Chapter 2

In a follow-up letter, dated July 30, 1998, Mr. Wilkinson, again stated, this time in writing, that the policy of the City Officials was to require a certificate of occupancy every time a property changed hands or each time a renter, leasee, or tenant moved in or out. 

1. 

 

 

 

 

I stated in my return letter that this policy was not in writing in any City Ordinance and was against the Standard Building Code which the City of Pensacola had adopted as its official regulation.  His demands were illegal, unauthorized and would be harmful to our historic property. 

Mr. Wilkinson had written, “Section 3401.3 of the Standard Building Code references existing building; certificates of occupancy.  This section states when in the opinion of the building official an inspection may be required to determine the building is in compliance with the technical codes.” 

I stated to Mr. Wilkinson that Section 3401.2 of the SBC, the paragraph before 3401.3 was scope in that provisions of this chapter governed the application of this code to existing buildings here in Pensacola.  Section 3401.2 was applicability and called for a Certificate of Occupancy on a change of type – occupancy type or classification.  We had no change of type or classification so this instruction did not apply to us. 

Neither did we fall into the exception to the above two paragraphs stated in Section 3401.3 of the Standard Building Code, existing buildings which states, “when in the opinion of the building official an inspection may be required to determine the building is in compliance with the technical codes.”    I had given Mr. Wilkinson a copy of the professional building inspection performed before we bought the house on July 1, 1998, which stated that the building was in compliance with all technical codes and only needed a few minor cosmetic repairs and improved maintenance but was otherwise sound and safe. 

It appeared that Mr. Wilkinson was illegally using Section 3401.3 to require an illegal blanket inspection of every building in the City on change of tenant, owner, etc.  Mr. Wilkinson does not have the authority to do this to everyone, only if the building is not in compliance with technical codes.  We provided evidence that our building was in compliance with all technical codes. 

If Mr. Wilkinson couldn’t get past applicability – that the requirement applied to us – then he had to put the instruction down.  He didn’t have the authority to keep reading and say, even though it doesn’t apply to you, I can force you to undergo this inspection.
 

Mr. Wilkinson had previously stated to me that under the requirement for a new Certificate of Occupancy, he was going to require the removal of most of the historic artifacts on our building for “refurbishment.”  We were against this based on the unnecessary expense and potential for harm to the irreplaceable artifacts which had been in place on the building for over 110 years.  The Federal regulation also forbade removing artifacts from an historic property.
 

Mr. Wilkinson had written, “Section 7-2-4 of the Code of the City of Pensacola requires a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of a business license.”  On the phone, Mr. Wilkinson had stated that this section required a new CO instead of just presenting a copy of the CO on file at City Hall.  He stated that City Officials would not grant us an occupational license unless we did as he demanded.  It appeared that City Officials controlled who could operate a business in Pensacola by use of this illegal requirement.
 

Section 7-2-4 of the Code of the City of Pensacola states “A certificate of occupancy issued by the building inspection department shall be furnished to the city treasurer as a condition precedent prior to the issuance of any new or transfer occupational licenses.” 

Since the certificate of occupancy was good for the life of the house to identify its use and location, a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy on file in the Pensacola Building Inspections Department was all that is required by Section 7-2-4.  An individual did not have to go through a new Certificate of Occupancy process to get a business or occupational license.  They only had to show the current CO. 

This is like having to present your driver’s license for identification.  You don’t have to retake the test and have a new driver’s license issued each time identification is required.  You only have to show the current driver's license.

Our County, Escambia County did not require a new Certificate of Occupancy or a copy of any Certificate of Occupancy for issuance of an occupational license.  All cities and counties in Florida I checked with did not require a copy of the certificate of occupancy at all in order to get an occupational license which is just a tax for operating in the City. 

Mr. Wilkinson had written, “The building at this address is an existing structure and according to our records was last used as a commercial office.”  This was not true either as the building at this address was an art gallery/antique shop holding functions.  I called Mr. Wilkinson and told him our building was an art gallery/antique shop holding functions for over twenty (20) years, not an office building.  Mr. Wilkinson said that official records stated that it was an office building and that it could only be used for that purpose. 

Since Mr. Wilkinson was immovable, we decided to use the building as an office building to satisfy Mr. Wilkinson so we could use our property for income since we had been denied the use of our building since our purchase on July 1, 1998.  We had both worked in offices for decades and had the confidence that we could use it as an upscale office building.  In my return letter to Mr. Wilkinson, I stated that we had submitted to his insistence that the building had to be used as an office building.  “Our house will be rented as an upscale professional office space.” 

It appeared that the actions of Mr. Wilkinson in illegally requiring a new CO, illegally requiring extensive unnecessary work, illegally requiring that we use it as an office building instead of what we bought it for (art gallery/antique shop holding functions), illegally requiring a CO inspection fee, forcing us to hire someone of his choice (see later actions) or we couldn’t use our property or would be arrested, appeared to be extortion and abuse of power as defined in Florida Statutes.
 

I had spoken with several owners of office buildings to get information on what to expect.  Our building was suitable for four (4) office spaces.  The consensus was that most people rented office space while they were constructing their own building, were on a temporary assignment (insurance adjusters after a storm), or other short term needs.  I found the average tenant stayed one year. 

I did a comparison chart over an eight year period of how many CO’s were required under the valid construction law, the SBC, - zero (0) CO’s were required.

Under Mr. Wilkinson’s illegal policy if we had been allowed to operate as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions – one (1) CO was required. 

 Under Mr. Wilkinson’s illegal demand that we use it as an office building, and since we  had space for four (4) tenants, over an eight year period, we would be required to submit to 32 CO procedures.

In addition to the fees, the illegally demanded CO procedures could be used to require unneeded and unwanted construction costs (like now), and result in stolen property and stolen building material costs (like now). 

In my letter to Mr. Wilkinson, I pointed out that we had worked diligently with the Pensacola Building Inspection Department, the Pensacola Architectural Review Board and the North Hill Preservation Board and that it wasn’t that we were trying to get around a legal requirement but didn’t want to waste money and time and risk damage to our historic property because of an apparent illegal City policy.  We asked him to help resolve this matter as we would lose our money and destroy our house if this kept up.  I couldn’t imagine that this was the goal of the City.

Mr. Wilkinson and I continued to exchange letters where I pointed that a new Certificate of Occupancy was not required and he stated that it was required.  None of the documentation I studied supported his requirement but, in official regulations, specifically forbade it.  His government agency (the Pensacola Building Inspections Department) as well as the property owner (us) must follow Florida State Statutes and the Standard Building Code.  Mr. Wilkinson told me that he did not follow Florida State Statutes.  He said we would do what he required or the house would sit unused until it rotted. 

© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter

 

Chapter 1

 

Florida appears to be heavily laden with corruption.  A current report states that Florida is number 10 on the list of the 10 most corrupt states in the country.  I have read reports from previous years where Florida has been number 1, the most corrupt state in the country.  It appears that the governors, state attorneys general, state attorneys, and law enforcement agencies of at least forty other states and sometimes 49 other states have managed to keep their corruption rates lower than our government officials in charge in Florida. 

Another report states that Florida currently has 4 cities (Pensacola is number 6) in the category of 10 most dangerous small cities in the country.  It appears that the Governors and officials of at least forty-six other states have managed to keep their small cities safer than our Florida Governors and officials. 

This appears to be an F minus for those in charge in Florida. 

We live in Pensacola, Florida.  We, and many others here, who have been victimized by the high level of crime and corruption, have diligently reported specific instances of these apparent criminal/illegal actions to local and state officials. 

The Officials we contacted have refused to control crime and corruption in Florida and have continued the policy of allowing government officials to victimize the people of Florida, especially here in Pensacola.

I have decided to describe my experiences of being an unwilling victim of apparent crime and corruption in the hope that my disclosure will inspire government officials to end the high rate of corruption here.

--------------

In 1998, my husband, Gene, and I had been looking for a business property downtown to supplement our retirement income.   The realtor notified us that an historic property built in 1883, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and located in the North Hill Preservation District was available. 

The house, Victorian, had 8 fireplaces with their beautiful mantels and over mantels still intact.  The over mantels were beautiful, made from mahogany or heart pine, most with carved columns and all contained beveled mirrors.  A total of six verandas/porches with the original beautiful heart pine columns, heart pine railings, and spindles adorned the house.

On the first floor, there were two distinctive decorative plaster sconces located near a bay window area in what appeared to be a gentlemen’s parlor.  On the second floor, the layout was duplicated but the parlor area was the master bedroom with a little sitting room connected.  Most rooms, upstairs and downstairs had access to porches or verandas.

The house was in PR2 zoning, multifamily which allowed commercial enterprises.  The property was currently being used as an art gallery/antique shop (since 1980) holding functions and the certificate of occupancy was commercial.  This seemed to be a good fit since Gene and I had a strong interest in art and antiques.  We were excited about running an art gallery/antique shop and holding functions such as family reunions, parties and weddings here in this beautiful house. 

We had the house inspected on May 30, 1998, by a professional building inspector.  No structural problems were found outside which would require major construction – only small repairs such as replacing a few boards and repairing a few spindles on the back stairs and on some of the verandas, etc.  The inspector found no major problems inside which would require major construction – again, only small repairs.  Based on the inspection, we decided to buy the house.  His overall finding was that the house was structurally sound, was in compliance with technical codes, and that no construction was needed – only improved maintenance.  The closing was scheduled for July, 1998. 

Most of the expense of repairing our property would be cosmetic such as sanding and redoing the floors, scrapping, caulking, replacing rotten boards, repairing spindles and painting the house - no building permit was required for these jobs.

Prior to the closing on the house, I reviewed the State Statutes, County Ordinances and Pensacola City Ordinances to make sure that we acted in accordance with the rules and regulations.    

