As I have repeatedly stated, public officials appeared to be committing wide spread corruption here in Pensacola and no one who was being paid to enforce the law and protect the public was willing to address and stop this corruption. Public Officials appear to consider themselves above the law and free to break the laws at will to reward their friends with sweetheart deals, threaten and coerce members of the public to knuckle under, and deprive members of the public, individually, and the members of the public, as a whole, of their money and property.
There appeared to be a secret group of powerful people running Pensacola. While the Pensacola News
Journal addressed this group as “the good old boys,” or “GOB” they appear to
be other than good, not all were old and not all were boys. This group, gang, or cartel appears to
consist mostly of developers (many got sweetheart deals) and public officials
(many put together these sweetheart deals and then decided who got them).
As I indicated, in October, 1999, Building Inspection
Department Director Wilkinson began demanding that I comply with the Florida
Accessibility Codes, even though these codes did not apply to my situation since
the Florida Accessibility Law affected only buildings constructed after 1997
and documented historic buildings were exempt.
Our historic building was built in 1883 and had been documented, for quite some time, on the National
Registry of Historic Places. This
appeared to be another false basis to continue his demands for unnecessary
construction and removal of our remaining historic artifacts.
Ms.
Ustick wrote me a letter, dated November 1, 1999, forwarding section 4.1.7
of “The Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction” dated
October 1997. I wrote Ms. Ustick, on November 4, 1999, and told her that this
regulation had nothing to do with my house. I pointed out that the regulation
exempted buildings built before October 1, 1997, and since ours was built over
a hundred years before that date, it was exempted.
of “The Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction” dated
October 1997. I wrote Ms. Ustick, on November 4, 1999, and told her that this
regulation had nothing to do with my house. I pointed out that the regulation
exempted buildings built before October 1, 1997, and since ours was built over
a hundred years before that date, it was exempted.
I
found out later that the Pensacola Economic and Community Development Committee
had written a memo, dated December 9, 1999, requesting the Pensacola City
Council to instruct Mr. Bonfield to amend the City Code to change the policy
and procedure for the Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Program conducted by
the Pensacola Building Inspection Department.
Mr. Wilkinson wrote a letter to us, dated December 27, 1999,
stating that we could proceed with
constructing the outside stairs under the Standard Building Code specification,
as reflected in and originally approved in the plans we submitted. We cut the outside stairs and landing to 36
inches, as specified and approved by the Pensacola Planning Department and as
specified in Mr. Wilkinson’s letter of December 27, 1999, but Mr. Weeks, the on-site
investigator, a Building Inspector in Mr.
Wilkinson’s Department and under his direction, would not accept that.
Mr.
Weeks, apparently instructed by his supervisor, Mr. Wilkinson, then required adherence to the ADA and Florida
Accessibility Code requirements of 44 inches,
which we then cut and he again rejected.
Then he demanded compliance with the Standard Building Code, again, which
we then cut again and he rejected again.
Assistant
City Manager
P.
O. Box 12910
Pensacola,
Fl 32521-0053
I
just received your letter, dated November 1, 1999, forwarding section 4.1.7 of
“The Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction” dated October
1997. This Item is referenced in your e-mail dated September 29, 1999, Subject:
Mead Case, to Mr. William Weeks as follow-up information that he provided to you.
“The Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction” dated October
1997. This Item is referenced in your e-mail dated September 29, 1999, Subject:
Mead Case, to Mr. William Weeks as follow-up information that he provided to you.
Section
4.1.7 has nothing to do with my house.
Section
4.1.7 Application subparagraph (5) General Exceptions subparagraph (c)
Reads:
Facilities which were either under
construction or under contract for
Construction on or before October 1,
1997.
As
my house was built in 1883, it is clear that this section does not apply to my
house. Even if my house had been built a hundred years later, in 1983, this section
would still not apply to it.
house. Even if my house had been built a hundred years later, in 1983, this section
would still not apply to it.
Ignoring
the applicability of instructions has been a common problem I have
encountered
in City Hall. No one seems to be reading
and understanding the
entire rule/statute/code/instruction.
entire rule/statute/code/instruction.
I am
still waiting for the public records and documents that I had requested
regarding
the Building Inspection file on my house.
