Code Enforcement Inspector Didn't Disclose She Was Recording Our Conversation

My question involves criminal privacy law for the state of: California
I was notified by code enforcement of possible code violations in the home I bought nine years ago. The violations alleged in the structures I did not deny but they were not made by me, we all agreed that much is true. I have the position that they were in fact permitted and allowed by the City in the mid 80's almost 30 years ago. The permits are there but there is ambiguity. The issues were constructed 30 years ago but the City is just now challenging them. My initial question is, Is there no statute of limitation if they were to determine these are real violations?

The Code Enforcement officer insisted on inspecting part of my house, specifically the kitchen.

After going back and forth as to whether the permits were clear and indicative of the issues actually being permitted, I agreed to let them look at a portion of my home. They threatened to get a police warrant if I didn't so I did not feel there was much reasonable alternative though they knew I was not particularly comfortable with them in my home.

I had my boyfriend come over and act as a witness to what was to take about 20 minutes. About 15 minutes into this my boyfriend notices a black piece of jewelry is not jewelry at all but a video recording device worn by the Code Enforcement inspection officer. At one point the code officer wanted to take pictures and I said, "no." Hence, at that point, there was no question that I did not want visual recording of the inside of my home on file as much as I could avoid it. She was holding an obvious red point and shoot camera which she then put away. However,

My boyfriend suddenly says , " hey, are you video taping this? is that a recoding device? " Pinned to her chest was another device. It was small enough that one would not readily know this if it was the first time you had seen it which was the case. he added, " you have been video recording us this whole time, aren't you supposed to disclose that?"
She replied, "I turned off the video it is only an audio recorder at the moment. The recording is only for my purposes. I don't have to disclose when I'm recoding audio, just like the local police don't. "

When I read the Ca. Law on recording in places of a "reasonable right of privacy" and this was inside my home, is she telling the truth? What rights do I have when this happens? I have no way to know if she was also video taping except she said so. I'm not even sure she has that option on the device, it looks like a VOX mini recorder about the size of a AA battery with the lens on the left, which she had clipped to the center of her shirt like a decretive pin. I think it is a model commonly used by

Quote:

---

Quoting iokuok2

---

My question involves criminal privacy law for the state of: California
I was notified by code enforcement of possible code violations in the home I bought nine years ago. The violations alleged in the structures I did not deny but they were not made by me, we all agreed that much is true. I have the position that they were in fact permitted and allowed by the City in the mid 80's almost 30 years ago. The permits are there but there is ambiguity. The issues were constructed 30 years ago but the City is just now challenging them. My initial question is, Is there no statute of limitation if they were to determine these are real violations?

---

Why did this suddenly become an issue? Were you seeking to do some work and needed a new permit or inspection and this came up?

Yes, it might be difficult for them to hold you accountable for something that occurred 30 years ago before you may have owned the property, but, they can likely hold you accountable if you seek to do additional work.

And depending on what the issue is, you might find that your home will not retain its value nor even be insured if it comes out that there is un-permitted work.

Quote:

---

The Code Enforcement officer insisted on inspecting part of my house, specifically the kitchen.

---

Okay. If you want to resolve the matter and get the permits either waived or issued, that's what you'll have to do.

Quote:

---

I had my boyfriend come over and act as a witness to what was to take about 20 minutes. About 15 minutes into this my boyfriend notices a black piece of jewelry is not jewelry at all but a video recording device worn by the Code Enforcement inspection officer. At one point the code officer wanted to take pictures and I said, "no." Hence, at that point, there was no question that I did not want visual recording of the inside of my home on file as much as I could avoid it. She was holding an obvious red point and shoot camera which she then put away. However,

My boyfriend suddenly says , " hey, are you video taping this? is that a recoding device? " Pinned to her chest was another device. It was small enough that one would not readily know this if it was the first time you had seen it which was the case. he added, " you have been video recording us this whole time, aren't you supposed to disclose that?"
She replied, "I turned off the video it is only an audio recorder at the moment. The recording is only for my purposes. I don't have to disclose when I'm recoding audio, just like the local police don't. "

---

You're lucky. Had our building inspector or code enforcement officer been told to stop taking pictures, inspection would be over and there would be no change in status and a refusal to cooperate would have been noted.

