I certainly agree with the Pilot's April 28 editorial about garages
that were converted to bedrooms years before the current owner bought the
property ("Let converted Westside bedroom remain intact").
The plight of Dave Morley, in being cited for a code violation for
having a garage that was converted to an extra bedroom when he bought his
house 38 years ago, will be shared by many homeowners in Costa Mesa if
the city continues to enforce code violations retroactively.
Since the city apparently was unable to resolve the matter, by grand
fathering this very technical infraction, it was instead handled as a
routine code enforcement problem, in other words as criminal infraction.
This means that Morley, through no fault of his own, was charged with
a crime that was committed 38 years ago, the day the garage was converted
in the first place. This seems not only unfair, but ludicrously so.
Every crime committed in the United States has a time limitation
within which prosecution can be brought. The only exceptions to that are
the most serious violations such as murder, treason and tax fraud.
Even rape, robbery, arson, mayhem and crimes of that serious magnitude
cannot be prosecuted more than six years after their commission. How, for
goodness sake, could anyone justify prosecuting Morley 38 years after the
so-called crime was committed and by someone else.
I think I have the answer. It's because Costa Mesa city planners have
unrealistically and unfairly embarked on a program of enforcing code
regulations against persons who may not have committed the violation in
the first place. The legal rationale for statutes of limitations is not
only to be fair to the defendant in requiring timely prosecutions, but to
preserve a certain level of tranquillity in society in not having to deal
with matters that may have occurred many years ago.
This type of code enforcement in Costa Mesa with so many older houses
has the potential to stir up more citizen outrage than motor home parking
ever did.
Had they consulted with someone thoroughly versed in a matter of this
kind, it would seem unlikely that Morley would have been cited, required
to hire counsel and presumably spend sleepless nights worried over that
matter. Everyone knows it's hard to fight City Hall.
The Pilot article piqued my interest because of my background in city
government experience spanning 20 years as a full-time city attorney of
two California cities. I recall on several occasions having to rein in
city planners in my cities when they proposed to do something not
permitted by law.
This occasionally led to confrontations, but as one of my mayors used
to say: "That's why we have a legal department."
I once delivered a paper on this very subject to the city attorney
section of the League of California Cities. I can't recall any city
attorney taking exception to my views on the subject.
Unfortunately, some city officials leave their common sense behind
when they leave private life. The term "badge-heavy" is one every
contractor is painfully aware of. It's usually associated with building
inspectors -- and also these days with city planners -- who roam the city
to look for something technically awry to raise the devil about.
* DON OLSON is a Newport Beach resident and former Costa Mesa city
attorney.