Sincerely,
Mary
M. Mead
Cc: Mr. Bonfield, City Manager
Mr. Weeks then demanded that we use his own personal specifications to cut the stairs,
which we did.
Mr. Weeks finally accepted the outside stairs which were cut
to his personal specifications. The
result was that a support post was in the center of a downstairs window and the
landing was too small to take heavy appliances up the outside back stairs to
the second floor. All appliances had to
be hauled up the historic inside stairs, built in 1883, and bumped up each step
by the appliance installers.
During the time we were obeying Mr. Weeks’ demands in order
to get our stairs approved, I wrote a letter to Assistant City Manager, Ms.
Ustick, dated January 21, 2000, stating that we were being forced to comply
with Florida’s Accessibility Laws, by Mr. Wilkinson’s Department, which did not
apply to our house and which I had previously reported to her on November 4,
1999.
I
also contacted the Florida Housing and Community Development Department in
Tallahassee.
The
following excerpt is from a letter I wrote to the Director of the Florida
Housing and Community Development Department, Mr. Tom Pierce, in Tallahassee
which described my experience with his Department.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spoke with Mr. Mary Katherine Smith at the Florida Accessibility office, where she is one of your experts. Her phone number is 850-487-1824. She agreed that my work on the house does not come under the Florida Accessibility Law and we can use the requirements in the Standard Building Code to replace the deteriorated stairs.
I spoke with Mr. Mary Katherine Smith at the Florida Accessibility office, where she is one of your experts. Her phone number is 850-487-1824. She agreed that my work on the house does not come under the Florida Accessibility Law and we can use the requirements in the Standard Building Code to replace the deteriorated stairs.
I
called Mr. Wilkinson, the Head of the local Building Inspection Department and
told him the good news. He said he would
talk with Ms. Smith. Mr. Wilkinson
called me back and said that, after he explained everything, Ms. Smith agreed
with him that we would have to follow the ADA requirements.
I
called Ms. Smith and she said the local Building Inspection Department called
the shots. This seemed strange to me as
rules are supposed to go from the top down instead from the bottom up. I asked to speak with her supervisor, Ms.
Jones. I explained to Ms. Jones that I
have received two different stories from Ms. Smith and that the second story
was in conflict with the Accessibility Code.
Ms.
Jones hollered over to Ms. Smith about my question and Ms. Smith repeated her
second story.
I
decided to write to you as this is a very serious problem for me. I have never refused to abide by the law
while repairing this house. The local
Building Inspection Department has consistently been wrong while interpreting
the Standard Building Code and the Florida Accessibility Code. We had our plans drawn up in accordance with
the Standard Building Code since we knew we did not have to meet the ADA
requirements. Even then, we could hardly
fit the stairs on the back of the house as there is a detached garage, windows
on the stair wall and a very small back yard.
The City’s review board approved the plans. Then, Mr. Wilkinson said we had to make the
stairs 44 inches wide instead of the 36 inches wide on the plans. After several weeks where we agonized where
to put the stairs, how to run them to fit, Mr. Wilkinson realized he was
mistakenly reading requirements for buildings with over a 50 person load. Ours will probably be much less than 20. He finally agreed to 36 inches which had been
right all along. I think that is
important for you, as Director, to know when your people are giving out
erroneous information. These kinds of
mistakes cost thousands of dollars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.
Pierce never responded.
I wrote Ms. Ustick on January 26, 2000, and informed her,
again, that Mr. Wilkinson was requiring compliance with rules, the Florida
Accessibility Law (authorized under the American Disabilities Act), that did
not affect us. I sent her a copy of the letter I had sent to Mr.
Pierce.
I
informed Mr. Bonfield and Ms. Ustick that we had to cut the back stairs many
times before Mr. Weeks finally accepted them, in my letter dated March 1, 2000. The City Officials apparent violation of the
Florida Accessibility Code, as in the case of their violation of the
Certificate of Occupation regulations, resulted in causing us to lose time,
money and building materials.
Finally, the Pensacola City Manager and the Pensacola City
Council took initial steps on January 27, 2000, to discontinue their illegal
in-house policy of requiring a “new” Certificate of Occupancy on change of
tenant, over a year and a half after I brought it to their attention that this
policy was breaking the law. This was
the action requested by the
Pensacola Economic and Community Development Committee in their memo, dated
December 9, 1999.
