City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

[Tim Frank]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Delete

 

[erikgreen]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Um... okay?

I'll re-type the summary of what the city wrote back to me and try not to stray into politics (or philosophy) at all. If you have it handy, the bottom portion of that post was my update to the current situation.

Also (I'm trying to understand where the line I crossed was here) why does the previous post not count, and mine did? I don't want to repeat the mistake.

Erik

 

[erikgreen]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Okay.. I'm going to update here and hope I don't cross the line into politics. I use the board, so I have to obey the policies.

So, I got another letter from the city today. They've completed their review of the stuff they were going to cite me for, and have now reduced their list to three items they believe are correct/real:

1) exterior storage(Ch.152.262) - a. engine hoist in driveway, b. Front section of boat leaning against house, c. Boat trailer does not have proof of ownership.

2) Nuisances (Ch. 94): One violation: a. Brush pile behind garage

3) Vehicles on private property (Ch. 90.18) One violation: a. Boat trailer does not have current license registration

Failure to correct by 2-1-2012 will result in additional legal actions

They list the fines for these violations as $400, $400, and $200, so a total of $1000.

As "proof" of violation they include in the citation letter four pictures taken on January 18, two of which were taken from on my property (again, sigh).

As mentioned before, the boat trailer is registered, so they're mistaken about that. I suspect they aren't familiar with any type of boat trailer registration other than the kind where you get a license sticker that goes on the trailer tongue, so they missed the license plate. In any case, that does away with #3 and part of #1.

With regard to the engine hoist, I believe it's allowed because it's recreational, I expect they are still trying to claim it's commercial, so we'll discuss that at the hearing (already scheduled).

The front of the boat is a piece about 5 feet long I'm planning on using as a fountain when I finish my pond in the spring. They claim it can't be decoration but is junk because, as far as I understand, it's not a "normal" decoration. To be discussed at the hearing again.

The brush pile I did clean up some, but apparently they're also concerned about my compost pile, or something. In any case, the chapter cited is the same one they've cited before. They're claiming that the brush pile is the same legally as a pile of garbage from the kitchen or a stack of old appliances, and that therefore it's a nuisance. As mentioned before, the things wrong with that view are A) It's yard waste, which doesn't count as garbage and B) Because it's hidden it doesn't constitute a nuisance. I doubt even if it was a pile of actual litter like construction debris it would rise to the level of a nuisance... there are specific definitions for that involving public health risks and vermin, or obvious annoyances like old appliances lined up at the curb.

Notably absent from the list is anything to do with my boats. It seems like they finally realized they had no legal standing to order me to remove them. So, that's a small step toward victory. I won't be happy until I can work on them again, though. As the law stands, it's not legal to do so, even behind closed doors. I suspect I could get the law thrown out, and I may yet have to try that.

The city council member I talk with has noted that they will be discussing permitting boat work at the next planning council meeting in March. Unfortunately that means another season for me without a boat, since even if they change the law in April I probably don't have enough time to finish everything I need to finish on it.

Plus, that wouldn't affect the legality of my working on my cars, lawnmower, etc anyway... basically, the bad law has to go. I'm going to attend the next city council session and speak during the public comments period to encourage some action. I suspect after that to get things moving I'll have to make the residents of the city aware of the law and the fact they could be fined for car and boat work, maybe via newspaper ad or web site.

So, things are looking up a little. All you folks who were convinced you "can't fight city hall" can go back to sleep now.

Erik

PS: I suppose one way to get a boat for this season is to buy another one... but it'd have to be usable as-is. Not sure I want to do that right now. It might be worth it just to park it for display in my driveway, though

 

[Beefer]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

One small step.... congrats!

Take the yard debris behind the garage, and spread it thinly around your yard. Then don't rake it up.

As for the law about working on your stuff; Is it possible before the council meeting to find out where the council members live, go there on a weekend, and see if any of them do any types of repairs on their vehicles/lawnmowers, etc.? Hire a PI to stake out the houses, then photograph any 'violations'. I bet that would cause them to reconsider their 'law'.

 

[ready4lake]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

What happened to freedom? It sucks when laws mandate what you can do with your own property. I understand peoples complaints about eyesores, but what happened to neighbors talking to each other. I hate when the first place a neighbor goes is the law. I always work on my vehicles and boats in my driveway even thought there are ordinances against it, but the fact is I do not make enough money to be taking my things to a mechanic everytime something goes wrong. I am fortunate enough to have neighbors that don't complain, but that still doesn't make me feel good about the ordinances. The best right we have is to have an "opinion", which really doesn't mean much anymore unless you have alot of people with the same feelings. The laws are written by the rich to bring the middle and poor man down. Just my opinion. I am serving in the military currently and the people preach that we serve for everyone's feedom. It is almost as if we are just working on taking everyone else's freedoms now. Don't get me wrong we still have alot more freedom than most, but it seems like we are starting to head in the wrong direction. I do love this country and I guess the only real way I can serve our country now is to vote for the right leaders, which are slim pickins now. Hopefully there will be a day where you sir are legally able to save yourself money and work on your own property.

 

[jasoutside]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

All you folks who were convinced you "can't fight city hall" can go back to sleep now.

I know you have said this a couple times...

"Can't" and "not bothering because it's not worth the effort" are two different things.

You have chosen this battle because you think it's worth the effort. I certainly respect that!

I wouldn't have. I would have titled the trailers, burned the brush pile, threw away the boat bow decoration and moved on to do other stuff. Does that make me a loser because I let my gov walk all over me? Nah. I just have other battles to fight.

Your statement kinda reads like we are lazy because we aren't bothering to take on the fight. I hope that's not the case.

Cheers man

 

[Pontoon24]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

I've also had issues with my city but if you are a good neighbor and your place doesn't look like a junkyard you should not have problems.

A few points, probably already covered here,

If you are working out of site then they have to prove it and as you know they can't go on your property without a warrant so if they can't see you they cant prove it. Also, your property does not extend to the road. They are permitted in the front "setback" possibly 15 feet or so from the edge of the road.

In Florida energy saving things cannot be outlawed so things like clotheslines cannot be prohibited and a line with old sheets blankets or tarps can be great for blocking the view of anyone snooping. Check your state laws, I'll bet there similar. Lead weights from old cast nets are good for holding the bottoms of sheets in a wind.

On the same subject a compost pile is an good environmental thing. Ask them specifically to put in writing that composting is not allowed. I bet they can't. If they do tell them you will be spreading the word the city is anti-environmental.

Find the addresses of all city officials. The tax assessors site for your county is a good resource. Go look at the front (and everywhere you can see) of their houses for anything "decorative" that is in violation of code. Make a list of any and all code violations. Find out what the setbacks are. Usually any decorative fountains, statues etc. are not allowed in the setback. Take pictures.

Don't tell them they missed the tag on the trailer. Let them believe your in the wrong and wait till a code enforcement hearing to prove them wrong.

If your city has lots of boat owners, spread the word. Here nothing packs a commission meeting like any law restricting boat owners.

It's fun to hook up things like compressors and saws to timers that go on and off when your not home. Makes it look as if you working on something when you can prove you weren't even home.

Never let a code enforcement official on your property and never answer any of their questions (don't give them any ammunition). If they have a complaint let them put it in writing.

Put up fences. There are privacy laws about peeping over fences into someones property.

There's lots of things you can do. Search the web and be creative.

 

[Tail_Gunner]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Be careful here Erik...it now is unamious decision by city hall..they are going to back the orignial enforcement officer decision. Had they deemed it frivolous you would have been sent a letter of apology and that would have been that. I do not mean to discourage you but city hall has consulted with a legal firm and pursuing the issue.....City hall ..hmm attourneys will not play by rules that seem apparent to everyone...they might make a example of whos in control here...by the way i lived in Eagan for 20 yrs and somewhat fimilar with local polo..tics...I'd bet you have a neighbor sitting on the council.. That final list seems awful frivolous and anyone person might have those conditions at any given time of the week and they are chasing it....why is the question.

Good luck.

 

[jkust]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Eric, I admire your tenacity here. I scrolled throught the whole thread looking for the pictures requested at the beginning but didn't see them. Have you Lived in BP long? My question for you is given you make ok money, how in the world did you end up in the worst ghetto outside of North Minneapolis in Minnesota? Literally the name Brooklyn Park and the word Ghetto are interchangable in the dictionary. I won't drive through there down Brooklyn Blvd for any reason. You sound like a guy that should have a plot of land just outside of the cities. Your location and your situation don't seem to jive so i've gotta think you have lived there since before the city became section 8 haven.

