Some Are More Equal Than Others In Manassas City
By Greg L | 16 May 2008 | Manassas City | 30 Comments
I really have to wonder whether non-hispanic residents of the City of Manassas are entitled to this level of deference when they break the law. Here is the long and sordid history of building and zoning violations at 9500 Liberty Street, expired deadlines, and a complete failure by the city to enforce their zoning and building codes when they’ve been flouted. The history of this case, if compared to the actions of the city in regards to other property owners who have been cited for violations of the zoning or building codes and then taken to court, creates a very real opportunity for someone to file a Fourteenth Amendment case against the city for unequal treatment under the law. In this case, publicly expressed concerns regarding the racial and/or ethnic characteristics of the violator, and the content of the billboard he has erected in violation of the law have caused the city to treat this individual as if he had greater protections under the law than others have been afforded.
This case is pretty clearly unique:
2005
September 8, 2005: Zoning complaint made, header missing above door, no approvals from Architectural Review Board, no building permit, trash accumulation, possibly being rented as apartments.
September 29, 2005 Zoning reinspection, new windows and doors installed without permit.
October 3, 2005: Notice of violation issued.
2006
January 27, 2006: Zoning reinspection, possible multifamily violation.
January 30, 2006: Zoning reinspection notes three inoperable vehicles on property.
January 31, 2006: Notice of violation issued.
February 16, 2006: Reinspection, notes inoperable vehicles removed, front door alteration a zoning violation.
June 18, 2006: Structure destroyed by fire. One firefighter receives burn injuries. The fire investigation report concludes “The origin of the fire was in the attic area immediately above the common demising wall between the second floor bathroom and the right rear bedroom. My observation of the burn pattern and depth of charring of the wood framing in the attic along with video, confirm this conclusion. Based on the available evidence and barring any undetected incendiary intent, my conclusion is that the case of the fire was a failure in the electrical wiring and/or the extension cords that were being used improperly.”
June 21, 2006: Building official issues Notice of Unsafe Structure.
June 23, 2006: Inspection request issued, notes missing windows and severe roof damage.
June 30, 2006: Building official determines 61% structure’s value is destroyed, owner instructed to secure building.
July, 2006: Owner installs tarps to prevent rain damage. They subsequently fail to prevent additional damage.
2007
January 29, 2007: Zoning complaint filed for Demolition by Neglect, orders property repaired or will be ordered demolished by the city.
February 22, 2007: Zoning re-inspection, still non-compliant, issued Notice of Violation for Demolition by Neglect, 30 days to comply.
March 1, 2007: Property owner says they are securing the building and may demolish it.
March 12, 2007: Zoning reinspection, appropriate steps not being taken, forwarded to city attorney.
March 14, 2007: Zoning recommends structural engineer/contractor evaluate stabilization.
March 16, 2007: Owners attorney files for appeal of Notice of Violation.
March 20, 2007: Engineer report says structure is unsalvageable.
March 27, 2007: Building official re-inspection, now 86% of structure value is gone. Extensive insect damage noted.
April 12, 2007: Building permit for demolition endorsed, site to be cleared in 90 days.
May 14, 2007: Architectural Review Board says owner must take action by July 26 or city will proceed to court to demolish structure itself
May 17, 2007: email from nationwide insurance adjuster says owner paid $154,000 on fire claim, $25,000 additional will be paid, but owner is using proceeds on a property in Maryland.
June 13, 2007: Demolition deadline expires, structure remains.
September, 2007: All but one wall is demolished, and a billboard is erected on one remaining wall of the structure.
October 31, 2007: Property owner provided with Special Use Permit application for semi-private use in regards to public events. This is never filed.
November 6, 2007: Notice of Violation issued for not obtaining a building permit to alter the structure, ordered to obtain building permit by November 26. That deadline was later extended to December 5th, 2007.
November 19, 2007: Zoning complaint for loose trash and exterior accumulation of debris, porta johns (public nuisance), and improper storage of construction materials.
December 4, 2007: Zoning re-inspection, site is determined to be non-compliant.
December 4, 2007: Complaint regarding unsanitary conditions with porta johns filed.