No official reason was given for the abrupt abandonment of
the illegal policies City Officials had strictly enforced by intimidation,
threats, bullying, extortion, false statements and an entrenched refusal to
obey the law.
My guess was that my discussing these illegal activites
during the televised Pensacola City Council Meetings generated phone calls to
Pensacola City Council Members and the City Manager’s Office. I was approached many times while in the
hardware store, the lumber yard, and once while pumping gas by viewers who
thanked me for bringing these illegal practices into the open.
At no time during the decades that City Officials severely
enforced this illegal policy did they have the authority to do so. They ignored the construction law they had
selected and which was specified by City Ordinance (a choice of 4 provided by
Florida State Statutes) all of which forbade this illegal policy.
City Officials appeared to have perfected an illegal scheme,
including the mythical City Ordinance modifying the Standard Building Code, in
the last two decades which they used illegally to:
trepass
on private property (to include taking pictures of historic artifacts in
the house)
the house)
demand
unwanted, unnecessary construction (prohibited by federal guidelines
in historic houses – which ours was)
in historic houses – which ours was)
demand
hiring their contractor friends instead of the contractor the property
owner selects by refusing to issue a building permit except to their
friends
owner selects by refusing to issue a building permit except to their
friends
refusing building permits to property
owners legally authorized, by Florida
State Statutes and Escambia County Ordinances, to be their own
contractors
State Statutes and Escambia County Ordinances, to be their own
contractors
require
removal of historic artifacts (again prohibited by federal guidelines in
historic houses – which ours was) which their contractors friends then
stole
historic houses – which ours was) which their contractors friends then
stole
In order to do the illegal actions stated above, City
Officials appear to have organized ways to enforce these illegal actions,
cover-up their illegal actions to the people they were victimizing, and
represent themselves to other Government Officials that they were operating within the law and within their authorization when
they were not. It appears also that many Government Officials were aware of the City Officials' illegal/criminal actions against property owners and participated in a cover up. City Officials appear to
have:
committed conspiracy as all City Officials had to agree to pretend that
the in-
house policy was legitimate and state to those outside of City
Government that their in-house policy was authorized by law when it
was not.
It appears that the Pensacola Police Department and the Florida State
Attorney had to agree not to prosecute City Officials who were breaking
Florida laws, federal laws, and the construction laws.
house policy was legitimate and state to those outside of City
Government that their in-house policy was authorized by law when it
was not.
It appears that the Pensacola Police Department and the Florida State
Attorney had to agree not to prosecute City Officials who were breaking
Florida laws, federal laws, and the construction laws.
It appears that the Pensacola Police
Department also had to agree not
to prosecute contractors who stole historic artifacts and building
materials (i.e. Mr. Douglas E. Miller) from properly registered historic
properties, as ours was.
to prosecute contractors who stole historic artifacts and building
materials (i.e. Mr. Douglas E. Miller) from properly registered historic
properties, as ours was.
City Officials made
false statements to officials contacted by victims of this
illegal policy in order to protect these illegal actions and enable the
victimization of property owners to continue.
illegal policy in order to protect these illegal actions and enable the
victimization of property owners to continue.
committed
extortion, as defined by Florida Statutes, in the collection of
unauthorized inspection fees. City Officials appear to have committed
extortion by stating that the property would sit unused until it rotted if the
owner did not comply with their illegal demands.
unauthorized inspection fees. City Officials appear to have committed
extortion by stating that the property would sit unused until it rotted if the
owner did not comply with their illegal demands.
City Officials appear to have committed extortion by repeatedly stating that
the property owner could be arrested for disobeying the demands of the
Pensacola Building nspectors
the property owner could be arrested for disobeying the demands of the
Pensacola Building nspectors
committed
grand theft by causing historic artifacts to be removed (not within
their authority) from the historic buildings apparently so they could be
stolen by their contractor friends.
their authority) from the historic buildings apparently so they could be
stolen by their contractor friends.
denied
building permits to authorized property owners and licensed
contractors who were not compliant with these apparent commissions
of fraud and other apparent felonies.
