8 years ago,we purchased what we thought was going to an idyllic 5 acre farm with nice craftsman home, barn, and guest cottage.About 2 years ago, we received a notice of code violations from DDES.The tone of the letter was threatening, citing that we could be liable for thousands of dollars in fines and fees. Well,we did not build or improve anything. We purchased the property as is. To make a long story short, DDES informed us that code violations follow the ownership of the property and that we were on the hook for our barn and cottage, because they were unpermitted.Obviously,the sellers had lied to us on Form 17, where it asks the question "have all structures on the property been permitted and certificate of occupancy granted."We went to the ABC pre-app meeting(which lasted about 30 minutes and cost $500)and brought up a section of the King County Code (Title 23 Code Enforcement Section 23.02.070 paragraph G.)"The department shall use all reasonable means to determine and cite the person or persons actually responsible for the violation occurring when the owner has not directly or indirectly caused the violation." We were told that they had no authority to go after the previous owner. Baloney, the above quoted code section IS their authority and it is easy enough to obtain via real estate records.This has cost us thousands of dollars in permit fees and opened up questions about our septic system, proximity to critical areas,etc. etc. We later found out that all this was caused by an anonymous complaintant who had turned in more than 20 other resdidents.Talk about witch hunts, all in the name of generating revenue for a fee based bureaucracy run amok.Just because they can and our representatives let it continue unabashed.No one on this Island is safe from the greed and corruption of DDES and code enforcement
It breaks my heart to see DDES dividing neighbor against neighbor on Vashon. Since I have lived here (1983), a sense of us all being in this together has prevailed. A good way to state it is simply, “Live and let live.” DDES’ motto seems to be the opposite: “Divide and conquer”.
Did you know DDES has held community meetings on the east side where people were encouraged to file anonymous complaints against their neighbors? One DDES official even said that was a good way for people to meet their neighbors and get acquainted.
Vashon Islanders are very vulnerable right now because of our history of being basically ignored by King County for most of the 100 years the Island has been settled. (This does not mean that the buildings are not well constructed just because no architects or engineers were involved. Rural and practical, Islanders have, I think, exercised a good deal of common sense and skill in the way they have historically housed themselves. Apparently, for the longest time, the County agreed).
Recently, an Islander told me, “When I was getting ready to build (20 years ago), I went to the County and they told me to just go ahead and build. They couldn’t be bothered to come out here.” That was when BALD, Building and Land Development, was funded from public taxes.
All that changed when BALD morphed into DDES and was given (or grabbed?) the power to enforce not only the building codes, but the strict new environmental ones as well (the Sensitive Areas and then Critical Areas Ordinance). We were told at the time that these laws would regulate new building only, and that existing buildings would not be affected. Everybody thought it was a good idea to protect what was left of the wild places on the Island from the urban-style development that threatened the Island’s rural character. Nobody expected them to use the new laws to destroy our dear “old Vashon”, so lovingly built by the hands of friends and neighbors past and present, alive with spirit and memories, so artfully placed in the environment and so beautiful to old-time Islanders and newcomers alike.
Now DDES is persecuting owners of “old-time” Vashon buildings, built before the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of 1990, even though their own records are shoddy and incomplete, and as far as I can tell, they can rarely prove what was permitted and what was not in any individual case. They seem to rely on the intimidation and self-incrimination of frightened citizens to win their cases.
DDES has become essentially a privatized police force with the power to charge people with misdemeanors, demolish their property, and ruin their lives, with no oversight and no options for the landowners except a long, tedious and painful appeal process that rarely ends in anything but defeat.
DDES Code Enforcement officers believe they have the power to enter onto any property, whether or not there is a no-trespassing sign, any time they suspect a “violation” These “violations” are many times urban-style laws against, for example, vehicles that are parked on grassy areas or fences that are over six feet high. DDES employees are mandated to make as much money as possible from fines and fees. They’re not supposed to take anything into consideration except how much money they can squeeze out of their hapless victims.
Once the officer is on the property, they feel free to look for other “violations”, including septic issues (although the County Health Department, not DDES, has jurisdiction over septic and water systems). DDES gets around these restrictions by imposing what they call the ABC, or Already Built Construction, program. Essentially, when “violations” are found, or even suspected, DDES issues notices to landowners that the offending structures must be quickly demolished or brought up to current standards, (including water and septic) which is impossible in many cases because of changes in the law since they were built, not to mention the ability of the landowner to come up with tens of thousands of dollars in a very short period of time. The ABC program is a perfect moneymaker for DDES, because the landowner essentially is forced to sign away his ownership in the property, allowing DDES to enter it whenever they please, and granting them a blank check to charge $144 dollars per person per meeting their employees attend, or studies they declare necessary. The landowner has no say over anything once they have signed ABC application. DDES then invoices the landowner regularly, telling them how much they owe. Since they can enforce a lien on the property, they are assured of being paid. There was recently a lawsuit on the east side concerning these issues, and some progress was made, but the main problems remain unsolved.
Most King County residents never have anything to do with DDES, because they live in cities with their own codes and regulation. They have been told that the agency is doing a good job. Maybe they see rural people as ignorant rubes, intent on ruining the environment on their own property. The idea of sustainable rural land use that comes from the experience and skill of the landowner, not enforced by distant urban technocrats, is foreign to urban King County residents, certainly to anyone at DDES.
We have been told by the courts that Vashon is not allowed to incorporate. We have to make the best of a bad situation. We can’t look to the politicians to help us, because they are all proud of DDES and the money it makes, and aren’t about to change anything on their own.
In our case, a DDES official called our realtor and told her he had received a hand-written anonymous complaint against our property. It happened ten days before closing, and our real estate transaction fell through (we had fully disclosed everything about the property). Two-plus years later, we have won our case with the Hearing Examiner (he dismissed it, saying they had violated our 4th Amendment rights). They say they can’t produce the unredacted original of the so-called “complaint”. They say they lost it during the copying process. (They sent us copies of the same document twice, once in response to my public disclosure request for our own case and once in response to my request for an anonymous complaint they claimed to have about another property.)
We have spent a small fortune on studies and reports to prove that our house is well built and presents no problem to public health, construction safety, or the environment. In two-plus years of this ordeal, we have yet to find one reasonable person within the County, including the prosecuting Attorney’s office, who will even talk to us. Their answer is always the same: Pay first, then do what we say. They could not have been nastier and meaner. In all our years on Vashon (my husband has been here since 1970), we always had good relations with County employees, until now. We have been treated with utmost disrespect, insulted, called irresponsible, and been retaliated against because we uncovered their scam of pretending to have complaints when they didn’t have them and then, at least in our case, forging a phony written “complaint” and then destroying the unredacted original when we requested it as part of our pre-hearing evidence (we have two forensic documents examiner reports pointing to the person we believe to be the forger).
This all happened as we were making our final preparations for retirement. These last two years were supposed to be our high-earning years where, having moved, sold our former house (where we lived for 14+years) and paid our debts, we expected to be saving for our old age. Now we are often depressed and frightened about the future. Our resources are being depleted, because we never planned on paying two mortgages over the long term. Our lives are here on the Island, and we have no idea where we will go if this is not resolved soon. At some point, we will be left with no choice but to sell out and leave. We can’t even imagine life somewhere else.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our house. We have had numerous interested potential buyers, but under the present circumstances, no buyer feels confident DDES will not retaliate against them as they have done to us. (Despite the order to dismiss, they continue to show it as an open case on their parcel viewer.) We feel like we are left in limbo, and we’re losing hope.
Clearly, DDES needs to be reformed, put back on track as a public-funded, public-service-oriented department. In the meantime, I suggest the following:
* * * * * * *
VASHON-MAURY ISLAND CITZENS’ BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST DDES
DDES will respect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens of Vashon-Maury Islands, specifically:
DDES will investigate only upon receiving a reliable complaint.
Complaints DDES receives from people who wish their name to be withheld from the person they have complained about are allowed under the law. Complaints where DDES does not know the identity of the complainant are against the law.
Code Enforcement officers will not drive around the island fishing for “violations”, as they are said to be doing.
Complaints against more than one property are clearly not reliable and should never constitute a basis for an investigation.
DDES will enter upon private land only with permission of the landowner, or with a warrant.
All existing buildings will be judged by a performance standard. Buildings that present no danger to public health, safety or the environment will be declared grandfathered in.
* * * * * * *
Anyone who has been told by DDES that the agency has received a complaint against their property would be well advised to request a copy of the complaint. A public disclosure request can be made by email to the DDES communications director, as follows:
“Pursuant to the Public Disclosure Act, RCW 42.17, I am requesting a copy of any complaints filed against my Vashon Island property, parcel # --------.”
I came across this quote in an article entitled, “The Sack of Washington” by Cullen Murphy, published in the June 2007 issue of Vanity Fair. Although it was originally written about the Roman Empire and then, in the article, related to our national government, I think it is strikingly relevant to the present situation with DDES:
“By empire’s end, all public transactions require the payment of money, and the pursuit of money and personal advancement has become the purpose of all public jobs. Misdirection of government force occurs when people must pay before officials will act, and it occurs if payment also determines how they will act.”
Thank you, Marie and Troy, for this forum. It is more appreciated than you can imagine.
Title insurance NEVER shows that structures are fully permittrd.Are you kidding me? The point here is that DDES has the authority to discover the perpertrator and does not do so.Claims against the former owners are expensive. The current owner could be saved a lot of grief and money if the code enforcement section would follow the King County Code and make them responsible for the illegal, unpermitted actions.
I believe the previous poster is 100% correct that the title insurance policy would have nothing to do with this type of problem and offers no remedy. Title insurance generally deals with legal issues relating to the "chain of title" to the real estate and financial encumbrances -issues like whether the seller had legal title to convey the ownership to the property in the first place at time of sale, whether there were any loans or tax liens against the property that weren't disclosed by a title search and listed on the title report, etc. Title insurance policies have a list of exceptions at to what they don't cover/are not insuring - if you read one you'll almost certainly see they don't cover/exempt from coverage such things as these DDES issues that are, in fact, arising with increasing frequency as overzealous DDES employees pursue revenue to fund their own high salaries via outrageous fines and fees for what were once considered trivial matters or non-issues. This is a scam. King County government, IMHO, is a corrupt, confiscatory agency that is out of control and DDES is one of its worst examples of overcharging, etc., per a recent court decision. In any event, the remedy is not in looking to your title insurance policy.
For the past several years, certain east King County unincorporated area folks have tried to raise the alarm about what DDES was up to. Namely, members of "property rights" groups.
In some quarters, namely among unreasonably extreme pro-environment, pro-King County "CAO" advocates, such property rights folks were much maligned, and the concerns they expressed about heavy handed DDES tactics dismissed as nonsense or fabrications.
More specifically to DDES, in May, 2005, a complaint was filed with the U.S. Attorney's office and the Seattle FBI office asking for a Federal government investigation of what was perceived to be a pattern and practice of wrongdoing, overcharging, fabricated code violations based on fabricated (and usually "anonymous") complaints and unlawful acts by DDES. The document filed is below. It is long and parts of it may seem "over the top" for the time and may still seem so. Now, in light of so many actual, documented incidents of property owners being put through the very things described over two years ago in the complaint, all over east King County and on Vashon and Maury Islands, what is said doesn't seem far-fetched at all. Please take the time to read it carefully all the way through. Here and there you will see that, over two years ago, it was describing exactly the sorts of situations that others have blogged about here, right down to the very same details of "anonymous complaints", the documentation for which later disappears from DDES files (when the law requires such files to be kept secure and there are laws against "spoliation" of public documents), etc.
To date there has been no public indication as to what the two agencies have done, or are doing, with the below complaint.
Here it is:
May 12, 2005 TO THE HONORABLE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
DISTRICT OF WESTERN WASHINGTON
cc: FBI, Seattle Office
IN RE: COMPLAINT OF CRIMINAL (RACKETERING) ENTERPRISE
I am a retired Seattle Police Officer with 23 years of criminal investigation experience. By means of this letter I bring to your attention a clear pattern and practice of extortion and fraud being inflicted upon some Citizens of King County Washington by elements of King County Government. A summary of these allegations follows:
A. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. (DDES)
1. A consistent pattern of over charging and duplication of fees for permits of all kinds.
2. Arbitrary and capricious actions in code enforcement: Piling on spurious code enforcement allegations and excessive penalties in addition to a pattern of intimidation and harassment of landowners, either in related permit applications, or by concoction of more imagined code violations through “anonymous complaints”.
