EXCERPT FROM THE PENSACOLA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR January 28, 1999.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CITY CLERK WHITE: Item 5-A is a public hearing to consider:
CODE INCLUDING THE PROVISION TO ALLOW PORTABLE
SIGNS TO BE PLACED ON DOWNTOWN SIDEWALKS,
ALLOWING THE REQUIRED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE
REQUIREMENT TO BE REDUCED, THE DELETION OF THE
REQUIRED FOUR-FOOT DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL
AIR CONDITION EQUIPMENT AND PROPERTY LINES,
AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES.
MAYOR FOGG: Thank you, Madam Clerk. If there’s anyone in the audience here this evening that would like to speak to any item on the agenda this evening please fill out a blue card that you will find just to the right of the center podium. You can also find these cards outside each of the entrances into the chamber.
Each member of the audience here this evening that would like to make input is allowed to address any single issue for a maximum of five minutes. Is there anyone in the chamber this evening that would like to address Item 5-A on the agenda tonight. No one has indicated they’d like to. Council, what’s your pleasure?
COUNCIL MEMBER WAKEMAN: I so move.
MAYOR FOGG: Properly moved and seconded. Discussion? Please vote.
MAYOR FOGG: And it’s approved unanimously.
On the second reading, on February 11, 1999, at the City Council Meeting, the proposed ordinance became effective. The effective date of this ordinance was February 11, 1999, so it did not apply to changes of tenancy before that date.
The United States Constitution stated that “No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.” This said that a law ex post facto – literally, after the fact – is one that punishes conduct that was lawful when it was done. In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton noted that "the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law" is among "the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny."
The Ordinance (Bugs Bunny comic book) stated after the Public Hearing, “Certificate of occupancy required. A new building shall not be occupied or a change be made in occupancy, tenancy, or the nature of the use of a building or part of a building until after the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy.
Even though the legal reference for construction in Pensacola, the Standard Building Code, remained the same, City Officials continued to victimize the people in Pensacola with the same scam and swindle they had used for years. In addition, since City Officials still demanded that an occupational license required a “new” Certificate of Occupancy; City Officials could still decide who could operate a business in Pensacola and who could not by denying them a new CO, as they were doing to us even though we had reluctantly complied with all of their apparent illegal/criminal demands.
Governor Jeb Bush answered my letter where I reported the apparent illegal/criminal actions of City Officials against the people of Pensacola on February 23, 1999.
The correct response would have been for Governor Jeb Bush to initiate an investigation by FDLE and the Attorney General's office based on the evidence I sent to the Governor. Instead, he appeared to support the corruption in Pensacola of Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson who were apparently using criminal/illegal means (felonies) to steal from us.
Governor Bush stated in paragraph 1, “Thank you for your letter of January 8 concerning requirements for renovating your property in Pensacola. You are to be commended for your interest in restoring and preserving one of the great historic structures of the area. The state is blessed with a wealth of historically significant property and many state, regional and local government agencies are dedicated to the cause of preserving these properties for future generations. We depend on individuals such as you to assist in preservation of historic structures private ownership and outside of the public domain.”
Governor Bush skipped over the fact that City Officials were illegally requiring “renovations” even though they had no authority to demand these renovations which, in this case, consisted of stripping our historic structure of almost all of the historic artifacts built for the house when it was constructed in 1883. Mr. Bonfield was breaking the construction law (SBC) in this demand and he was breaking the United States Secretary of the Interior regulations regarding Historic properties. We defended our property against renovation (make new) since we considered it extremely important to preserve the original artifacts. Even though they were forcing us to renovate, City Officials did not have the authority to compel us to renovate or make new our historic property.
I had reported to Governor Bush that City Officials were forcing us, under false requirements, false charges and false statements, supposedly under the authority of the SBC, to undergo an illegal Certificate of Occupancy process and forced us to hire a contractor, their friend, and submit to projects which caused great harm to our historic house. We were desperately defending our historic property since we wanted to keep the 115+ year old artifacts in place where they belonged.
I had also reported to Governor Bush some of the harassing actions on the part of City Manager Bonfield and the Department of Building Inspections Director, Mr. Wilkinson. I pointed out that the unnecessary, expensive construction they were requiring was in violation of the SBC, United States Secretary of the Interior’s rules on restoring historic properties, was against our wishes, was causing great harm to our historic building and was causing unneeded financial loss to us.
Governor Bush stated in paragraph 2, “After reviewing your letter and back up documentation you provided, it appears you are asking if the City of Pensacola has acted within its authority in requiring that a certificate of occupancy be issued for you property. The opinion of the Florida Building Commission, which you received as a declaratory statement, resolves the issue of whether the Standard Building Code requires a Certificate of occupancy in this case. However an interpretation of the Standard Building Code does not entirely answer the question of whether a certificate of occupancy is required in your case.”
Contrary to Governor Bush’s letter, the Florida Building Commission’s interpretation of the Standard Building Code did entirely answer the question of whether a certificate of occupancy was required in my case. Their decision was made in November, 1998, and the phony City Ordinance was not requested until December, 1998, after City Officials received the decision ruling against them. The only building code in Pensacola at that time was the SBC and the SBC is still the only construction regulation since the phony ordinance did not amend the SBC. All City Official demands, requirements, and accusations have been based on false statements of authority and false requirements on the part of City Officials and appear to be criminal and/or illegal.
Governor Bush stated in paragraph 3, “Florida law requires all local governments to choose from among the state minimum building codes established in the state statutes the code which will serve as the building code within their jurisdictions. The Standard Building Code is one of the minimum codes from which a jurisdiction may choose. However, state law does allow local jurisdictions to require more stringent standards than those in the selected minimum codes. See s 553.73(4), F. S. 1998 (supp), enclosed. From the information you provided, it appears that the City of Pensacola has adopted a local ordinance requiring a certificate of occupancy be issued under the facts of your case. This is a more stringent requirement than those in the Standard Building Code.”
Governor Jeb Bush tried to pass off the bugs bunny comic book (BBCB) doctrine as a more stringent requirement of the SBC. This was an absurd and blatantly false statement. The BBCB doctrine did not affect construction and the City Officials illegally forcing this "more stringent standard" on us was in violation of our Constitutional rights as it was ex post facto - after we had a change of tenancy.
The Standard Building Code, Section 103 Powers and Duties of the Building Official, stated:
103.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official is further authorized to render interpretations of this code, which are consistent with its spirit and purpose. The original passage in the SBC indicated that the Certificate of Occupancy is not appropriate on change of ownership if the classification of the occupancy type stays the same. The City policy of requiring a new CO on change of tenancy in the same classification is in direct violation of the SBC not a more stringent requirement. (another absurd example of more stringent: Original - be careful where you spray the weed killer - don't kill the plants. More stringent - kill the plants.)
© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter
The Standard Building Code, Section 103 Powers and Duties of the Building Official, stated:
103.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official is further authorized to render interpretations of this code, which are consistent with its spirit and purpose. The original passage in the SBC indicated that the Certificate of Occupancy is not appropriate on change of ownership if the classification of the occupancy type stays the same. The City policy of requiring a new CO on change of tenancy in the same classification is in direct violation of the SBC not a more stringent requirement. (another absurd example of more stringent: Original - be careful where you spray the weed killer - don't kill the plants. More stringent - kill the plants.)
© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter
