Mendacity and Pusillanimity and Nonfeasance

John here.

As I noted earlier, having a TV camera at the site on Friday brought out Larry Canalejo, an Area Supervisor for Code nonEnforcement. During the conversation, Carolyn obtained some clarification of the "it's not a violation if we can't see it from the street" tale she kept hearing from Code: It seems that what they really mean to say is that they can't go on the property without the owner's permission.

There are at least four problems with this.

First, notwithstanding what Larry said, their Web page draws an "out of sight" distinction, which makes one think maybe they don't cite if the trash is not visible:

What are accumulations and what is open storage?

Things that most people would not normally use to decorate their yards are usually accumulations. Things such as lawn mowers, concrete blocks, lumber, and buckets for example should be stored away in a storage building or garage. At the very least, they may not be visible from the street and should be behind a fence or wall. This includes storage of garbage cans except on pickup day. [19-49]

That "19-49" is a cite to the Tampa Code Sec. 19-49, which provides that "any" accumulation of debris, rubbish, trash, garbage, refuse, garden trash, snipe signs, or junk is a public nuisance. There's nothing in there about "out of sight" or "visible from the road." So their Web page draws a distinction that is not in the law and Larry seems to say the Web page doesn't really mean it. For sure the Web page is wrong; we don't yet know about Larry.

Second, "it's not a violation if you can't see it" is not at all the same thing as "we can't go there w/o permission." So, if Larry is right, the Code people who have been saying the former are either ignorant or mendacious, neither of which is a recommendation for continued employment.

Third, Code marked the "accumulation" notices for 6003 "complied" on July 26 while the tire, toilet, open containers, and fence parts still were lying about:


Either they did that without looking, i.e., they filed a false report, or they did it after looking, i.e., they lied.

Fourth, they all have multiple invitations from Steve at 6001 and Carolyn at 6005 to view 6003. There is a public street in front of 6003 and a sewer right of way in back. Thus, Code can look at 6003 from any side.

Moreover, even in light of Sec. 5-104.6.1, which instructs the inspector to request entry to the premises if they are occupied, Sec. 5-104.6 of the Tampa Code of Ordinances further provides:

5-104.6.2.1. Immunity. The building official shall have the right of entry upon real property and shall be immune from civil or criminal prosecution for trespass upon real property while in the discharge of his duties of enforcing the provisions of this chapter. The same immunity shall inure to his authorized agents, assistants, employees and contractors employed on behalf of the city in connection with such enforcement.

That is, they can go in there if they need to! This is simply the codification of the common law principle that a public officer may enter property to abate a nuisance without being liable for trespass.

So, they can inspect the entire perimeter of 6003. If need be, they can enter w/o Alverson's permission. And of course they always can get a warrant.

Then why, pray, do they hide behind this shifting litany of excuses? We only can hope that they are beginning to be embarrassed by their years long, ongoing failure to do their jobs.