December 5, 2007: Deadline for building permit application expires without action by property owner.
December 5, 2007: Violations of noise ordinances, disturbing the peace and unpermitted demonstrations noted by MCPD.
December 6, 2007: Building official delivers file to city attorney for legal action. Legal action is not filed.
December 10, 2007: health/safety re-inspection of porta johns, no signs of leakage or smell.
December 10, 2007: Warning issued for failure to obtain Special Use Permit for semi-public use for events, following an article in the MJM about having the site be a way-station for the Antorcha Gudulapana that hosted hundreds of people.
December 11, 2007: Notice of Violation issued for failure to obtain building permit to alter the structure, accumulated trash, improper storage of building materials, corrective action required in 15 days. That deadline expires with no action taken.
2008
January 2, 2008: Property owner files for building permit for 200 foot L-shaped accessory structure.
January 4, 2008: Building permit rejected for failure to adhere to property setback limitations, wall cannot be the primary structure on property, drawings are incomplete.
January 24, 2008: Property owner submits drawing of L-Shaped wall, without building permit application.
February 19, 2008: Property owner emails saying he will submit a new building permit application.
February 21, 2008: Drawing returned with explanation that a new building permit application is required along with the drawings.
April 25, 2008: Property owner again states intention to apply for a building permit.
Sometime subsequent to this last notation, the city has told the property owner that they are required to file for a building permit. To date, no building permit application has been filed in regards to the existing structure.
The city could have initiated litigation in this case any time after June 13th, 2007 for failure to comply with a demolition order. The city could have initiated legal action for failure to obtain a building permit on this structure any time after December 5th, 2007. Instead, the city is sending letters requesting the property owner to submit a request for a building permit that he has refused to file ever since being issued a Notice of Violation on November 6th, 2007. The term “cowardice” comes to mind here, the expression of which has resulted in preferential treatment by the City towards any racial or ethnic minority that can sufficiently frighten the City Council with the prospect of a lawsuit.
Is there anyone else in the city who has been allowed to maintain an unlawful structure in violation of city ordinances eleven months after being told to remove it, and six months after being told that their modification to this unlawful structure was done without the proper permits? I’m pretty sure that in every other case, the city has promptly initiated legal action when they had the opportunity to do so. Everyone subjected to this legal action now would seem to have cause to file a lawsuit against the city for discriminatory treatment.
I wonder just how long it will be before someone decides to do this. Given the financial incentive for doing so, I would not be surprised at all if that will happen well before this unlawful structure is removed.
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. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
30 Comments
Leave a Reply
Views: 788
Loading ...
The grass is looking pretty tall today when I drove by. Looks like yet another violation to add to the list.
Adding violations might increase time for appeals. Best to stick to the first notice and prosecute based on that.
I’m all for property rights but the owner has not been denied due process by the city to destroy the structure.
Raze the structure and then the guy can file a permit and go thru the process to build a new sign if he wishes.
Time for a new COM attorney. This one is definately not doing his job (nor is the mayor or council members for that fact.)
Anyone want to file a class action suit against the City of Manassas?
We all knew that something was going on at this property. I live in the city and am very angry that NOTHING has been done about the violations.
I am also upset to have had a city official say that there is NO time limit on a demolition permit when Mr. Fernandez was CLEARLY given 90 days to raze the structure. It is now ONE year later and part of the house is still standing.
City Council I hope you are reading this. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH! Make Mr. Fernandez FOLLOW the LAW!!!
Recall the mayor and City Council and be done with it.
BTW- That sign claims that the illegals are “Native Americans”, but this story will tell you that Native Americans are not happy with illegal aliens crossing our borders.
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=8333882&nav=HMO6HMaY
Greg,
I have previously offered to allow HSM to apply a sign to 170 feet of six foot privacy fence facing Ashton Avenue. That offer is hereby reissued. That may be a good test for you.
Let’s see, 170 x 6 = a pretty big sign!
I am serious about the offer Greg.
I am just about as sick of all this as I can be. This city just keeps getting worse. Too bad we do not have the backbone in our council that Corey, et.al., has shown.