3. Purposely hiding pertinent files in code enforcement actions or during appeals.
4. Denying citizens due process as required by the several Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.
B. King County Water and Land Services Department (WLSD)
1. Imposing fees on property owners and then not using those fees for the intended purpose. Rather than those fees (over $200,000,000 since the fee was imposed) being used for their lawful purposes, said fees have been diverted to build a huge staff, initiate needless studies and buy capital equipment.
C. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP)
The printing and distribution of material clearly designed to promote and propagandize specific land use ordinances as an advocate piece, without proper disclosures and with clear distortions and misrepresentations of fact. This effort had the clear purpose of discouraging public challenge of the Critical Areas Ordinance.
D. Fraudulent expenditure of federal funds to build salmon restoration devices in streams and seasonal creeks that have no possibility of ever bearing salmon.
E. Consistent abuse of Freedom of Information and Public Disclosure Act requests. King County has already been sued for these violations and had to pay out over $100,000 in penalties. One particular case is still open and the County could be obligated to even greater penalties, all of which come out of the taxpayer's pocket and caused by government legislators to cover up negligence, mismanagement and outright fraud, waste and abuse.
F. Attached as Addendum. Governmental misconduct in the acquisition and subsequent planning-related activities pursuant to construction of an Interim East Lake Sammamish Trail. King County acquired control over an abandoned railroad right-of-way under provisions of a federal rails-to-trails law, and has been bent on building the cheapest possible trail through wetlands and the middle of people’s yards, ignoring its own policies and codes in the process. Numerous, documentable, unscrupulous tactics have been employed in this effort to reap the political windfall that this trail represents.
TO WIT:
Certain employees of the Executive Branch, currently headed by Mr. Ron Sims, King County Executive, have been misusing and are continuing to misuse the Code Enforcement Process and the Property Use Permitting Process to create and enforce certain actions against random property owners with the clear and, in fact, admitted purpose of obtaining monies from said property owners to further the existence and goals of their employing entity, the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES), and its subsidiaries. The clear benefit derived for these employees is continuing employment to a degree not otherwise possible; absent such “revenue generation”... they face unemployment. The results of this draconian situation were predictable.
This writer and all other signatories to this letter recognize that government does have authority to regulate (within lawful confines) the use and other enjoyment of private property for the common good. In furtherance of the common good, government can create lawful regulations of such use, and penalize, in due course and process, those who may violate such regulation(s). The exercise of "eminent domain" by Government for legitimate public purpose is also recognized.
Note here, that we all value the quality of the environment and pride ourselves on our stewardship of our land. We support regulation genuinely designed to protect our natural assets, and any code enforcement that is intended to abate clear and present threat to public health or safety or natural amenities, that does not violate constitutional protections.
The nature of that regulation and enforcement is often contentious, and we are all dedicated to responsible interaction with local Government to maintain the proper balance. We have formed groups that systematically challenge and otherwise seek to influence the course of this public business. As well as promoting environmental quality, and cooperation with Government where appropriate, we also emphasize observance of rights against uncompensated takings, or capricious limitation on property and its use. We accept this responsibility willingly; it is part of the perpetual challenge to property ownership. Nowhere is this better illustrated than our current showdown with King County, Mr. Sims et al, over the so-called CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE. This one will have us all in the Courts for some time to come.
This is not an ad hominem attack on Mr. Sims or other current King County employees at the outset. This abuse predates the current King County Administration. That is not to say that evidence may not be discovered in time that points an investigation in the direction of certain individuals, including current officers or employees of King County. Those cards will fall where they may. Our purpose more specifically is to quiet this institutionalized abuse once and for all.
With our respect for the legitimate exercise of government thus stated, however, we here definitively restate our rejection of any proposition, de jure or de facto, that government may utilize the regulatory or any other process to further destructive or unlawful ends. That King County has embarked on such a program is all too apparent to many citizens in the rural area of the County. Their purpose is equally clear and publicly acknowledged. They seek to restrict use and prevent development of private property. Their stated purpose is to “protect the environment”… the law, and property owners, be damned!! No matter how they may attempt to sanctify their endeavor, however, the basic protections citizens possess cannot be sacrificed.
The abuses we have chronicled and report herein have, as their common denominator, violation of one or more fundamental protections against self-incrimination, freedom from unlawful search, and equal protection. These abuses embody the sort of malfeasance and intrusion by Government, anticipated by the Founders, and thus specifically proscribed by the original amendments (refinements, if you will) to our Constitution. A pattern of these violations so chronic to this agency, leaves no question that concerted related action… conspiracy… by DDES employees is afoot.
We will here define the nature of these abuses without attempting to detail all the many cases we have studied. We will instead outline the substance of the several patterns these cases establish with an offer of proof that should compel a determined response from your office. We can tell you that lawsuits seeking civil remedy of these abuses are being contemplated by individuals in this County, and should provide recovery of damages for some. Some of these lawsuits are already in the Court.
However it is the conviction of all of us that this pattern and practice of abuse by King County is an ongoing criminal racketeering enterprise and merits aggressive prosecution by the Federal Government. , as well. Thus our request that your office promptly and aggressively investigate!
The most aggravating factor in this scenario is the publicly acknowledged fact that this branch of King County government relies for its very existence on the generation of fees, penalties and other arbitrary economic return. Mr. Sims, in a statement published in local newspapers just a few years back, reaffirmed that “code enforcement” was the means of revenue for much of DDES... that the operation was not otherwise funded in the budget. Predictably, very aggressive enforcement follows this sort of absurdity. Imagine the abuse that would result if, for instance, traffic police officers were told there would be no paycheck unless they wrote every imaginable infraction. What wasn’t seen... could be quickly conjured. Connection of one’s employment to enforcement revenues is an absolute formula for malfeasance.
This naturally has led to unsavory practices that, considered in their true light, lead to an inescapable conclusion: some employees of King County, Washington, are engaged in a pattern and practice to extort money from citizens of the County. These employees have and continue to conspire to violate the Civil Rights of said citizens to enable the enforcement of “code violation” cases and the creation of various schemes to unlawfully inflate the expenses inflicted upon citizens in the course of plan and permit review in cases where property development or improvement are sought.
FIRST CAUSE OF CONCERN: CODE ENFORCEMENT ABUSE
Most, if not all, of the abuses we have chronicled in “Code Enforcement” stem from cases where the alleged offenses are very minor and arcane. These are the “technical fouls” that can be heaped on folks who in many cases do not even know that circumstances that may exist on their property are “violations.” Often the circumstances exist benignly and without notice for years before being “outlawed” by new Code sections and “discovery” by some predatory Code Enforcer. Protection against ex post facto contrivances in the King County Code are virtually non-existent.
Often spurious allegations are heaped on simple cases that may actually involve some minor violation to create a juggernaut that brings even able citizens to their knees. Case studies indicate that this tactic is often used on elderly or disabled folk who are already living at their wit’s end. False statements in official files are common to this abuse.
Significantly, when these abuses are challenged by supportive community members or groups, or by attorneys that have been retained, the bulk of the complaint will often quickly disappear. Attorneys we have consulted are familiar with this tactic and agree that this sudden evaporation illustrates how baseless many of these citations are to begin with. In many cases, folks are told by attorneys that the complaints are improper, but advised to make a settlement offer since defending the matter will be too costly.
County employees clearly take advantage of this predicament and have refined the calculus to attempt to keep most files out of the appeal process. For the moment, let us say of this practice that we believe it involves ipso facto, the falsification of official records to the degree that false or contrived complaints are made part of the file used to intimidate citizens to forego appeal and comply with this extortive practice.
The assembly of these abusive cases begins with common means by the several Code Enforcers who have their marching orders as chronicled above… get out there and generate fines…or there may be no employment!! Citizens may find Code Enforcers at their door announcing that some complaint or other has been received (virtually always anonymous) about conditions on the citizens’ property. These “complaints” may or may not pertain to circumstances in plain view from the public right-of-way. Very often they do not.
Citizens are typically then questioned about the alleged circumstances and the Code enforcers always ask to have a “look” at whatever may be in question… an old car or two… a pile of old lumber… or any combination of items that usually give rise to mere esthetic concerns… and very often only to one or two neighbors at most. In none of the cases we have investigated has any target citizen been advised of their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights at the outset. Unwitting, and usually intimidated, citizens invariably accede to these “requests,” and a de facto search of the property is then conducted by the Code enforcers.
In the great majority of cases not only are the initial issues (complained of by whatever “anonymous” sources) confirmed… additional “violations” are cited and then the extortion begins. Citizens are informed by ensuing letter that they “have been found to be the person responsible” for violations of some and several sections of the King County Code. They are ordered to correct matters to the Code Enforcer’s satisfaction or face what are absolutely exorbitant fines and penalties. These initial “findings” are arrived at without any hearing or other process. They are “adjudicated” in absentia at the whim of the Code Enforcers and only then is any even marginal due process offered… an “appeal” hearing may be had and this is when some citizens (victims) first contact advocates or legal counsel.
And, again, this is where too often the advice is to cave in and seek a “deal,” so to speak. Attorneys, as we have said before, will confirm that the enforcement action is improper in whole or in part, but must in all prudence inform the victims that the legal battle will be far more costly than the “deal.” It is painfully clear that after the unwitting citizens permit the initial foray onto their property, it will be prohibitive or impossible to undo the harm to their interests. Capitulation usually follows.
The citizens are further informed in this initial barrage that if they fail to respond as ordered they can be charged with a misdemeanor per some section of the criminal code. The premise here is clearly that the citizens are guilty until they can prove their innocence.
This brings us back to the aforementioned Fourth and Fifth… as well as other Constitutional issues. This penal process clearly has, as a mainstay, the threat of criminal (misdemeanor) sanctions against uncooperative citizens. Introduction of this principal most certainly, then, must mandate protection from the onset against unwarranted and/or un-consented searches and unwitting self-incrimination. But this is not the case. Trickery, intimidation and other advantage are employed to con citizens into utterances against interest and/or gain access to homesteads, and then the extortion follows. The hapless victims are told they have no Constitutional protection because the process is “CIVIL” and such rights do not apply. Again, falsified complaints, as well, are not uncommon.
Additional chronic Fourth Amendment violations are found in the common practice of Code Enforcers entering onto private property in the absence of the homeowner, and admittedly without permission, to search for violations under the pretext of “environmental” concerns. Often NO TRESSPASSING signs are blatantly ignored, and Code Enforcers deny any responsibility to observe these lawful postings. Code Enforcers have continued the practice of ignoring trespass warnings even after their managers and a representative of the King County Prosecutor’s office, in concert, reiterated at a recent public meeting that it is unlawful for them to do so.
Then, once on the property, the sky is usually the limit when the Code enforcers identify many marginal or imagined “violations.” The victims are then warned that failure to comply will result in penalties that, even if marginally applicable on merit, are so draconian in scope they generate outrage that soon leads to fearful capitulation.
As an example of this petty tyranny, consider the case of a neighbor we will call Joe (not his real name). Joe suffers from two forms of cancer. He is barely mobile and often bedridden. In his front yard he had parked his pleasure boat and a vehicle in need of repair, but perfectly acceptable in appearance. In his back yard were two or three other older vehicles that belong to his son. After entering this secluded back yard without permission or a warrant, the Code Enforcer took pictures that were used to bolster this spurious investigation. Coupled with some other minor complaint, King County sent Joe a penalty notice of $9000.00 for the first month… $300.00 per day for parking violations, if you will, on his own property!!!
Even though his neighbors promptly removed these imagined threats to whatever gods the County worships, King County doubled the fine the next month. It is further noteworthy that the Code Enforcement officer twice brought along several police officers to unwittingly cover her invasion of Joe’s property under the pretext that she was in danger from this highly disabled man. She did at least apologize after the second instance. The harm done to this family’s standing in their neighborhood was hardly undone by this belated and unpublicized gesture. While Police Officers questioned Joe’s son about a minor problem, the Code Enforcement officer sneaked into the fenced back yard and took the photos mentioned above.