It appeared that City Officials made specific false statements to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) regarding this matter. I repeatedly requested, under the Public Information Act, all information and documentation from and to the City Officials and from and to the DBPR to obtain the communications between them containing false information as the DBPR made judgments and rulings not in keeping with the laws and facts relevant to this situation.
contractors who were not compliant with these apparent commissions
of fraud and other apparent felonies.
It appeared that City Officials made specific false statements to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) regarding this matter. I repeatedly requested, under the Public Information Act, all information and documentation from and to the City Officials and from and to the DBPR to obtain the communications between them containing false information as the DBPR made judgments and rulings not in keeping with the laws and facts relevant to this situation.
Both DBPR and City Officials refused to surrender this
information. DBPR said it was secret and
City Officials said they had no communications with DBPR. On their part, personnel of the DBPR refused
to properly investigate as the extensive documentation I supplied clearly showed,
standing alone, that City Officials were apparently committing crimes, mostly
felonies.
It appeared that City Officials made false statements to
Governor Jeb Bush. I repeatedly
requested, under the Public Information Act, all information and communications
from and to the City Officials regarding this matter and to and from the Office
of Florida Governor Jeb Bush to obtain the communications between them
containing false information as Governor Jeb Bush made statements identical to
those statements made by City Officials which were not in keeping with the
facts or laws of this situation. City
Officials and Governor Jeb Bush refused my request. Governor Jeb Bush did not answer my request
and City Officials said they had no communications with Governor Jeb Bush.
Each time I reported the situation to Governor Jeb Bush, he
refused to stop the apparent criminal actions against us. On his part, Governor Bush, also, refused to properly investigate the situation
and allowed City Officials to apparently continue committing crimes, mostly
felonies. If he had stopped them the first
time I reported them, we would still have our historic artifacts, our building
materials and our life savings.
The announcement regarding the “change” in the Certificate of
Occupancy policy was announced at the Pensacola City Council Meeting of January
27, 2000. City Officials never admitted
that modifying the Land Development Code (LDC) in January, 1999, which was
stratigized to put their illegal requirement in writing and pretend it was the
construction law, broke local, state and federal laws. City Officials never admitted that their big
show at this meeting to modify the LDC to remove the illegal requirment made no
difference as the legal construction law, the SBC, had never been changed but
had always stated that a Certificate of Occupancy was not appropriate on change
of tenant.
At the City Council Meeting, after the City Council had
agreed to discontinue this illegal in-house policy, City Council Member King
complimented me “for being very vigilant in kind of directing us to a point
where we can all agree…”
Pensacola City Manager Bonfield stated that this change was
to make the Building Inspection Department more efficient instead of the fact
that this change was to finally comply with the construction law which they had
previously refused to do, but had chosen to continue the illegal victimization
of Pensacola property owners as long as possible.
No Pensacola City Official or Pensacola City Council Member
ever admitted that their actions had been illegal or criminal in any way.
No public official I contacted would conduct an investigation
to see why City Officials had been
allowed to force illegal practices on City citizens for decades which
resulted in great loss to thousands of individuals (money, historical property,
years of the loss of the use of their building due to false accusations),
etc. No mention was made of restitution
for the victims of these illegal activities.
I repeatedly wrote the same public officials to whom I had
been reporting these crimes and stated the need for an investigation of how
these crimes had been allowed to continue for so long, but all refused. Some Florida State Officials said that the matter
was moot as City Officials had changed their policy. I explained the loss of our irreplaceable
historic property, our life savings and two years of our lives where we had
been denied the legal use of our property and denied the protection of the law,
where we had been falsely accused of breaking laws, and forced to undergo
threats and extortion, did not appear to be moot.
Since City Officials no longer had a lucrative illegal
process to hide, they began issuing building permits in compliance with Florida
Statutes and construction law. No longer
did City Officials insist on issuing building permits only to licensed
contractors who were compliant with the illegal demands of City Officials
especially in the case of fraud regarding the illegal Certificate-of-Occupancy-requirement-on-change-of-tenant
scam. Licensed contractors who had refused
to participate in this scam and property owners, in approved categories, were
issued building permits in compliance with the law.