So, I’ve been wondering why aren’t there MORE billboards in the City of Manassas? The precedence has been set - the city obviously has no problem with it - and it’s the perfect opportunity for everyone to exercise their Freedom of Speech.
Now that peak tourist season is almost here, the tourists would have something else to take pictures of other than battlefields, the Stonewall statue and old cannons.
I say MORE billboards - not less! Manassas City has proven it believes in Freedom of Speech - let all opinions on all subjects be heard. And seen. In vibrant colors. From blocks and blocks away!
I contacted the City about this. I was told by two City Council members that as long as you erect your billboard on private property and paper it over with what the city considers to be “protected speech,” you’re in good shape. I’m considering a serious home-remodeling project that I will decorate with the words “Arrest and deport illegal aliens.” No pesky permit issues, just free speech working to my advantage.
Colonial,
That’s referred to as a Mexican Building Permit.
Dan Cooper- That would be the perfect place to put up a freedom of speech sign. The only downside to that is that you might become a target.
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP NOW!!!!! We’ve got gangs, we’ve got sex offenders living in our neighborhoods, but Manassas has got to divert resources away from addressing that because a guy has a sign in his yard without a permit AND NOW THE GRASS IS TOO LONG!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
We’ve got fewer sex offenders living in our neighborhoods now that Bob McDonnell has taken the initiative to have those who are foreign nationals deported by ICE. We’ve got fewer gang members since Prince William County has adopted the Rule of Law Resolution and illegal aliens are leaving, which constitutes 90% of the membership of MS-13 according to the Virginia State Police.
I’d say that cracking down on illegal aliens is the solution to these problems, not the cause.
Tell that to your friends, El Guapo!
He can’t, they all left town!
Well not all. There was a “carriage caravan” heading up to K-mart this morning with a troop of kids following.
Anonymous said on 16 May 2008 at 10:47 pm:
He can’t, they all left town!
Anonymous said on 17 May 2008 at 11:07 am:
Well not all. There was a “carriage caravan” heading up to K-mart this morning with a troop of kids following.
Why are there two port-a-johns on the property now?
I was in a class not long ago taught by a fellow from Canada. He too says that Mexicans are Americans. It is true that Mexico is in the North American Hemispere but being American is to LOVE the Red, White, and Blue. Even with all it’s faults it is the best place on Earth.
Being in the same hemisphere does not mean that we are ONE country. It does not give the Mexicans and other South Americans the right to cross our border without permission. That also stands for Canada.
Upon re-reading the chronology:
You know, this sounds just like the Manassas City overcrowding inspector who visited homes on my street and told the occupants to cut more windows and it would be okay to have all the people stay. Is there a pattern of behavior on the part of city officials that caters to a certain group?
One new Council member is more concerned about the opinions of outsiders then he is about the opinion of the Citizens and tax payers who live in the City. I’m not expecting much from this guy, but we will see.
IS this the same guy that owns the Billboard?
http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/video_tornado_contractor_told_to_leave/15644/
Red Dawn said on 18 May 2008 at 5:52 pm:
It sure does look like him!
It is indeed the same person. Here are a few news articles from the compost.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051200042.html
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Guadencio+Fernandez
I don’t believe a solid link has been established. So far, I haven’t seen the name of the firm kicked out of the tornado zone publicly disclosed.
I haven’t been able to see the video, however. It doesn’t work on a linux machine.
Greg,
In the video his name, Guadencio Fernandez, is clearly printed out overlaying his image. He is shown displaying what appears to be a passport. I could not read the information off the id, however his name is clearly spelled out in the video. AND it looks like him!
Looks like, smells like, let’s see……..
I believe it is ‘our’ Mr. Fernandez….
Oh, and you may want to give the video a minute or two, it was very slow starting and had a still picture overlaid for the first few seconds. Strange!
The wall need to be brought down by us, the citizens. The goverment is NOT doing anything.
Why not simply climb the fence and take a sledge hammer to it?
It’s not that hard. Just a few determined individuals who are sick of being insulted and slapped in the face by this hateful sign.
Why not? Because that would be against the law, and the way forward on this issue of unlawful behavior is decidedly not to engage in further unlawful activity.