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.
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