Quote:

---

When I read the Ca. Law on recording in places of a "reasonable right of privacy" and this was inside my home, is she telling the truth? What rights do I have when this happens? I have no way to know if she was also video taping except she said so. I'm not even sure she has that option on the device, it looks like a VOX mini recorder about the size of a AA battery with the lens on the left, which she had clipped to the center of her shirt like a decretive pin. I think it is a model commonly used by

---

And, do you really believe that any communication that was occurring between you and the code enforcement officer was a "confidential communication?" In general, he does have a right to record his inspections and his contacts. You can certainly report this to the police and see if they actually take a report and forward it to the DA ... I doubt it, though. But, you can try. And, if they don't, you can spend about $10,000+ to sue him for ... uh ... well, without damages that'd be kind of a head scratcher.

Additionally, if the Code Enforcement officer is a peace officer covered under PC 633 or 633.05 (with regards to the exceptions to record such conversation) then he would be automatically exempted without even having to look any further. But, even without that, it's hard to argue a confidential communication when engaging in conversation with the government.

You'd be better off dealing with the issue at hand with regards to the code violation. Address it, don't try and sidetrack the issue with complaints about recording devices because that will NOT change the issue at hand.

I might suggest you take the issue of the very old non-permitted construction to the Planning Commission or city council (as appropriate in your jurisdiction) and ask for a waiver there. yes, you will probably have to submit to a full inspection, and you might well want to get your own inspector to look into the matter as well to determine if the construction poses any risk or was at least consistent with safe practices at the time. What you do and how much you spend in addressing the issue depends on exactly what the issue is.

And why are you so paranoid about the guy in your home? You aren't engaged in some form of illegal activity are you???

CDW is right. I do not believe the performance of a code inspector in his job is "private conversation." You were free to record him without his consent and likewise he can do the same.

Thank you for the peace officer status info, that is what I was looking for. No I am not engaged in illegal activity, I was more afraid that they are, I am a witness on some federal issues, since you asked; hence to answer the question "why this suddenly became an issue", I'm as surprised as you. I like the idea of asking the planning commission for input. I could have lied and covered up some of their questions but I did not. They were a bit evasive as they were wanting in my house before they even checked county records and microfiche . thanks for the input!

If a Code Enforcement Officer wanted to enter my home I would first ask for their Badge# Who asked the officer to come and I would go as far as to ask for a Supervisor to come in with the officer or else I would refuse to let them enter my house. I would call the Police as well.

As the Code Enforcement Officer was there for something that happened 30 years ago I would tell them that at the time what I have is legal. Furthermore they had to take care of this years ago.

Secondly I would be contacting the City Planning Office who has the plans and have the Code Officer go there before entering my house.

If I found that the Code Officer was recording me whether by audio or video without consent I would tell the officer to leave my property and ask for a Tresspas Order and ask that the code officer delete the recordings.

Under the State Law both parties must agree to recording unless its done by a Peace Officer for a Crime.

The Code Enforcement Officer did not have any permission to enter the property.

Now for some questions

Were you given a notice that a Code Enforcement Officer needs to speak with you and for you to call and schedule a time?

Did you get a letter as to why the Officer is coming?

In the letter there should be appeal information on how to appeal the case.

I would be reporting this incident to the State if you feel your rights and private property have been violated as a result of this incident.

Please keep us posted.

Quote:

---

Quoting travelplus

---

If a Code Enforcement Officer wanted to enter my home I would first ask for their Badge# Who asked the officer to come and I would go as far as to ask for a Supervisor to come in with the officer or else I would refuse to let them enter my house. I would call the Police as well.

As the Code Enforcement Officer was there for something that happened 30 years ago I would tell them that at the time what I have is legal. Furthermore they had to take care of this years ago.

Secondly I would be contacting the City Planning Office who has the plans and have the Code Officer go there before entering my house.

If I found that the Code Officer was recording me whether by audio or video without consent I would tell the officer to leave my property and ask for a Tresspas Order and ask that the code officer delete the recordings.

Under the State Law both parties must agree to recording unless its done by a Peace Officer for a Crime.

The Code Enforcement Officer did not have any permission to enter the property.

Now for some questions

Were you given a notice that a Code Enforcement Officer needs to speak with you and for you to call and schedule a time?

Did you get a letter as to why the Officer is coming?

In the letter there should be appeal information on how to appeal the case.

I would be reporting this incident to the State if you feel your rights and private property have been violated as a result of this incident.

Please keep us posted.

---

What on earth are you on about?

Quote:

---

Quoting iokuok2

---

I had my boyfriend come over and act as a witness to what was to take about 20 minutes.

---

California law prohibits recording without consent when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. As CDJWJAVA pointed out, the Code Enforcement Officer is a peace officer who is exempt from that prohibition.

But setting that aside, one should point out that you called a third party to be present and witness what took place so they could publicly testify on your behalf if there is a later dispute as to what occurred or was said. By involving a third party to be a public witness you eliminated any reasonable expectation of privacy you might of had as to this encounter. In doing so, recording would have been fair game for a private citizen as well.

Quote:

---

Quoting iokuok2

---

Thank you for the peace officer status info, that is what I was looking for. No I am not engaged in illegal activity, I was more afraid that they are, I am a witness on some federal issues, since you asked; hence to answer the question "why this suddenly became an issue", I'm as surprised as you. I like the idea of asking the planning commission for input. I could have lied and covered up some of their questions but I did not. They were a bit evasive as they were wanting in my house before they even checked county records and microfiche . thanks for the input!

---

I would need to know what kind of violations you are speaking of. There are building code violations and there are zoning and use violations. If you are using your kitchen for commercial purposes, for example, that could be a building code, a zoning code, or a health code violation.

You bought the house 9 years ago and whatever you are speaking of was permitted and done 30 years ago. The code that was in effect at the time is the code that controlled the work. If the code changed since, if it was a use and new codes forbid the use, the use would be non-conforming from that point on and would be controlled by the ordinances on non-conforming uses in the zoning which generally says that a non-conforming use cannot be enlarged. If it was a plumbing code violation then the defect according to current codes would have to be corrected only if alterations were made where the defect existed. So just to say that there are code violations tells me nothing about what they are looking for.

There is no real SOL on this sort of thing because it is administrative and there are all sorts of way around it. Many local ordinances and county ordinances say that the authority has to act within 4 years of the infraction. But you have to ask when does the 4 year begin to toll, when something was done or when the authority finds out about it. Courts have decided on both sides.

When the work was done and permits were issued there was likely inspections done. There are no surprised here for the town. And when you bought your home 9 years ago there was likely another inspection done by the town to issue a new CO (certificate of occupancy) if your town requires it. So for this to just occur now probably has more to do with a SLAPP (or the town's version of it) than to do with a code violation. INTIMIDATION bureaucratic style.

Stop thinking about the recording because it means nothing unless you are using your kitchen as for some illegal purpose and there is evidence of it. So far you have not gotten any notice of violation and probably won't but if you do go see a land use attorney for advice.

Have you recently applied for building permits?

Quote:

---

Quoting travelplus

---

If a Code Enforcement Officer wanted to enter my home I would first ask for their Badge# Who asked the officer to come and I would go as far as to ask for a Supervisor to come in with the officer or else I would refuse to let them enter my house. I would call the Police as well.

---

And if you never let them into your home, they could just leave and refuse to close the case or issue the permits. They do not have to agree to your conditions, nor do the police have to respond.

Quote:

---

If I found that the Code Officer was recording me whether by audio or video without consent I would tell the officer to leave my property and ask for a Tresspas Order and ask that the code officer delete the recordings.

---

You can ask for brie and wine - it doesn't mean they have to provide it.

Again, you tell them to get out, then if you are asking for a permit or to resolve something, it won't be done. Hopefully it would not be an issue where your insurance would necessarily lapse or the value of your home would drop when the record of the non-permitted work was placed on file. If you never planned to move or make an insurance claim, great.

Quote:

---

Under the State Law both parties must agree to recording unless its done by a Peace Officer for a Crime.

---

There are other exceptions as well.

cdwjava;815117]And if you never let them into your home, they could just leave and refuse to close the case or issue the permits. They do not have to agree to your conditions, nor do the police have to respond.

.[/QUOTE]unless they had a valid reason to deny the permit, there are ways around a building dept officer illegally refusing to issue a permit.

Quote:

---

Hopefully it would not be an issue where your insurance would necessarily lapse or the value of your home would drop when the record of the non-permitted work was placed on file.

---

. As it is, there is no determination there is actually any non-permitted work. Without support that there is, that would be slander of title and is actionable




the OP asked:

Quote:

---

I have the position that they were in fact permitted and allowed by the City in the mid 80's almost 30 years ago. The permits are there but there is ambiguity. The issues were constructed 30 years ago but the City is just now challenging them. My initial question is, Is there no statute of limitation if they were to determine these are real violations?

---

if there was a permit and the construction was given a final inspection and approval, that's it for the city. They don't get to revisit what they approved 30 years ago.

but given the paranoid statements of the OP, I suspect there is more to the issue than we are being told.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

unless they had a valid reason to deny the permit, there are ways around a building dept officer illegally refusing to issue a permit.

---

You are assuming that the original denial was "illegal." Since we have no idea of the nature of the complaint/allegation, there is no way to determine whether it was something that could still be an issue or might be grandfathered in.

As a note, in my city, they discovered that a great number of waivers were VERBALLY granted for work done on properties here. Unfortunately, those waivers were never documented anywhere by the then-building inspectors, and as a result they remain unlawful additions or modifications. And since the original inspector who allegedly issued these verbal waivers (which were not permitted even at the time) has since passed away a number of folks have found that work done is not permitted and has resulted in the devaluation of property or lack of insurance coverage after a claim for the affected area of the property.

Quote:

---

if there was a permit and the construction was given a final inspection and approval, that's it for the city. They don't get to revisit what they approved 30 years ago.

---

But, we do nto know what the isue is as the OP has not provided that info.

If the OP is not planning to sell or do any work, then the city will have no real grounds to pursue the matter ... unless the issue is a health and safety issue. We simply do not know.

Quote:

---

but given the paranoid statements of the OP, I suspect there is more to the issue than we are being told.

---

Yeppirs!

The add-on and alleged permitting took place 30 years ago, I bought the house 9 years ago. Per your response (and thanks) the question seems whether the code enforcement officer is also "considered" a peace officer, which is a good question and if I feel like pursuing that angle I will; but I think it is an add on issue to chase IF I end up challenging the main points formally. She said she “could do that” and I suspect as uncomfortable as it feels she would win that challenge though strictly speaking I would agree that it was odd, I don’t like it and could find myself writing the state representatives that it could use some review since they have provided us a very comprehensive privacy law.
Nevertheless I would argue the position that it was recorded and subject to being used on the record at some point in the future, without my knowing it and available in a record in county records, somewhere for a long time. I did not speak knowing that my words could be potentially held in perpetuity. I don't know how the law looks at that but I would think that there are times when that is significant, especially considering it was inside my home and our latest privacy laws from our state are substantial when the recording is in someone’s residence. Yes they did have permission to do a limited inspection of the kitchen area only; yes I would be stupid to presume anything different from city gov officials on the clock. But stupid presumptions aren’t law.
I did not challenge the facts of what existed and I could have covered it up and lied but I didn't. It is that it was done a long time ago and some very bad documentation indicates that they knew and I would argue by a reasonably obvious reference agreed to it slide, -hence approved it.
The issues entails an added on garage with two bed rooms, bath and efficiency kitchen over the garage. The street is zoned R1 and I live over the garage and have for 9 years and currently I rent the front and older part of the house. I act as care taker for the property. No one lives with me. They consider this two residences and that may be the end of it and I'll have to live elsewhere. OK. Nevertheless, sometimes a single occupant as care taker or family is ok but apparently in this zone the building inspector present with the code enforcement officer said no.
However it seems from the documentation that they DID review this house when it was build, and further, knew that the kitchen is there. So there are two issues, one is 'me" in addition" to a family in front. The other is the fact that even if I rented the whole property as one five bedroom house they want the little efficiency stove and efficiency frig (24 in wide and 10 cu feet) gone. The kitchen, electrical, and gas have all the appearances of having been constructed at the time of the whole structure and not added later. The pitiful documentation that we have indicates a built in cabinet with opening for the stove. This is not indicative of the 1948 full sized kitchen in front and I don't think what I'm seeing could be referring to the main kitchen. So even though there is an R1 on the property - and for how long I don't know but I'm going to accept that it was there when the add-on was created. The building inspector says there cannot be two places to "cook" and the stove needs to go, but I say the stove is listed on the permit. They claim it is referring to the kitchen in front.

At one point they said it could not "look" like a kitchen and even the cabinets and counters would have to go. Later they retracted a bit. Well I would dispute that because without the stove it is essentially a wet bar. There was a built in opening for an efficiency frig too. Currently there is a full sized one and I agreed to remove it and get another 10 cu footer if that was the problem. Whatever. So the question then is if the city knew back in 1984 or 1985 when this was built that the kitchen was there, can they now say that it has to go? Additionally if it was there does that imply two residences and I can be grandfathered in or I go too? I will get over it, aggravating but granted not the end of the world. Aggravating isn't the same as law, I get that.
Additionally they said they did not research anything unless there was a complaint. I said it is very unlikely my neighbors would do that as I have no known issues what so ever and not even home very much. I cleaned up fixed up a very messy run down place and they were all very glad.
I was concerned that another very well resourced public entity where I have successfully presented information indicating the appearances of a number of federal contract violations, amounting to considerable money, was doing this in retaliation and to encumber as much of my energies as possible that I would not have time, money and stamina left to continue to follow their issues. It is a public federal concern and federal process we'll leave it at that. There exists a history that supports that they are capable of as much, and the right authorities have been told.
I asked the city if they checked the ID of people who complain because this is rather scary. They said no. So anybody could have some beef and you have no recourse, add that to my collective mental big picture including bad records, and less that perky willingness to research applicable documentation before siting, and it was getting my attention.
The Building inspector, most recently, likely concerned that he could get connected to a federal investigation, then provided a bit more information saying that someone on the street was turned in for leaving trash cans out chronically so they in turn said well so and so has this violation and so and so that one. It is believable. I'll accept it for now as the logical explanation.
Nevertheless as the first female owner of this house, I'm subject to scrutiny by the attitudes of individuals that are not bound by law in administrating their opinions, not to discriminate and additionally under stress, even reasonable ones, creating a twisted sort of extortion if you will: someone turns them in and if they can turn in a few more violations perhaps they get favor or were hoping they would.
I would argue the position that I , nor anyone in this situation, on the receiving end, in the current process, is given equitable treatment by the law if the law is not the starting place but someone under duress trying to sift the focus elsewhere. It could be he would not turn in male property owners and therefore I am targeted sooner on an issue that apparently he has had a grudge, unknowingly to me, about for 30 years. I doubt I'll take a discrimination path without a lot more data. Nevertheless, as far as law goes it could be another interesting thing to discuss: Is it lawful for them to declare that their process is determined by the fact that they "only initiate an investigation" predicated upon complaints by the lay public –and non-identification-documented public at that? Is that fair, ethical, and lawful? I do not think that necessarily affords equitable application of government and law to each citizen.
They collect money based upon citations as well using this process, one that I aruge is highly given to the appearance of discrimination.
The question about the taping should stand on whether she ( the code enforcement officer) is considered in the class of government workers that are allowed to do this. What I feel, I feel;and generally I would not have sweat it. But in this case It was another item in the growing list of them, in a rather aggressive manner that they suddenly pursued this issue. The first notice was a hand written note placed loose in my US mail box that said the building was not permitted so they wanted to come in and see if it was a permitting violation. How logical. Well it was obvious that the basic structure does exist; it is there in plain view and the permits I knew would clearly indicate that they knew the structure was there. It was not specific about the zoning or whether there was a stove or any of that, just that the entire structure was not permitted. It IS permitted. That much we did finally argree upon.
At one point I called the building inspector to task, I presume with the recording still going and asked about the trusses in the attic. This one I actually had wondered about. He was describing a "rat run" on the trusses and said the pitch of the roof did not require them as the cross beams that form the "W" were sufficient for low roofs. I replied, "there IS no W, only an open triangle made by the rafters. The point, he refers to a coded model that is reinforced with the cross supports and without them the attic is not at code-which means they likely did not look at all. Even though clearly the city knew the structure is there as there are diagrams of the layout in the record that are accurate in the database at city hall. If the attic is not to code without the addition of these cross supports -AND that was the code, then, and now it would seem to substantiate that the city signed off on this without a visit at all and additionally we can presume because the man that owned the house and built the addition, at the time worked for the city, and additionally speculate upon how he got his buddies to sign off for him. Then could that make the city liable for negligence and not my responsibility but theirs for permitting via the good ol boy system ?