----------------------

Chapter 553.73 of the Florida Statutes establishes the requirement for local governments to adopt a building code where they are responsible for building construction regulations.  Local Governments must select one of the four approved Building Codes.

---------------------

¹553.73  State Minimum Building Codes.--

(1)(a)  By October 1, 1984, local governments and state agencies with building construction regulation responsibilities shall adopt a building code which shall cover all types of construction.
(2)  There is created the State Minimum Building Codes which shall consist of the following nationally recognized model codes:
(a)  Standard Building Codes, 1988 edition, pertaining to building, plumbing, mechanical, and gas, and excluding fire prevention;
(b)  EPCOT Code, 1982 edition;
(c)  One and Two Family Dwelling Code, 1986 edition; and
(d)  The South Florida Building Code, 1988 edition.
Each local government and state agency with building construction regulation responsibilities shall adopt one of the State Minimum Building Codes as its building code, which shall govern the construction, erection, alteration, repair, or demolition of any building for which the local government or state agency has building construction regulation responsibility.

----------------------

Pensacola City Ordinance 14-1-131 selected 553.73 (2)(a), the Standard Building Code (SBC), as the State Minimum Building Code for Pensacola.  Only the SBC can be used for construction regulations in Pensacola. 

Since my husband and I were the contractors in building our residence, I was very familiar with the Standard Building Code.

The Standard Building Code stated that the definition of Occupancy is “The purpose for which a building, or part thereof, is used or intended to be used.”  Our building had the Occupancy type of Business (commercial) which was Group B.  Assemblies of over 100 are Group A, and assemblies of less than 100 persons were covered under Group B, Business – which we were.  The building was classified as Business and we were going to use it as Business.  The category of Business was so large it included:  animal hospitals, kennels, pounds, barber shops, carwashes, florist and nurseries, art galleries, antique shops, office buildings, police stations, radio and television stations, etc. 

The Standard Building Code, Section 106.1 Certificate of Occupancy, stated “A new building shall not be occupied or a change made in the occupancy, nature or use of a building or part of a building until after the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy.”

The Standard Building Code established that a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on a new building and was valid for the life of the building unless a major change took place, such as the occupancy type changing from residential to business (commercial).  Since there was no change in occupancy, nature or use of our building, a new certificate of occupancy was not appropriate, according to the regulations.  We could move in and open the day we signed the closing papers.

In addition, the Standard Building Code 3401.5 Special Historic Buildings stated that even if an historic building required a new Certificate of Occupancy, which ours did not, it could be exempted if it was found safe.  Our historic building was inspected by a professional inspector and was found to be safe.  Since our building was certified as historic and was listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, this section also exempted us from a new Certificate of Occupancy requirement.

I then studied the Federal regulations for restoring and maintaining an historic property:  The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines to Restoring which required that original materials and artifacts must not be removed from the property but must be restored and remain in place.

We had the closing on July 1, 1998, as scheduled, and began moving in.

We were unloading and arranging antiques in the shop when a stranger, who appeared to be a policeman, barged in and started accusing us, in a very agitated manner, of breaking the law.  He stated that the railings and spindles had to be removed, that the doorways had to be widened, and on and on.  He stated that under the Certificate of Occupancy requirement these changes had to be made and that we could not move anything in or use our property until we got a new Certificate of Occupancy (CO).  He stated that we could be arrested if we broke this law.

I told him that the Standard Building Code (SBC) specifically stated that a new Certificate of Occupancy was not appropriate if the classification did not change and it was clearly evident that our classification had not changed.  He continued to threaten us with arrest and huffed out of the building.
             

I was very concerned about his demands since they were illegal.  In addition, they were not practical as our doorways were already wider than newer houses, the railings and spindles just needed repair, etc.  I didn’t want to rip our historic house apart especially since everything he had said was the opposite of the requirements of the SBC and also was the opposite of the Federal regulations for restoring and maintaining an historic property which specifically required that original materials and artifacts must not be removed from the property but must be restored and remain in place, as I stated above.

I called the Pensacola Police Department and asked about a policeman falsely telling us we could not use our property unless we got a new CO.  The desk sergeant said that he was not a policeman but he was a City Building Inspector since they wore similar police-type uniforms and that I should call the Building Inspection Department.

I discovered that the Pensacola City Building Inspectors wore pseudo police uniforms, complete with badges and police hats, and threatened property owners with arrest if they did not do exactly as the inspectors said even if their demands were in violation of the SBC.  These inspectors routinely barged onto people’s property (trespass), just as this one did, whenever they wanted and made spontaneous, oral construction demands which didn’t appear to be based on any official requirement and were not backed up in writing. 

I called the Building Inspections Department and spoke with Mr. Wilkinson, the Director.  I pointed out that the SBC stated that a new CO on change of tenant, if the classification stayed the same, was not appropriate.  Mr. Wilkinson stated that City policy required a new CO on every change of tenant to include owners, renters, leasees, etc. and that was that.

© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter