"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Bob Marshall Proposes Overcrowding Initiative
By Greg L | 6 December 2007 | 13th HOD District, Virginia Politics | 45 Comments
The Gainesville Times makes mention of Delegate Bob Marshall’s initiative to help combat residential overcrowding in this week’s edition. Since zoning inspectors do not have police powers, they can be refused entry to a residence and prevented from obtaining the evidence they need in order to issue a citation for overcrowding. The result is that too often, legitimate overcrowding complaints don’t get resolved, zoning inspectors are having to fruitlessly return to the same properties as additional complaints are filed, and the effort required in order to resolve some of these cases required more time and resources than zoning inspectors have available. Another result of this is that concerned citizens who report these problems quickly learn that cleaning up an overcrowding problem can sometimes be extraordinarily difficult, which is a disincentive to making overcrowding reports.
In the House of Delegates, Marshall and Miller have come up with a different way to address residential overcrowding, which is indirectly aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants. A bill they discussed in front of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors last week would allow police to get a search warrant if they believe there are too many tenants in a house, which is a zoning code violation.
Marshall said that residential overcrowding is “incidentally related” to illegal immigration, though, “in a certain sense, connected to the practice.
“We’re increasing the initial offense for the violation,” he said, noting that the homeowner would be charged $1,500 per person exceeding the home’s stated capacity. This is different from current law, he said, since it is intended to levy fines based on the number of extra people inside the house instead of the overcrowded house itself. “It significantly enhances the penalty and disincentives to break the law,” said Marshall, who won his ninth two-year term in the House by defeating Democrat Bruce Roemmelt in the November election.
Upping the penalty here might also help to discourage this practice. This proposal is not a complete solution, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. In areas where residential overcrowding is a problem, it is the number one issue for residents in my experience, and these residents are absolutely clamoring for legislative reform.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
45 Comments
Views: 1688
Loading ...
Who Wants to Marry a US Citizen:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3031650320071201?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Sounds good. So how do I and like minded people get behind this?
Yes, a step in the right direction. Kudos to Bob and Jackson.
But the fact that state legislators even have to take this step just emphasizes the total lack of attention given to the problem by our federal legislators.
“A bill they discussed in front of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors last week would allow police to get a search warrant if they believe there are too many tenants in a house, which is a zoning code violation”
What if it is a product of a “good Catholic family”? I knew a family that had 12 children, would THEY be affected??? How about certain politicians with multiple children?
Setting aside the “rule of law” argument so often used when discussing illegal immigration (and I’m not saying set it aside because it’s not important–rather it’s a separate discussion), the big problem many have with illegal immigration deals with quality of life issues. These same quality of life issues would apply regardless of whether the problems were caused by illegals or legal residents.
Overcrowded homes, derelict vehicles, residential property being used to raise livestock, etc., are quality of life issues that, while related to illegal immigration, would still be problems if perpetrated by legal residents.
Addressing these quality of life issues seems to be a smart way to create another front in the fight against the woes caused, in part, by illegal immigration. While I clearly don’t agree with Delegate Bob Marshall on much, making overcrowding of homes subject to stiffer penalties and stronger enforcement is something I can get behind at least in principle.
But, while the general principle is sound, the details will be where the true work comes in. Too often the original good intent of an act can be lost because sufficient attention was not given to the alternate interpretations of the law. The civil libertarian in me is leery of expanding the justification for police search and seizure (a precious right guaranteed against unreasonable search and seizure is an important part of the Bill of Rights). Assurances will need to be made that this new warrant power will not be used as pretext when other justifications for a warrant are insufficient (i.e., what constitutes probable cause for an overcrowding warrant? Is an “anonymous” tip all it takes or will there be a steeper burden to protect against misuse of this warrant power?). Further, enforcement will need to be uniform lest it be seen as targeted (fairly or not) against specific cohorts of the community.
I hope this gets enacted soon. I have a couple of houses in mind.
