Oct 20 2008
With all the crime in California, why put an 83 year old woman in jail over a garage?
[LA Times]
La Quinta, Calif., resident says the space was a bedroom when she bought the house 30 years ago, but the city says it’s her responsibility to undo the illegal conversion. Ageda Camargo was sitting in her shady frontyard, wondering aloud if jail is as bad as it sounds.
“I’m thinking of writing Martha Stewart to ask what it’s like,” said the soft-spoken 83-year-old. “Do they put you in a cell? I wouldn’t want to be in a cell.”
These weren’t idle worries. Camargo, a grandmother of six, has run afoul of La Quinta’s code enforcement in a big way, big enough to put her behind bars. The city near Palm Springs insists that one of her three bedrooms is really an illegally converted garage. She insists it’s just a bedroom.
“What right do they have to call this a garage?” she asked, walking around the room with its cabinets, sink, bathroom and refrigerator. “I never called it a garage. How do they know it’s not a bedroom? If this is a garage, then they owe me a bedroom.”
For 18 months now, code enforcement officials have been after Camargo to turn the bedroom back into a garage. Insisting that her home is her castle, she has ignored more than a dozen warnings. Her resistance crumbled last week when a local judge ordered her to comply or face possible jail time.
“It’s traumatic. It’s like tearing my house down,” she said. “I bought this place 30 years ago, and it was always a bedroom. And now they are trying to shove this down my throat.
City building and safety director Tom Hartung said that an illegally converted garage poses health and safety risks but that going to court is a last resort.
“To say we should not enforce the ordinances based on the demographics of the owner of the property is unrealistic,” he said. “We can’t do that.”
Hartung said that in his 25-year career, he’s seen only one person jailed over a violation.
“I think we are very fair,” he said. “I don’t think you will find a more reasonable department.”
Camargo grew up on a family farm in nearby Thermal. In 1977, she moved to Avenida Montezuma in La Quinta, attracted by the isolation and soaring views of the nearby Santa Rosa Mountains. Her troubles began when a code enforcement officer spotted a light shining from her garage into the street, a code violation. He noticed her trash cans in front of the house (another violation) and weeds poking through the concrete (yet another one). But what really caught his eye were the garage doors. They were firmly fixed in the driveway and didn’t open. Windows lined one side wall of the attached structure.
“He began yelling orders at me and said he wanted to bring in inspectors,” Camargo said. “He wanted to come in, and I said, ‘No way am I going to let you in. Are you telling me this isn’t America anymore?’
Undeterred, code enforcement sent letter after letter warning that continued defiance could mean a fine or jail. The department gave her repeated extensions to undo the conversion. Still she didn’t budge.
Read more here.
[From me]
Don’t they have more dangerous people to go after than an 83 year old grandma? She bought the house 30 years ago like this. Why don’t they grandfather her in? Also what dangers come from converted room? Our home in seminary in Ft. Worth had a “den” that was garage years before. I never felt like we were in danger. California has enough problems than to go after sweet elderly women.
What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
8 responses so far
This is a bunch of “hooey!” Light shining onto the street? Garbage cans in front? Weeds poling through the concrete? And she gets in trouble for that? Sounds to me more like Communist Russia. I have a “Man cave” that was a garage long before I moved in. This is pure nuts! An abuse of power.
Bill(cycleguy)’s last blog post..Changing Your Mind
This is government getting out of control.
I get tired of seeing stories about enforcement of some wacky law, with no thought for the people and whether it’ll ruin someone’s life.
But I must admit it is kind of refreshing to read one such story that’s NOT about the SBC.
Bob Cleveland’s last blog post..Do You Suppose God Really MEANT It?
Why is she so stubborn? If she truly feels that she has the right to convert the bedroom or leave it converted, she should have challenged the zoning ordinance legally by filing a complaint with the city and then taking it to court rather than disrespecting the authority of the court and hoping they will go away because she is an old woman. She cites her American rights, but overlooks the fact that our legal system is the mechanism designed to interpret, apply and enforce those rights, and also the duties that we take on when we agree to be an American citizen. If she does not want to be an American, she can leave.
There are social and even racial ramifications of zoning ordinances, and the idea that people can ignore them if they are elderly or female is offensive, not only to me as a young male, but also as an American (should I be treated harsher than her because I am not old, or because I am not a woman?). For example, an all-white or an all-rich community can, and often do, use the zoning police power illegitimately to have all the property in the community at a value that poor people in neighboring communities cannot afford, which in effect deprives people of their right to affordable housing.
Now, if zoning ordinances are completely ignored, this could have the same social and racial effects. By converting a garage into a bedroom, you could be altering the value of the property which is a problem if you are not in an area zoned for 3-bedroom housing. If there are people who can only afford 2-bedroom houses, you are in effect denying their constitutional right to housing by disrespecting the authority of the zoning board.
I have little respect or sympathy for people who cry out about their rights but then ignore city officials, ignore court orders, and then say that laws should not apply to them because they are elderly and women.
Ben,
I think you missed a key point in this story- she purchased the home 30 years ago and it was ALREADY a bedroom. If the city had some sort of issue with the bedroom at the time, they should have stationed an enforcement officer to review footprints of homes that are submitted to lenders as part of the closing process and filing the lien- a governmnent function. The point is I guess they can find anything they want about your private property and make you come in and retroactively fix it?
The burden of proof should be on the state- if she is in the right she should not have to hire a lawyer or comply with a whacko code enforcement officer. I find it strange though that at leas one ‘nice lawyer’ wouldn’t take up her cause and try to make some money off of legal fees from a settlement with the city- haha.
Ben.
Here’s hoping that, when you’re 83, you won’t be in need of any sympathy.
Bob Cleveland’s last blog post..Do You Suppose God Really MEANT It?
Everyone, young and old, needs sympathy sometimes, but not everyone deliberately defies public officials and expects special treatment based on ageism and sexism.
Regarding the fact that the bedroom was converted before she bought the property–There are legal issues that often need to be investigated and addressed when buying property, so it would be wise to hire a good attorney to diligently investigate issues like this before making a purchase–it’s not the state’s burden to be required to catch all code violations before any property is ever bought or sold–the expense alone of such a policy would be totally prohibitive and unfair to taxpayers. I understand how it would have been more convenient if the city had caught it back then, but do we expect police officers to catch criminals when it is most convenient for the criminals? People should inform themselves of the laws and save the police officers the trouble of doing anything.
Therefore, by analogy, if people are going to accept the risk of not hiring an attorney when they purchase a house, and to proceed only with a real estate broker or less, they should be prepared to take on certain risks, such as the risk of the house not being up to code, especially since they will have to sign something with the broker that expressly warns the purchaser of the risks of not hiring an attorney.
If people could just stay ignorant of the codes and use that as an excuse to ignore them, no one would ever hire real estate attorneys. Don’t bother informing yourself of the law, because as long as you don’t know what it is, you can get away with breaking it. What if Wal-Mart behaved like that when moving into YOUR town? Oh, that’s right, Wal-Mart isn’t an 83-year-old woman, so it must respect the laws of the United States.
Sounds like Ben is an attorney :).
No one should have to hire an attorney for every transaction- what if you bought a car and then drove it off the lot to only find out the title was good but it was not street legal?
There is a sense of caveat emptor in our business world, but this is taking it too far in my opinion. Especially after 30 years of it NOT being an issue.