am considerate of my neighbors, do almost all my work during the day when they're at work (I'll take a day off work to do noisy stuff like excessive grinding), and everything is "put away" when not in use - i.e. my parts car is hidden in a shed, my project car(s) in my garage, and my "normal" daily drivers in my driveway. I doubt the Sacramento enforcement officials would go after me, event though they technically could. Also, I give my neighbors no reason to call in on me, even the grumpy ones.
Our county doesn't have any crazy laws like that, just typical zoning and noise ordinances. That said, looking at your place, it would be in violation of dozens of laws here, regardless of what "tools" you own. I like building cars, I like projects, and I like building house stuff, but I woudln't want to live next door to you either, with a 40-foot container, a bunch of ramshackle sheds, junk cars, etc all over the place. It's absolutely no wonder your neighbor is grumpy.
As noted above, the Sacramento law is pretty lousy in many respects, but you should feel lucky to ONLY have gotten $350 fine or whatever, considering you freely admitted to far more violations than just the one they hit you with.
Perhaps move someplace where there is some actual distance from your neighbors - not right across the fence from where you put all your junk.
Well said. It's nice to see a reasonable response vs some commentators that think they should be able to have an unregulated, nuclear reactor on their property because 'Murica.
In reply to z31maniac :
stop with the strawmen. No one in here has ever said anything remotely similar.
No one has mentioned one of the reasons this may be enforced ,
FIRE
not sure how large a fire break you need from structures , but probably at least 50 to 100 feet ,
And this is not very far from the Paradise fires last year that took many lives , so many people are on edge
,
bobzilla said:In reply to z31maniac :
stop with the strawmen. No one in here has ever said anything remotely similar.
Really? Strawman, not hyperbole?
bobzilla said:In reply to z31maniac :
stop with the strawmen. No one in here has ever said anything remotely similar.
I thought it was pretty clear it was a hyperbolic statement, we discussed this stuff in Pheller's thread regarding crummy neighbors. And just again with the guy whose own video proved he was a nuisance.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