Sorry… but this sounds like a clear abuse of the 4th amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” To be clear, the Supreme Court has already ruled that even illegal aliens enjoy the protections provided by the Constitution.
I’m with Turn PW Blue regarding reluctance to give the Police expanded search authority (and get a “cold chill” thinking about giving zoning people increased powers to enter private homes.)
(IMHO) this isn’t an issue for Conservatives to be behind. I’m sorry; however (IMHO), the larger protections that the 4th amendment provides are more important than violating its intent by expanding state power to enter private homes because neighbor’s are annoyed.
What’s next… re-interpretation of the 1st amendment to shut down blogs that “incite controversy”? This is dangerous ground to tread upon (and a step in the wrong direction).
I’m not ready to compromise our Constitutional protections to help clean up someone’s yard or clear cars from the street. I wish the Feds would do their job to stop State and local Government’s from exploring solutions such as this.
Turn PW:
Your concerns represent the classic clash of what is too much and what is too little government. I’ve lived in countries where the population was in fear 100% of the time of the midnight “knock on the door.” It ain’t pretty.
The abdication of the federal government in this area cannot be emphasized enough. The total and complete failure of the feds to enforce our borders is causing the state and localities across the country to use their police enforcement powers in ways they’ve never had to previously. But when one section of the government breaks down, another has to step in. Protection of the population is the first and foremost responsibility of any government. Our federal government has failed abysmally in that function. Both parties, all branches. The states and counties have got to step up, now.
I have to agree with Blue and old soldier on this one as well. This is one of those “slippery slopes” we can place ourselves on. This may be going a bit too far where we may need to look at other avenues to go down.
I believe overcrowding is wrong. I have a situation like that in my apartment complex. The managers have been to the apartment and said it doesn’t have the appearance of more people than should be in it, however, when the people in the apartment leave, there is at least 8-10 of them leaving a one bedroom apartment. The apartment complex announces they are coming into the apartment, of course it isn’t going to look like more than the allowed number is living there.
I believe this will only come back to bite us in the rear with only one group feeling like they are being targeted, even though most of the complaints are about a specific group.
My understanding is that the warrant would not be issued on the basis of a citizen’s complaint, but by the zoning inspector demonstrating probable cause that there is a violation and that the warrant would be necessary in order to adequately investigate it.
The bill’s language should be available on LIS fairly soon, and when it shows up then you should be able to easily put your concerns at rest.
hmm..in light of that Greg, I will respectfully rescind my comment until I have read the full language of the bill. (c:
What Greg L said on 6 Dec 2007 at 11:47 am about ,”…zoning inspector demonstrating probable cause…” gives me “cold chills.”
Sorry… (IMHO) that makes it even worse; however, /\/\3|)iç 64 has the right idea. I’ll defer judgement until we get a chance to look at the bill’s language.
Yes, let’s not be so quick draw conclusions. That happens all too often on this blog.
I’ve parked the broom for now.
It’s the bill’s language that I fear precisely because of who the chief sponsors are. Marshall has, in his legislative history, proposed legislation that seems innocuous on the surface, but really is an insidious invasion of personal liberties once read with all the nuances in mind.
Maybe this time Delegate Marshall will use his power of language for good, though that remains to be seen.
How about issueing a search warrant when the house in question refuses to allow the zoning inspector access in order to make a determination.
The problem is not the overcrowding per se, but the visible effects in the community. I don’t care how many people live in a house, but would be concerned about trash, too many cars, neglect of property, etc. There are currently laws regarding these specific issues that also involve fines unless corrective action is taken. If those are being enforced, it’s clearly not working in some areas. If they are, what makes us think that enforcing occupancy rules will be any more effective?
A law addressing the “capacity” of a dwelling would necessarily have to consider familial status in order to make exceptions for those 12-child families previously mentioned.
Wouldn’t it be better to tighten up the laws that address easily identifiable problems than to muddy the water with search warrants, head counts, and proof of familial status?
And do we really want Bob Marshall to define familial status for us?
# Bob Sentz said on 6 Dec 2007 at 12:50 pm:
How about issueing a search warrant when the house in question refuses to allow the zoning inspector access in order to make a determination.
This is a TERRIBLE idea. Refusing to let the government enter your house should NEVER be considered probable cause to issue a search warrant. That’s like a cop asking to search your car, you say no, then get imediately gets a warrant because you must be hiding something if you won’t let him take a look.
I too want to try something new,
But this sounds like the wrong thing to do,
The case for eviction, with police intervention,
Could be spoiled by judicial review
NICK,
Good Point! I will also reserve my judgment until I see something in writting but I started out with the chills too! Sounded to much like Big Brother…I will wait and see.
As I have said in other threads, the ILLEGALS are going about it the wrong way, they should assimilate, adapt and overcome, not force feed us their culture. If they do this they will not bring attention to themselves. The only reason most of us believe the person is ILLEGAL is because of the fact they have not assimilated. Blending in is the best way to hunt (camouflage).
When they start doing this, we will have a bigger problem on our hands.
I agree Nick, just because I do not want my car searched doesn’t necessarily mean I have something to hide. They shouldn’t have any reason unless something is in plain view anyway, am I correct?
________________________
Peter, You are correct, it isn’t so much about the overcrowding as it is about the safety of the neighborhood. With many cars coming and going it makes it hard to know who should be there and who shouldn’t. This only diminishes the Neighborhood Watch program.
It IS about overcrowding…boarding houses are illegal! I think it’s a pretty clear difference if there are 12 children and one or two adults living in one house/apartment or there are 12 adults and one or two children. In my opinion, that is in plain view.
Bob, When I made my statement your thought process is what I had in mind. It probably didn’t come across that way as I read it back now. My head will say something and my fingers only catch half of it (c: That can be good and bad (c;
So through the circumstance of ridiculously inflated home prices and absence of suitable alternatives it’s become illegal for people who make minimum wage to live in the county. And we’re surprised and/or indignant that they would be so bold to break the law?
How about changing the laws to accomodate those who are paid a legal wage, but cannot find adequate housing? Why can’t boarding houses be legal? They are certainly part of our great American heritage: even in Manassas.
Sounds to me like some people are relying on our unecessarily restrictive laws to keep people of a lower socioeconomic status from assimilating.
Because, as it has been mentioned boarding houses bring an unsavory crowd to the neighborhood. And the operative word here is ‘neighborhood.’ Maybe, those that can’t afford to live in a particular neighborhood should seek shelter they can afford. I’ve lived in some pretty nasty places in my life.
Peter Danlyn said on 6 Dec 2007 at 2:43 pm:
“So through the circumstance of ridiculously inflated home prices and absence of suitable alternatives it’s become illegal for people who make minimum wage to live in the county. And we’re surprised and/or indignant that they would be so bold to break the law?”
I know I said I would reserve my judgment until I see it in wrtting. However, I would like to add to the above comment what about the people who are stuck because they are now upside down on their house. What if they have a baby 3 (tripletts) or for instance, take hurrican Katrina,friends and family that were displaced from thier homes, you can’t help them out? Does this apply to family or tenants (renting)?
/\/\3|)iç 64 (Winner of the BVBL 40k post award) said on 6 Dec 2007 at 2:01 pm: “As I have said in other threads, the ILLEGALS are going about it the wrong way, they should assimilate…”
Actually, they should not assimilate. They should return to their country of origin and try the RIGHT way to enter. I don’t care if they look like me, act like me, dress like me, and obey the laws like me - if they are here illegally, I want them out.
Bob Sentz:
A properly managed and regulated boarding house would have no more detrimental affect on a neighborhood than the herd of over-indulged, under-socialaized, meth-addicted, progeny of an apathetic middle class.