It was way before my time as I did not live in this state then. The home passed inspection and title search when I bought it or I would not have been able to get the loan for the house. Maybe that clarifies somewhat. I made several trips to the planning office and the first time they did not have much paperwork. I bought the house in 2005. I knew from the records on the house that the addition was added in 1985 and I mentioned this. They said well everything prior to 2004 is on microfiche. To which I replied, sooo could you go look at microfiche and pull the records. (wouldn't ya think?) Not sure why you would cite someone over a 30 year old issue and not even look up the record from that time before hand. It may not be a legal issue but it is an irritating one and gives me a clue the attitude behind the people doing the citing, as at that point I knew I would have to push for any information I got and they were not willing to give anything they could get away with omitting. I would not have anything prior to 2004 if I had not pushed them for it. It was on me to ask in order to get an accurate documented record and I'm pretty sure they do not have it all even yet. I recall another paper when I bought the house that I got at the city office but it isn't there now. For what its worth , just to play more devils advocate (and I doubt I would be pulling this card) but they permitted this in some ambiguous fashion to a good ol buddy and coworker. I am the first female to own that house and now they are , after 9 years no less , and 30 in all, getting motivated to question the permits but never questioned them when the addition for the first two decades was owned by males.

is this garage and upper level connected to the main house or is it detached?

Quote:

---

So the question then is if the city knew back in 1984 or 1985 when this was built that the kitchen was there, can they now say that it has to go?

---

most building permits I have applied for are pretty clear as to what is being built, including a print and design details having to be submitted for approval. I have to presume that was not the case in 1984 in your area.

Quote:

---

Additionally if it was there does that imply two residences and I can be grandfathered in or I go too?

---

no, that does not imply 2 residences and if this was always R1, you are either going to have to prove a variance was issued or accept it is only a single family residence.

Quote:

---

Quoting iokuok2

---

the question seems whether the code enforcement officer is also "considered" a peace officer, which is a good question and if I feel like pursuing that angle I will;

---

In some agencies - like mine - the Code Enforcement Officer is a sworn officer under the auspices of the Police Department. Though, that is rare. In most places he might be a public officer, but not one subject to the specific exemptions of the Penal Code. However, since there is really no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications with a government official, this is not an argument that will go anywhere so it might be best to address the ISSUE (the work/addition/permit/etc. rather than the recording.

Quote:

---

The issues entails an added on garage with two bed rooms, bath and efficiency kitchen over the garage. The street is zoned R1 and I live over the garage and have for 9 years and currently I rent the front and older part of the house. I act as care taker for the property. No one lives with me. They consider this two residences and that may be the end of it and I'll have to live elsewhere. OK. Nevertheless, sometimes a single occupant as care taker or family is ok but apparently in this zone the building inspector present with the code enforcement officer said no.