 

[erikgreen]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Eric, I admire your tenacity here. I scrolled throught the whole thread looking for the pictures requested at the beginning but didn't see them. Have you Lived in BP long?

It's been about five years.

Weirdly, I can still see the pics in the post I put them in, not sure why you can't.... if you don't see them in the thread, try looking here:
http://s280.photobucket.com/albums/kk168/erikgreen/Lawn pics for Iboats/


As to the rest.... I plead stupidity. I'd been looking for a house, I'd seen almost 30 of them, was tired of an apartment, and when I looked in the city code to find out how tall my garage could be (thinking I'd use the garage for projects) I found out BP allows garages as tall as the house... which was better than the other towns I'd been looking in. I didn't want a long drive to work at the time, although now I wish I'd not cared.

Yep, I belong outside the city. I'm actually in the better part of BP, the corner that pokes out into Maple Grove on the SW, so there aren't too many issues with crime here.

If you are working out of site then they have to prove it and as you know they can't go on your property without a warrant so if they can't see you they cant prove it.

So far they've done it without a warrant twice, the second time after the city's lawyer promised they wouldn't step on my property. I'm fairly sure it was just blatant stupidity the second time, but that's no excuse... they know how irritated I am at this point, and common sense says they should know exactly where the property line is, especially since I actually told them "The fences aren't on the property line".

Hearing is scheduled for the 9th. Should be interesting...

Erik

 

[erikgreen]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Put up fences. There are privacy laws about peeping over fences into someones property.

There are laws, but I'm pretty sure the city here would ignore them, at least the code enforcement people.

I forgot to mention that I've set aside a big chunk of this year's tax refund to pay for most of 200 feet of 8.5 foot high privacy fence, that will go up in the spring. The design won't have any cracks between boards or gap under it either.

 

[oops!]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

lol....i can see the new fence now....

a row of 12 foot glass and tin boats, sitting on their transoms......bow up high in the air.....all side by side....all around the perimeter of the yard.

call it art.....they could not touch it.

 

[bruceb58]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

There are laws, but I'm pretty sure the city here would ignore them, at least the code enforcement people.

I forgot to mention that I've set aside a big chunk of this year's tax refund to pay for most of 200 feet of 8.5 foot high privacy fence, that will go up in the spring. The design won't have any cracks between boards or gap under it either.

Not sure about your area but where I live any fence over 6 feet high needs a permit due to wind loading and sometimes setback requirements. I needed a 10 foot high fence for a tennis court and I had to meet setback requirements as if it was a regular structure.

 

[StevNimrod]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

A few things here Erik, and I'm just thinking "out loud" here so bear with me.

You may want to consider treading carefully on a few things:

First, if I read correctly you have a civil service commission. If this does see the inside of a courtroom there are a few positions you probably don't want to take on the (public) record because they can come back to bite you in the rear end.

Second, the difference between junk, waste, and a potential decoration is largely intent. The laws vary by location, but as a practical matter you're going to need to come up with some sort of plan that a "reasonable prudent" person would agree constitutes your "decoration" as something other than waste. If I were in your shoes, my argument would be something along the lines of winter not being the best time to actually work on a fountain decoration. This should certainly buy you time, but you'll actually need to complete the project and put it in service as a decoration in some reasonable period of time after the temperatures warm (end of May I think would be a reasonable request - you can probably tie them up in hearings and appeals at least that long). The city is likely concerned that the hull section is going to sit out there for years until you get to it, at which point it is probably more accurately described as waste. This is a valid concern and my thinking is you may want to let them know that you can appreciate that as a valid concern, while reassuring them it's not your intent and won't happen.

Third, when dealing with lawyers, government personnel, and other similar figures, you are almost always better off playing dumb than you are playing smart. When you write a letter in legal terms, they assume you have a lawyer or are attempting to play one and you're going to have a harder time gathering information. But if you play dumb, "I can't seem to find that anywhere, can you show me where that code/regulation/law is written or maybe point me in the right direction" you'll almost always be given more information. You'll find this information useful later.