This charade… bringing the Police along… has the predictable effect of intimidating the citizen even further. And most respectable citizens conclude that if the Police are present, the Code Enforcement officers must be acting lawfully. In Joe’s case, one Police Officer was unwittingly enlisted to help unlawfully enter a storage container in the back yard. Police Commanders we have approached are beginning to have second thoughts about such Police presence. Hopefully, better guidelines are emerging… but much damage has been done.
Another modus of Code Enforcement fraud has to do with filing of fraudulent liens on the homesteads of persons accused of “code violations”. In such cases the accused have successfully appealed the initial complaint to the County Hearing Examiner who rules against the County and effectively terminates the cause of action at that point. Rather than move for reconsideration or file a criminal complaint in a higher jurisdiction, King County subtly waits a convenient period of time and assesses penalties as if the Hearing Process had never taken place. The victim citizen first learns of this when they receive a “NOTICE OF LIEN” by mail. This fraudulent encumbrance of title to a homestead is a clear violation of the Washington State Criminal Code (Sec. 9. 38. 020) and yet is practiced with impunity. It raises due process issues and further advances the argument that a conspiracy is afoot.
A final example of tampering with Official Documents is the mysterious “disappearance” from DDES files of permit applications and other critical documents. This ploy is used to suggest that citizens have failed to initiate corrective action or refused to comply with permit requirements in a timely manner. Fines and other penalties soon accrue…and again the hapless victim is left to prove their innocence. Fortunately many have kept copies…but even then the chicanery continues. DDES sometimes still seeks to penalize the applicants or deny previously promised conditions.
In a recent decision (circa 1996), the United States Supreme Court ruled that civil penalties that are excessive to any showing of actual harm to a public interest are subject to Eighth Amendment sanctions. King County pretends to be ignorant of these constraints. The outrageous penalties regularly inflicted upon citizens of the County are in each instance thus unlawful…and taken in concert further illustrate the pattern and practice of civil rights violations by the County to advance their “racketeering enterprise”! In one recent appeal a King County Superior Court Judge pointedly remarked to a King County Deputy Prosecutor that the penalties in the case clearly appeared excessive. An offer to negotiate the amounts and even exclude certain citations that were clearly falsified was immediately tendered by the Deputy Prosecutor. The matter is pending.
As a further indication of the conspiracy, conflict of interest and abuse of power in DDES, we have found that the Director, Mrs. Stephanie Warden, is a frequent and significant political contributor to the County Executive, Ron Sims, who hired her, as well as the most of the seven Democrat Members on the King County Council, as well as Seattle Democrat Council Members or Mayor. SECOND CAUSE OF CONCERN: PERMIT PROCESS FRAUD
The other prime modus for fraud and extortion by King County is the permit process required of property owners/developers. Already literally the most onerous in the Country, King County has set the stage for even more egregious abuse of folks who may seek to improve private property in the County with passage of a new “Critical Areas Ordinance.” Not only are fees and penalties excessive on their face, in virtually every case the hapless owner/developer will find duplication of fees by chicanery in the permit process language and processing. Portions of the new Critical Areas Ordinance now faces a lawsuit brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation which alleges that portions of said ordinances are clearly unconstitutional on their face.
Inflation of figures for time invested by King County employees in plan review and site inspection is but one of the many means of fraud in this process. Here again County staff is under orders to “bill” at least six hours every working day and this is a clear incentive to abuse. In addition, state law forbidding any public employee from inflating or duplicating official fees of any sort is regularly violated by clever manipulation of permit line item language.
This entire modus of abuse is currently in the Court and designated “class action” status in an action under Case Number 03-2-05287-4, (Snohomish County). This action was filed in the Superior Court of Snohomish County for a group of King County plaintiffs, because the King County Prosecutor is the regular defender of these questionable practices and is compensated from these ill-gotten funds, and thus a potential defendant as well. A memorandum from that case file, submitted by Counsel for the Plaintiff’s is included with this letter.
The facts related therein are a compelling picture of the arrogance of agents of King County in advancing their racketeering. From the depositions of King County Executive, Ron Sims, Ms. Stephanie Warden Director of King County D.D.E.S. and others quoted in this memorandum, the pattern and practice of ignoring State law that prohibits using any official permitting process to charge applicants fees in excess of those necessary to provide the requested service is manifest. All this is clearly unlawful (RCW 82.02.020). Both Executive Mr. Sims and Ms. Warden plead “ignorance of the law” seeking to avoid responsibility for the spurious practice they have utilized to build an illegal “slush fund” in the millions of dollars.
Here again the overriding pattern and practice is inarguable and consistent with the previously cited application of outrageous penalties in Code Enforcement, which is also under the direct authority of Sims and Warden. Other agents of King County, also quoted in the memorandum, either feign similar ignorance, or appear to be unwitting co-conspirators.
One typical example of the fraud/overcharging in this process is commonly found in such files. A developer/builder applies for a permit to begin some site preparation or construction and is presented with a bill that specifies amounts for certain aspects or stages of the project… such as plan application… grading… drainage management… or site inspection… by County staff. Historically those fees covered the activity or service then permitted or delivered by the County.
In recent times the spurious practice of duplication of these costs to the applicant has emerged in not so subtle, even blatant, fashion. After paying the “fees,” the applicant soon finds, upon proceeding with the project, that they will be charged for “file management”, or “site inspection”, or billing inquiries, or a special overseer will be assigned at an additional hourly rate that sometimes dwarfs the initial fee that historically covered these matters. Protest often leads to threats of delays or even greater costs to the project. In such endeavors… where time is money… again, capitulation is often the outcome.
THIRD CAUSE OF CONCERN: DIVERSION OF TAX REVENUES
Some years back, King County began collecting a “SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE” with the stated purpose of flood relief for various areas of King County. To date over two hundred million dollars has been collected with only a small portion going to any real effort at flood control. Some records indicate that at least 80% of the funds Over one hundred million has have gone to staff and facility featherbedding in what we believe is a violation of Washington State law.
FOURTH CAUSE OF CONCERN: FALSE CIVIL CLAIMS
In recent years Federal funding (ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT) has been available for certain salmon habitat creation/restoration. King County has completed several projects that we believe were funded under this Federal Act because they are said to be on streams or waterways that are salmon bearing, although this is clearly not the case. Very substantial sums may have been gotten from the Federal Treasury under such false pretense. We offer as an example a fish ladder/box culvert built, we believe, with Federal Endangered Species Act money. Not only have there never been salmon in this stream, it runs dry six months of the year!! Locals call it the “fish ladder to nowhere”!! It is located in the 16100 blk of S.E. 116th Street in King County. It bears a painted project logo…”ESA 103”…which is apparently a reference to the Endangered Species Act.
AND FINALLY
One of the most critical means for the Citizenry to monitor Government conduct is the Washington State Public Disclosure Act, which compels government to be promptly forthcoming with all documents that bear on any question raised by Citizens about Government activity. King County is guilty of most egregious abuse of this law…cases have been decided in the County Courts finding the County in violation of the Act…yet the abuses continue. One can imagine no other purpose for this obfuscation than concealment of illegal conduct by agents of the County.
We reiterate here that private actions in the Court will originate… in fact some already have… to bring relief to those who are able. But it is a harsh fact that actions related to property issues cannot be elevated to class action, thus leaving those who cannot afford individual efforts at the mercy of this pernicious governmental abuse. That is unacceptable.
All the more reason this racketeering must be investigated and exposed for what it is, and an end put to it. Therefore we undersigned Citizens of King County Washington challenge you to meet your responsibility to the public and act promptly.
I have been dealing with King county ddes for 7 months now. I purchased a property that I cleaned up, removed trash, blackberries, made it look very nice. I have paid over $3,000 for misc hours and fines for not getting a permit.I paid them to get it off my back and I thought I was done. But no, I keep on getting new charges one for $500 and another for $400. I called thier "customer service number", and they said I need to speak with the person charging me. I called that person numerous times, emailed him. I never get an answer, these fees are 140/hour and for what?. They don't explain the work they do, It seems like all the worker(s) do just charge me for no reason. Does anyone know what I can do? I feel like it's just me against king county ddes. I don't know where to go or who to speak with. Can anyone help me or suggest anything? Thanks.
This is directed to the anonymous poster on 11/17/08. We can recommend reaching out to Mike Bradley here on Vashon. He is a permitting consultant and has assisted many people in dealing effectively with DDES. His number is 206-463-2055.
They haven’t earned the nickname “Dysfunctional Department of Extortion and Sadism” for nothing. What’s your story? Blog about your experience with DDES!
8 comments:
8 years ago,we purchased what we thought was going to an idyllic 5 acre farm with nice craftsman home, barn, and guest cottage.About 2 years ago, we received a notice of code violations from DDES.The tone of the letter was threatening, citing that we could be liable for thousands of dollars in fines and fees. Well,we did not build or improve anything. We purchased the property as is. To make a long story short, DDES informed us that code violations follow the ownership of the property and that we were on the hook for our barn and cottage, because they were unpermitted.Obviously,the sellers had lied to us on Form 17, where it asks the question "have all structures on the property been permitted and certificate of occupancy granted."We went to the ABC pre-app meeting(which lasted about 30 minutes and cost $500)and brought up a section of the King County Code (Title 23 Code Enforcement Section 23.02.070 paragraph G.)"The department shall use all reasonable means to determine and cite the person or persons actually responsible for the violation occurring when the owner has not directly or indirectly caused the violation." We were told that they had no authority to go after the previous owner. Baloney, the above quoted code section IS their authority and it is easy enough to obtain via real estate records.This has cost us thousands of dollars in permit fees and opened up questions about our septic system, proximity to critical areas,etc. etc. We later found out that all this was caused by an anonymous complaintant who had turned in more than 20 other resdidents.Talk about witch hunts, all in the name of generating revenue for a fee based bureaucracy run amok.Just because they can and our representatives let it continue unabashed.No one on this Island is safe from the greed and corruption of DDES and code enforcement
Hey, If your seller lied, and your title insurance didn't discover it, you have a great claim against them. That's what title insurance is for.
It breaks my heart to see DDES dividing neighbor against neighbor on Vashon. Since I have lived here (1983), a sense of us all being in this together has prevailed. A good way to state it is simply, “Live and let live.” DDES’ motto seems to be the opposite: “Divide and conquer”.
Did you know DDES has held community meetings on the east side where people were encouraged to file anonymous complaints against their neighbors? One DDES official even said that was a good way for people to meet their neighbors and get acquainted.
Vashon Islanders are very vulnerable right now because of our history of being basically ignored by King County for most of the 100 years the Island has been settled. (This does not mean that the buildings are not well constructed just because no architects or engineers were involved. Rural and practical, Islanders have, I think, exercised a good deal of common sense and skill in the way they have historically housed themselves. Apparently, for the longest time, the County agreed).
Recently, an Islander told me, “When I was getting ready to build (20 years ago), I went to the County and they told me to just go ahead and build. They couldn’t be bothered to come out here.” That was when BALD, Building and Land Development, was funded from public taxes.
All that changed when BALD morphed into DDES and was given (or grabbed?) the power to enforce not only the building codes, but the strict new environmental ones as well (the Sensitive Areas and then Critical Areas Ordinance). We were told at the time that these laws would regulate new building only, and that existing buildings would not be affected. Everybody thought it was a good idea to protect what was left of the wild places on the Island from the urban-style development that threatened the Island’s rural character. Nobody expected them to use the new laws to destroy our dear “old Vashon”, so lovingly built by the hands of friends and neighbors past and present, alive with spirit and memories, so artfully placed in the environment and so beautiful to old-time Islanders and newcomers alike.
Now DDES is persecuting owners of “old-time” Vashon buildings, built before the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of 1990, even though their own records are shoddy and incomplete, and as far as I can tell, they can rarely prove what was permitted and what was not in any individual case. They seem to rely on the intimidation and self-incrimination of frightened citizens to win their cases.
DDES has become essentially a privatized police force with the power to charge people with misdemeanors, demolish their property, and ruin their lives, with no oversight and no options for the landowners except a long, tedious and painful appeal process that rarely ends in anything but defeat.