---

It sounds like different issues are going on here. Permits are one thing, and use is quite another. Absent some form of official acknowledgement of being grandfathered in, you may not be permitted to reside above the garage as it may not be zoned or properly acquitted as a residence per state law or the muni code. This is a common issue and when it comes to the fore, the property owner either needs to seek a waiver/variance or make changes to come into compliance. If you believe that the loft over the garage meets or at one time met the standard and that a permit had been issued, I would encourage you to let them inspect it and then seek a variance through the Planning Commission or City Council. Butting heads might feel good, but it will likely result in your losing what hope you might have had of a waiver.

if the work was done 30 years ago and there are no records one way or the other, and the work is otherwise sound and not a danger to other residents, you'd probably have a good claim at a waiver/variance with the city. But, if you fight the inspectors, they will be less disposed to grant such a waiver ... unless you have many thousands of dollars to spend to fight them.

Quote:

---

I asked the city if they checked the ID of people who complain because this is rather scary. They said no.

---

There are laws against requiring people to identify themselves when they seek to engage government resources. Anonymity might tie their hands, but it does not mean they cannot investigate based upon an anonymous complaint - the police deal with this all the time. Anonymous does not mean erroneous. And the best way to prove an anonymous complaint wrong is to PROVE it to be wrong (that might mean letting them in to look).

Quote:

---

Is it lawful for them to declare that their process is determined by the fact that they "only initiate an investigation" predicated upon complaints by the lay public –and non-identification-documented public at that? Is that fair, ethical, and lawful?

---

They can investigate for any reason they choose. The fact that their policy might not include seeking out violations absent a complaint, this policy does not preclude them from doing so if they wanted to.

Quote:

---

They collect money based upon citations as well using this process, one that I aruge is highly given to the appearance of discrimination.

---

And you'd have to PROVE that YOU were singled out for enforcement because of your being in a protected class. That's a tall order, and nothing you have written here remotely indicates this.

Forget the "I'm a female thing". It has nothing to do with that. It is just like I said it was in my prior post, you are being harassed for your complaining about Federal contracts. That is as plain as the nose on your face. Someone of interest in those contracts decided to give you something to occupy your time. It's payback. Whether it was a 'good-old-boy' thing inside the local government or someone from outside who made the complaint, the local government has to do their job and investigate. And they won't tell you who made the complaint, yet! But you can find out.

So the question is what to do about all this. Let's start with the zoning ordinance for your town and the history of it. You will need to do some research about what the zoning ordinance was back 30 years ago when the addition was added. Most zoning ordinances that I have read (and that is quite a few) permit mother-daughter (as it is called) dwellings in a single family home zone. The requirement is that the it is a family member that is living in the efficiency apartment be related to the family occupying the main home. That may have been what the situation was back 30 years ago when addition was added. So it was in complete conformity with the zoning. Fast forward 30 years and you are now the owner living in the efficiency and renting out the main living space. That may seem like a two family home now and the zoning ordinance may have changed since then not allowing the mother-daughter home. But that home would be considered a non-conforming use and as long as that efficiency was not abandoned for more than a year the use continues. So the question is was it a mother-daughter addition, did someone other than a family member to the main house live in that space in the last 30 years, and did the town do anything about it if it was occupied by a non-family member? I suspect not.

Then you come along and make waves and someone in the know makes a complaint that you have a two-family house. Ask yourself who would know that. Are there separate electric meters, separate gas connections, separate water hookups? Do I have the correct now?

The way you fight something like this is to use the laws to give back what they are giving you. You can claim discrimination but that will not work because you are not part of a protected class in this situation. They are not doing it because you are female. You can try to sue the town but that is not going to work and you will loose after spending lots of money. It's not easy to sue a governmental agency over something like this in any case.

Start by learning everything you can about the zoning and it's history. Make a Freedom of Information Act request (not a public documents request) for the complete file. This is not a criminal investigation and there is no confidentiality to protect so you should get the entire file for the property. That will tell you who made the allegations. Then you go public at meeting and start to push back. Go to the local press and tell your story.
David and Goliath.

Freedom of imformation act is a federal law and only applies to federal agencies and documents. There may be a state law similar to the FOIA but the FOIA does not apply to state matters.


in california it would fall under the california public records act.

in either law, yes, it is a public records request none the less. You are never privy to secure documents but only those that are considered public records.

I don't disagree with you but some of these local agencies are as dumb as a bag of wet laundry. You just never know what comes back. I made a FIA request on a state agency and got back all the handwritten doodles while they were on the phone. I kid you not.