Fourth, they know you don't have a lawyer but are playing one. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage provided you don't overplay your hand. At some point, somebody at the city is going to have to explain why they thought this was a good thing to get behind if it turns out that they have to get involved in a suit. But rest assured that whatever firm is handling their boilerplate letters is not the same firm that would handle defending some of the allegations you make. When those guys show up, you're going to get a quick and expensive education in how real lawyering works. If you don't have a list of questions they'll likely ask, and how you should answer them, you're going to show up and say something you shouldn't. The law is seldom about intelligence (or even being correct) as much as it's about preparedness and experience. My hypothetical strategy (on behalf of the city) would be to get you talking about how you think your position is defensible, then I'd ask what the city would look like if everyone's house looked like yours and what that would do to property values. Most people here would then talk about how the neighbor across the street doesn't trim his hedges and what would the city look like if nobody trimmed their hedges. And in 30 seconds or less you became the guy who defends unreasonable positions and doesn't take personal responsibility - remember you're on trial, not your neighbor. Point being it's not about right and wrong, it's about reasonable and unreasonable. Nobody wants to defend an unreasonable position so don't unwittingly put yourself in a position where you are.

Fifth, know the game. These almost always go the same way - 1) a bunch of charges, 2) a deal, 3) an impasse, and 4) drop/pursue decision. If you overplay your hand when it's time to deal, the city is going to sit down and figure out if this is worth pursuing. This may not be a financial computation as legal fees will absorb many times what they would get from you in fines; it's more about the "duty" of the city to protect the majority (by reducing what is arguably blight) and itself (fines are "free" money for budget purposes). To the extent these people are elected, I can assure you that nobody wants to get behind letting you off the hook (unless they're running uncontested). The issue here is that they're going to throw everything at you but the kitchen sink so you're not going to be litigating from the short list. In practice this is called a "document dump" - you get overwhelmed with paperwork to the point where you couldn't possibly mount a defense to each allegation. Since you can't mount a defense, you don't. And when you don't defend, you lose.

Sixth, know the law. I read through your city code a month or so ago (whenever I last posted) and I believe they make some distinction between "recreational" and "commercial". I don't recall the specifics, but if it's anything like most places (or the commonly accepted definition), the bar for "commercial" is that the primary purpose is generating income. So you can have an item that could be recreational or commercial; the distinction isn't intrinsic to the item, but rather a function of who is using it (e.g., a boat, to most of us is recreational but to a charter fishing captain is commercial). I'd hypothetically argue (on your behalf) that an engine hoist isn't intrinsically commercial, and therefore must be defined according to who uses it. Since your primary purpose in using it isn't income related, it must be a recreational item.

Seventh, and finally, know when you're being gamed and play along (gets back to playing dumb). There are many exceptions to criminal trespassing, and in most places there is a "public employee exemption". If I had to bet, this is why they're being apologetic but still going on your property - because they know they can. And they're probably hoping that you file a trespassing charges against a city employee (likely covered by the public employee exemption) doing his job that that the suit can be Exhibit A in their documentation painting you as unreasonable (they would say, "is the fire department not allowed to step on your property to put out your burning house too"). Know when you're being gamed and don't lead with your chin.

 

[Pauloski]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Very interesting thread. Good luck and stick it up the city. Good points by Stev. Playing dumb is always a good tatic for more info and letting them think they have got you on the trailer would be awesome. Would love to see the look on their faces with that one. Someone would get a kick in the arse when they got out of the room. With your engine lifter, could you not just unbolt the ram and hook and maybe mount a light on the top and call it a moveable garden light ?? Love this thread, can't wait for the next update. Stand up to them, but be smarter than them and be one step ahead. Good luck.

 

[erikgreen]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

I've been sooooo tempted to pick up another couple boats... not because I like them or want to fix them up, but just because I can, so I can park them (legally) in my driveway and cause whomever is complaining about me to have a fit

 

[erikgreen]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Not sure about your area but where I live any fence over 6 feet high needs a permit due to wind loading and sometimes setback requirements. I needed a 10 foot high fence for a tennis court and I had to meet setback requirements as if it was a regular structure.

I've done considerable research into what's allowed and not. Basically, the rules here are if I build a 6 foot tall or shorter fence, I don't need a permit. No setback is required on the back or side yards, although I'd probably set it back a foot to prevent my neighbor being able to paint it or lean items against it (my one neighbor who hoards has tons of stuff leaning against the existing fence... he's not going to be happy to move them).

If I do an 8.5 foot fence (the max legally allowed without a variance) I have to file a plan and pay a permit fee. It's not a case of them deciding whether the neighbors will like it though, it's more a case of "that's expensive, we want to tax it". As long as I meet the standards for a fence that size with regard to safety and a good design, I can build it.

I'll probably only go that high in the very rear of the yard, come to think of it. 6 feet will be enough for the sides, it's only the back that faces the neighbor's house that's really the issue.

Erik

 

[lil buggy]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Eric,
looks like you should finish the short list.
quote
1) exterior storage(Ch.152.262) - a. engine hoist in driveway, b. Front section of boat leaning against house, c. Boat trailer does not have proof of ownership.


2) Nuisances (Ch. 94): One violation: a. Brush pile behind garage


3) Vehicles on private property (Ch. 90.18) One violation: a. Boat trailer does not have current license registration

Failure to correct by 2-1-2012 will result in additional legal actions

They list the fines for these violations as $400, $400, and $200, so a total of $1000.
end quote

you handled the trailer great.
now get rid of that brushpile
and either find a way to get that bow piece and hoist into the garage
or move the hoist into the yard on one of those bare spots and hang the section of bow off it.
and call it art, heck put some pieces of metal hanging from it and call it a windchime

best of luck bud,
cool heads prevail
i believe its time to fold.

i wouldn't stop the fight
run for local council
and make some changes

 

[erikgreen]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

A few things here Erik, and I'm just thinking "out loud" here so bear with me.

You may want to consider treading carefully on a few things:

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I'll respond to some of your points only so this doesn't get too long.

First, if I read correctly you have a civil service commission. If this does see the inside of a courtroom there are a few positions you probably don't want to take on the (public) record because they can come back to bite you in the rear end.

Possibly, but then I'd have to care whether I keep my civil service appointment for that to matter. I can get paid more elsewhere, it's just been an easy job to keep while I try to get my own business started (which doesn't involve violating city code, by the way).

Second, the difference between junk, waste, and a potential decoration is largely intent. The laws vary by location, but as a practical matter you're going to need to come up with some sort of plan that a "reasonable prudent" person would agree constitutes your "decoration" as something other than waste.

You're correct in that it's intent that matters. I think I'm good here because the city's statutes don't define what is and isn't junk. They seem to assume that everyone will have the same idea on what's waste and what's not. Badly written laws again. I think by the dictionary definition (which is what we use when there's no legal definition in the statute) anything that's got artistic value, however subjective, is not junk. Witness people using old bathtubs as shrines (an idea I was given for my boat front end).

If I were in your shoes, my argument would be something along the lines of winter not being the best time to actually work on a fountain decoration. This should certainly buy you time, but you'll actually need to complete the project and put it in service as a decoration in some reasonable period of time after the temperatures warm (end of May I think would be a reasonable request - you can probably tie them up in hearings and appeals at least that long). The city is likely concerned that the hull section is going to sit out there for years until you get to it, at which point it is probably more accurately described as waste. This is a valid concern and my thinking is you may want to let them know that you can appreciate that as a valid concern, while reassuring them it's not your intent and won't happen.

Actually, I think the city (specifically the department of code enforcement) is trying hard to save face at this point...they probably haven't thought about it at all, but rather they're just trying to carry out business as usual, which is basically ban or fine anything they see as infringing, while ignoring the neighbors doing the same things.

Third, when dealing with lawyers, government personnel, and other similar figures, you are almost always better off playing dumb than you are playing smart. When you write a letter in legal terms, they assume you have a lawyer or are attempting to play one and you're going to have a harder time gathering information. But if you play dumb, "I can't seem to find that anywhere, can you show me where that code/regulation/law is written or maybe point me in the right direction" you'll almost always be given more information. You'll find this information useful later.