I’m not saying that a boarding house should be considered in a building and/or area that is clearly inappropriate. I’m just saying that it should be a legal option for affordable housing. After all, the concept is really no different than a Bed and Breakfast.
But what I understand you to say is that you acknowledge that no “family-friendly” options exist, and that you don’t care where they go. As long as they’re not on your street. How can you keep that smile on your face when you greet the grocery checker, or janitor, desk clerk or room maid, that makes (almost) a living serving you?
Frankly, the concept of a B&B vs. a boarding house is light years apart. And, I’m not apologetic for what I’ve accomplished (i.e., worked for). There is a direct correlation between the have’s and have not’s with the will and will not’s.
And, if a ‘family’ needs assistance there are several options. Section 8 for one. Oh, that’s right, that’s only available to LEGAL residents.
John, I am with you. If the ILLEGALS want to stop drawing so much attention to themselves, then they should assimilate. I do not want them to either. I want them out of the US as well. I am far from an ILLEGAL apologist!!
I’m wondering if they are adding on to this bill instead of writing a whole new one?
SB 1412. Authority of a zoning administrator. Whenever the zoning administrator of a locality within Planning District 8 (Northern Virginia) has reasonable cause to believe that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any violation of a zoning ordinance that limits occupancy in a residential dwelling unit, which is subject to a civil penalty that may be imposed in accordance with the provisions of § 15.2-2209, and the zoning administrator, after a good faith effort to obtain the data or information necessary to determine whether a violation has occurred, has been unable to obtain such information, he may request that the attorney for the locality petition the judge of the general district court for his jurisdiction for a subpoena duces tecum against any such person refusing to produce such data or information. Delegate Marshall voted Yes. Bill signed by Governor.
It might just be when things escalate beyond zoning’s training in dealing with uncooperative folks and where they (zoning) might feel they are being put in harms way. If it requires a warrent to get inside, zoning needs protection. Most folks don’t respond well to warrents. This will allow zoning to continue to investigate which is cost effective but to get the help they need when they need it.
Good question Maureen, looks like it has already been addressed in that one.
“Reasonable cause” is the clue. Zoning has to have a reason to suspect that the eight guys in the house are unrelated. And it can’t be simply that they’re Hispanic.
How should large families be treated? Is it easier to get twelve adults out of a burning building (despite illegal renovations they may have done to the house) or two adults and ten children who are all related?
Fairfax County has a pilot neighborhood revitalization program going on in the Kings Park subdivision. Many of its features are modelled after neighborhood watch programs (trained block captains and block participation). The County offers a training program on police response, zoning, building code (?), etc. It offers resources for learning English. More info can be found here (particularly the past editions of the newsletter):
http://www.kings-park.org/
anonymoustoo, As a medically retired Firefighter / Paramedic with 10 years experience, there is little difference when the building is on fire. It is harder on me personally if children are involved. The only benefit might be that adults may follow directions better, but fear paralyzes all victims pretty much the same.
Medic, I’m thinking of how the building may have been modified without permits - a warren of bedrooms with only a door (often deadbolted) for access. In other words, not what you’d expect when you enter a single family home - few smoke detectors and occupants who often don’t know each other or how many people should be in the house.
I agree that you’d probably have better luck getting adults to follow instructions.
Let it happen one time and HUD and the Justice Department will be knocking on the doors at McCoart. Just ask Manasas City when they tried to do something. Until we get a president that will tell the Justice Department to leave the issue alone and Congressman and Senators that will write legistlation that gives local goverments the necessary authority….nothing will be done. Just ask Hazelton. They tried…Wake up Frank Wolf and Jim Webb.
Hazelton has appealed the ruling. It’s not over.
One Voice said on 6 Dec 2007 at 4:21 pm:
Zoning most definately needs protection. There are two sets of woods that I know of that Zoning’s been visiting for a month or so now, and they are escorted by the PWPD. I think Zoning could use a complete retraining from start to finish. I also think when inspectors go back for follow up visit and the violation has not been taken care of their should be a fine for that.