DDES Code Enforcement officers believe they have the power to enter onto any property, whether or not there is a no-trespassing sign, any time they suspect a “violation” These “violations” are many times urban-style laws against, for example, vehicles that are parked on grassy areas or fences that are over six feet high. DDES employees are mandated to make as much money as possible from fines and fees. They’re not supposed to take anything into consideration except how much money they can squeeze out of their hapless victims.
Once the officer is on the property, they feel free to look for other “violations”, including septic issues (although the County Health Department, not DDES, has jurisdiction over septic and water systems). DDES gets around these restrictions by imposing what they call the ABC, or Already Built Construction, program. Essentially, when “violations” are found, or even suspected, DDES issues notices to landowners that the offending structures must be quickly demolished or brought up to current standards, (including water and septic) which is impossible in many cases because of changes in the law since they were built, not to mention the ability of the landowner to come up with tens of thousands of dollars in a very short period of time. The ABC program is a perfect moneymaker for DDES, because the landowner essentially is forced to sign away his ownership in the property, allowing DDES to enter it whenever they please, and granting them a blank check to charge $144 dollars per person per meeting their employees attend, or studies they declare necessary. The landowner has no say over anything once they have signed ABC application. DDES then invoices the landowner regularly, telling them how much they owe. Since they can enforce a lien on the property, they are assured of being paid. There was recently a lawsuit on the east side concerning these issues, and some progress was made, but the main problems remain unsolved.
Most King County residents never have anything to do with DDES, because they live in cities with their own codes and regulation. They have been told that the agency is doing a good job. Maybe they see rural people as ignorant rubes, intent on ruining the environment on their own property. The idea of sustainable rural land use that comes from the experience and skill of the landowner, not enforced by distant urban technocrats, is foreign to urban King County residents, certainly to anyone at DDES.
We have been told by the courts that Vashon is not allowed to incorporate. We have to make the best of a bad situation. We can’t look to the politicians to help us, because they are all proud of DDES and the money it makes, and aren’t about to change anything on their own.
In our case, a DDES official called our realtor and told her he had received a hand-written anonymous complaint against our property. It happened ten days before closing, and our real estate transaction fell through (we had fully disclosed everything about the property). Two-plus years later, we have won our case with the Hearing Examiner (he dismissed it, saying they had violated our 4th Amendment rights). They say they can’t produce the unredacted original of the so-called “complaint”. They say they lost it during the copying process. (They sent us copies of the same document twice, once in response to my public disclosure request for our own case and once in response to my request for an anonymous complaint they claimed to have about another property.)
We have spent a small fortune on studies and reports to prove that our house is well built and presents no problem to public health, construction safety, or the environment. In two-plus years of this ordeal, we have yet to find one reasonable person within the County, including the prosecuting Attorney’s office, who will even talk to us. Their answer is always the same: Pay first, then do what we say. They could not have been nastier and meaner. In all our years on Vashon (my husband has been here since 1970), we always had good relations with County employees, until now. We have been treated with utmost disrespect, insulted, called irresponsible, and been retaliated against because we uncovered their scam of pretending to have complaints when they didn’t have them and then, at least in our case, forging a phony written “complaint” and then destroying the unredacted original when we requested it as part of our pre-hearing evidence (we have two forensic documents examiner reports pointing to the person we believe to be the forger).
This all happened as we were making our final preparations for retirement. These last two years were supposed to be our high-earning years where, having moved, sold our former house (where we lived for 14+years) and paid our debts, we expected to be saving for our old age. Now we are often depressed and frightened about the future. Our resources are being depleted, because we never planned on paying two mortgages over the long term. Our lives are here on the Island, and we have no idea where we will go if this is not resolved soon. At some point, we will be left with no choice but to sell out and leave. We can’t even imagine life somewhere else.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our house. We have had numerous interested potential buyers, but under the present circumstances, no buyer feels confident DDES will not retaliate against them as they have done to us. (Despite the order to dismiss, they continue to show it as an open case on their parcel viewer.) We feel like we are left in limbo, and we’re losing hope.
Clearly, DDES needs to be reformed, put back on track as a public-funded, public-service-oriented department. In the meantime, I suggest the following:
* * * * * * *
VASHON-MAURY ISLAND CITZENS’ BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST DDES
DDES will respect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens of Vashon-Maury Islands, specifically:
DDES will investigate only upon receiving a reliable complaint.
Complaints DDES receives from people who wish their name to be withheld from the person they have complained about are allowed under the law. Complaints where DDES does not know the identity of the complainant are against the law.
Code Enforcement officers will not drive around the island fishing for “violations”, as they are said to be doing.
Complaints against more than one property are clearly not reliable and should never constitute a basis for an investigation.
DDES will enter upon private land only with permission of the landowner, or with a warrant.
All existing buildings will be judged by a performance standard. Buildings that present no danger to public health, safety or the environment will be declared grandfathered in.
* * * * * * *
Anyone who has been told by DDES that the agency has received a complaint against their property would be well advised to request a copy of the complaint. A public disclosure request can be made by email to the DDES communications director, as follows:
“Pursuant to the Public Disclosure Act, RCW 42.17, I am requesting a copy of any complaints filed against my Vashon Island property, parcel # --------.”
I came across this quote in an article entitled, “The Sack of Washington” by Cullen Murphy, published in the June 2007 issue of Vanity Fair. Although it was originally written about the Roman Empire and then, in the article, related to our national government, I think it is strikingly relevant to the present situation with DDES:
“By empire’s end, all public transactions require the payment of money, and the pursuit of money and personal advancement has become the purpose of all public jobs. Misdirection of government force occurs when people must pay before officials will act, and it occurs if payment also determines how they will act.”
Thank you, Marie and Troy, for this forum. It is more appreciated than you can imagine.
Title insurance NEVER shows that structures are fully permittrd.Are you kidding me? The point here is that DDES has the authority to discover the perpertrator and does not do so.Claims against the former owners are expensive. The current owner could be saved a lot of grief and money if the code enforcement section would follow the King County Code and make them responsible for the illegal, unpermitted actions.