I'm not sure I agree on playing dumb, but you're right that the best way to get them to alter their position is to force them to refer to the law. Unfortunately what's happened with this particular bunch of people when I ask them to tell me where the law is that applies to me is that they say "it's in there". Apparently I'm supposed to believe them and pay the fine since they are the enforcers and are therefore experts. When I ask them to quote the specific law that applies to eg. my boat front end being a nuisance, they give me a number for a law that includes the word "nuisance" but otherwise doesn't apply. I've been torn from the start as to whether they really that abysmally stupid, or whether they're willingly trying to deceive residents into paying fines and "cleaning up" things they don't have to.

Fourth, they know you don't have a lawyer but are playing one. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage provided you don't overplay your hand. At some point, somebody at the city is going to have to explain why they thought this was a good thing to get behind if it turns out that they have to get involved in a suit. But rest assured that whatever firm is handling their boilerplate letters is not the same firm that would handle defending some of the allegations you make.

Actually, it is the same firm.

When those guys show up, you're going to get a quick and expensive education in how real lawyering works. If you don't have a list of questions they'll likely ask, and how you should answer them, you're going to show up and say something you shouldn't.

As mentioned above, I have relatives who are lawyers and in the past I've had some experience with the law. The best way to deflect the above questions is to refer them to MY lawyer

In any case, the upcoming city hearing prohibits us from using legal representation (stupid and probably unconstitutional, but at least I don't have to worry about their lawyer showing up and not having my own).

The law is seldom about intelligence (or even being correct) as much as it's about preparedness and experience. My hypothetical strategy (on behalf of the city) would be to get you talking about how you think your position is defensible, then I'd ask what the city would look like if everyone's house looked like yours and what that would do to property values.

No, I learned long ago not to offer any information not needed to defend myself. That includes letting their lawyer or representative ask me questions.

Nobody wants to defend an unreasonable position so don't unwittingly put yourself in a position where you are.

That's why I've been accommodating to the point of insanity so far. After four months I've probably shown enough reasonable behavior to transition over to being cranky, and I have the papers and communications from them to prove it. At this point they've performed two illegal searches, tried to fine me for 7 violations that don't exist, violated my right to due process, and generally harassed me. I think a judge would agree that I am allowed to be ticked off at this point.

Fifth, know the game. These almost always go the same way - 1) a bunch of charges, 2) a deal, 3) an impasse, and 4) drop/pursue decision. If you overplay your hand when it's time to deal, the city is going to sit down and figure out if this is worth pursuing. This may not be a financial computation as legal fees will absorb many times what they would get from you in fines; it's more about the "duty" of the city to protect the majority (by reducing what is arguably blight) and itself (fines are "free" money for budget purposes). To the extent these people are elected, I can assure you that nobody wants to get behind letting you off the hook (unless they're running uncontested). The issue here is that they're going to throw everything at you but the kitchen sink so you're not going to be litigating from the short list. In practice this is called a "document dump" - you get overwhelmed with paperwork to the point where you couldn't possibly mount a defense to each allegation. Since you can't mount a defense, you don't. And when you don't defend, you lose.

Actually, this is going to go this way: 1) A bunch of charges 2) They can't prove the charges so they drop the issue 3) I report their behavior to the state attorney general, the ACLU, and the public, resulting in investigations, potential criminal charges, and embarrassment all around

If I felt I was actually guilty of anything, I'd consider a deal, but I'm not, so I won't. I've brought this whole thing this far, so I'm going all the way.

Sixth, know the law.
[..deletions...]
Since your primary purpose in using it isn't income related, it must be a recreational item.

Yes, I agree. The problem is in getting the city to admit that. The inspector in this case is actually insisting that "it's a commercial item, because it's obviously commercial". I'm not entirely certain how to counter stupidity of that magnitude.

Seventh, and finally, know when you're being gamed and play along (gets back to playing dumb). There are many exceptions to criminal trespassing, and in most places there is a "public employee exemption". If I had to bet, this is why they're being apologetic but still going on your property - because they know they can.

I checked, no such exemption exists (and if it did, would be unconstitutional). Also, their lawyer said to me in writing that they would not be stepping on my property in the future. I'm betting it was just stupidity. If I thought it was intentional violation, this would already be in the hands of the attorney general.