What a great way to generate a little $$$?
Lafayette
I will look up the fines - they are usually in the ordinance and I think the County Code is available on the County website. Usually there is an accelerated fine for non-response and so forth. I do know that if work is done on an area and the place is in forclosure, the county can and does go to the bank for reimbursement. I’ve seen that.
Regarding training - you are likely correct that these folks need more and more on ordinances, handling volitile situations and managing community expectations. In fact, it should probably be an inservice program - given on a regular basis 3-4 times a year. Fines and such would support the program. I wonder if issuing the warrant will occur after x number of violations, even with fines, I would imagine it does not begin to cover the cost of the cops or the repeated trips by zoning. A warrent is quicker and to the point.
Lafayette, you are beginning to sound like a bean counter. They are beginning to ramp up the budget committees for the supervisors…….go for it!
One Voice,
I’m already with one committee at this time. I don’t think I could handle another one. However, I always look for new ways to learn. You have given me something else to think about.
The fines should be stiffer. I’ve seen some of the liens filed for cutting the grass, and it’s not cheap either.I The banks are getting better around here about maintaining their new “assets”.
I still say things are much improved since the spring. We won’t let the winter stop the enforcement either.
I am very curious with all these vacant houses thats a lot of sidewalk not getting cleared for the walking students countywide, and they are the younger students.
One Voice,
From another thread, we were on….I want you to take a look at this site. I think there is a lot here that you would be interested in.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
Merry Christmas
http://goodbyefaisal.com/stewart
I heard that PWC had two of the national top ten foreclosure zip codes in the NATION!!!! PWC also has the lions share of the Washington Council Of Government area sub-prime loans. Who did that???
I’ve learned that some towns/cities will ticket cars that park at the end of their driveways so that they block the sidewalks. That annoys the snot out of me when I walk. If I run into that I walk up through their front yard as close to the windows as a can
I think Prince William is slowly becoming a pedestrian community so maybe that will evolve as we become more urban and more people walk. I think the same call to the bank should bring the sidewalks to their attention. Not a lawyer, but a slip and fall could be additionally burdensome to a bank with a forclosed home or interferring with children walking to school..
One Voice,
I’m in total agreement once again. I’m glad you mention the sidewalks being blocked. We do call on the “habitual offenders”.
It really concerns me within less than a 2miles radius we have four walking schools. I’m not lawyer either I hope the banks don’t slip up and land themselves in a lawsuit. I saw where someone had said the county doesn’t want neighbors mowing the overgrown lawns of vacant houses. I wonder if that’s their take on snow/ice covered sidewalks. This needs to be addressed before the deep winter sets in. Reminders need to be put on Channels 23 and 18, and on ALL county websites. This is about public safety, and especially our children.
For City of Manassas residents who don’t know, “probable cause” is at the discretion of the investigator, the investigator SHALL consult with the Building Official and MAY consult with the City Attorney for guidance. And, under existing policies, the City field investigates 88% of all the addresses complained about. You may wonder why not 100%? In order to justify a field inspection, a complaint has to satisfy all tests. This is the four part test TO DETERMINE if the CITY will INITIATE a field inspecton RATHER THAN sending the “Laws and Codes” letter to the compliant address. Those four tests are:
1. Has the City previously established the occupancy limit and does
the new complaint indicate that the occupancy is now in excess
of the previously established limit?
2. Did the complainant observe the violations first hand?
3. Does the complainant provide credible evidence of a violation?
4. Does the complainant live in the proximate area of the
complaint address?
New criteria for Residential Overcrowding is now being discussed by the city land-use committee. City residents may want to take a good look at and actively involve yourselves in attending land-use committee meetings and making contact with your elected officials with your concerns and comments.
City Manager announced at the Thursday night land-use committee meeting that this four part test will be put on the city website to bring infomation and educate the public about the city’s overcrowding policies.