And they're probably hoping that you file a trespassing charges against a city employee (likely covered by the public employee exemption) doing his job that that the suit can be Exhibit A in their documentation painting you as unreasonable (they would say, "is the fire department not allowed to step on your property to put out your burning house too"). Know when you're being gamed and don't lead with your chin.

Yep. Never lead with your chin and keep your powder dry.

At this point, I'm leading with a threat of lawsuits, criminal prosecution, and public embarrassment for the city. Every time I deal with them, I get more ammo for my side of things.

Erik

 

[StevNimrod]

Re: City outlawed me owning boats or working on them (MN, USA)

Out of the frying pan and into the fire...

A few things...

The judge will decide if the searches were actually illegal. If you approach it from the perspective of claiming you know the searches were illegal, the judge will assume you know more about the law than she does and you won't make friends. Court procedures generally wallow in the facts, not the law. Remember that she's going to hear fifty cases just like yours before lunch on Monday; arguments about constitutionality, legality, etc. are at some point just going to look desperate and test her patience. The other side is simply going to hand over pictures of your property and you're going to want to develop a concise, rational explanation for why you think it's appropriate for your property to look the way it does. Once you start getting into your constitutional rights the judge is going to look at the pictures and ask you what your problem is. Unless you know all of the exceptions to the constitution, you run the risk of knowing just enough to be dangerous.

Of the people you'd report their behavior to, keep in mind that the state AG is still on the public dole; they have more in common with the city than they do with you. And you're going to have to give them a compelling reason to get behind your cause. The reason is simple - it might not be trash to you, but what is it to the other 99.99% of the population? Point being, you're going to have to find somebody that is willing to join team Erik. Just keep in mind that this will be a tall order to fill to the extent some of these people are elected.

Same as above with the ACLU. They tend to like cases that are either high profile, or where the violation was so egregious that it is almost certain to not backfire. And I'm talking way over the top egregious. Still a good place to start though; feel them out and it will give you perspective about your case.

Be careful about reporting behavior to the public unless you can keep it 100% factual. Otherwise you could be treading on quicksand. Keep in mind that almost every state is strapped for cash and they barely want to investigate charges of major corruption of public figures (who's going to pay for that?) so you're probably not going to be high at all on their priority list of things to investigate.

Another common misconception - deals generally aren't about right or wrong; they're almost always about being pragmatic. Wisdom is knowing at what point a deal becomes "good". What happens is that by the time it gets to court, they're about as tired of dealing with you as you are of dealing with them. But now they're starting to run up legal defense fees so they're going to throw every charge at you they can and let the court decide what sticks. What happens as a practical matter is that by the time you get done reading through everything they claim and getting a feel for which way the court is leaning, being out of pocket $1000 will probably look real attractive. Quitting while you're ahead is not the same as quitting. You can be right, but what's the body count? And which is more important? That's for you to decide.

This also gets into which side of the table you want to sit on. I'm not exactly sure why you'd want to be a plaintiff. Different burden, different fee structure. And you know once you file they're going to counterclaim everything under the sun.

I don't know that the inspector is being magnificently stupid by saying your hoist is a commercial item. A judge is probably going to take one look at it and say, "yeah, it does look like a piece of commercial equipment". You can't very well counter with, "well, your honor, you are also magnificently stupid". You might be inclined to borrow from 152.008 (or wherever...I'm just giving an example) to argue that your engine hoist is not commercial to the extent that it it is used for both private recreational use and, in the alternative, is certainly not used to generate income. Point being, your job is to bring people up to speed without simultaneously making enemies. Kid gloves is important - lead them to the water, don't dunk their heads in it.

Avoid the trespassing issue if at all possible for the time being; you're should be very careful about navigating those waters. At the end of the day it's another thing that the court is going to look at and think it reeks of desperation. Not saying you don't have an argument - but they might think "what is this guy trying to get away with here".

Finally and perhaps most importantly - don't use lawsuits as threats. Courts come down hard on people who threaten to sue and don't follow through; in some jurisdictions you even have to file within so many days of first claiming that you're considering legal remedy. This is to prevent people from what essentially amounts to using the courts to intimidate. And keep in mind that criminal prosecution is up to the local prosecutor, not you. While everybody likes to think the law is fair, keep in mind that the prosecutor has more in common with the city than he does with you.