I believe the previous poster is 100% correct that the title insurance policy would have nothing to do with this type of problem and offers no remedy. Title insurance generally deals with legal issues relating to the "chain of title" to the real estate and financial encumbrances -issues like whether the seller had legal title to convey the ownership to the property in the first place at time of sale, whether there were any loans or tax liens against the property that weren't disclosed by a title search and listed on the title report, etc. Title insurance policies have a list of exceptions at to what they don't cover/are not insuring - if you read one you'll almost certainly see they don't cover/exempt from coverage such things as these DDES issues that are, in fact, arising with increasing frequency as overzealous DDES employees pursue revenue to fund their own high salaries via outrageous fines and fees for what were once considered trivial matters or non-issues. This is a scam. King County government, IMHO, is a corrupt, confiscatory agency that is out of control and DDES is one of its worst examples of overcharging, etc., per a recent court decision. In any event, the remedy is not in looking to your title insurance policy.
For the past several years, certain east King County unincorporated area folks have tried to raise the alarm about what DDES was up to. Namely, members of "property rights" groups.
In some quarters, namely among unreasonably extreme pro-environment, pro-King County "CAO" advocates, such property rights folks were much maligned, and the concerns they expressed about heavy handed DDES tactics dismissed as nonsense or fabrications.
More specifically to DDES, in May, 2005, a complaint was filed with the U.S. Attorney's office and the Seattle FBI office asking for a Federal government investigation of what was perceived to be a pattern and practice of wrongdoing, overcharging, fabricated code violations based on fabricated (and usually "anonymous") complaints and unlawful acts by DDES. The document filed is below. It is long and parts of it may seem "over the top" for the time and may still seem so. Now, in light of so many actual, documented incidents of property owners being put through the very things described over two years ago in the complaint, all over east King County and on Vashon and Maury Islands, what is said doesn't seem far-fetched at all. Please take the time to read it carefully all the way through. Here and there you will see that, over two years ago, it was describing exactly the sorts of situations that others have blogged about here, right down to the very same details of "anonymous complaints", the documentation for which later disappears from DDES files (when the law requires such files to be kept secure and there are laws against "spoliation" of public documents), etc.
To date there has been no public indication as to what the two agencies have done, or are doing, with the below complaint.
Here it is:
May 12, 2005
TO THE HONORABLE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
DISTRICT OF WESTERN WASHINGTON
cc: FBI, Seattle Office
IN RE: COMPLAINT OF CRIMINAL (RACKETERING) ENTERPRISE
I am a retired Seattle Police Officer with 23 years of criminal investigation experience. By means of this letter I bring to your attention a clear pattern and practice of extortion and fraud being inflicted upon some Citizens of King County Washington by elements of King County Government. A summary of these allegations follows:
A. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. (DDES)
1. A consistent pattern of over charging and duplication of fees for permits of all kinds.
2. Arbitrary and capricious actions in code enforcement: Piling on spurious code enforcement allegations and excessive penalties in addition to a pattern of intimidation and harassment of landowners, either in related permit applications, or by concoction of more imagined code violations through “anonymous complaints”.
3. Purposely hiding pertinent files in code enforcement actions or during appeals.
4. Denying citizens due process as required by the several Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.
B. King County Water and Land Services Department (WLSD)
1. Imposing fees on property owners and then not using those fees for the intended purpose. Rather than those fees (over $200,000,000 since the fee was imposed) being used for their lawful purposes, said fees have been diverted to build a huge staff, initiate needless studies and buy capital equipment.
C. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP)
The printing and distribution of material clearly designed to promote and propagandize specific land use ordinances as an advocate piece, without proper disclosures and with clear distortions and misrepresentations of fact. This effort had the clear purpose of discouraging public challenge of the Critical Areas Ordinance.
D. Fraudulent expenditure of federal funds to build salmon restoration devices in streams and seasonal creeks that have no possibility of ever bearing salmon.
E. Consistent abuse of Freedom of Information and Public Disclosure Act requests. King County has already been sued for these violations and had to pay out over $100,000 in penalties. One particular case is still open and the County could be obligated to even greater penalties, all of which come out of the taxpayer's pocket and caused by government legislators to cover up negligence, mismanagement and outright fraud, waste and abuse.
F. Attached as Addendum. Governmental misconduct in the acquisition and subsequent planning-related activities pursuant to construction of an Interim East Lake Sammamish Trail. King County acquired control over an abandoned railroad right-of-way under provisions of a federal rails-to-trails law, and has been bent on building the cheapest possible trail through wetlands and the middle of people’s yards, ignoring its own policies and codes in the process. Numerous, documentable, unscrupulous tactics have been employed in this effort to reap the political windfall that this trail represents.
TO WIT:
Certain employees of the Executive Branch, currently headed by Mr. Ron Sims, King County Executive, have been misusing and are continuing to misuse the Code Enforcement Process and the Property Use Permitting Process to create and enforce certain actions against random property owners with the clear and, in fact, admitted purpose of obtaining monies from said property owners to further the existence and goals of their employing entity, the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES), and its subsidiaries. The clear benefit derived for these employees is continuing employment to a degree not otherwise possible; absent such “revenue generation”... they face unemployment. The results of this draconian situation were predictable.
This writer and all other signatories to this letter recognize that government does have authority to regulate (within lawful confines) the use and other enjoyment of private property for the common good. In furtherance of the common good, government can create lawful regulations of such use, and penalize, in due course and process, those who may violate such regulation(s). The exercise of "eminent domain" by Government for legitimate public purpose is also recognized.
Note here, that we all value the quality of the environment and pride ourselves on our stewardship of our land. We support regulation genuinely designed to protect our natural assets, and any code enforcement that is intended to abate clear and present threat to public health or safety or natural amenities, that does not violate constitutional protections.
The nature of that regulation and enforcement is often contentious, and we are all dedicated to responsible interaction with local Government to maintain the proper balance. We have formed groups that systematically challenge and otherwise seek to influence the course of this public business. As well as promoting environmental quality, and cooperation with Government where appropriate, we also emphasize observance of rights against uncompensated takings, or capricious limitation on property and its use. We accept this responsibility willingly; it is part of the perpetual challenge to property ownership. Nowhere is this better illustrated than our current showdown with King County, Mr. Sims et al, over the so-called CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE. This one will have us all in the Courts for some time to come.
This is not an ad hominem attack on Mr. Sims or other current King County employees at the outset. This abuse predates the current King County Administration. That is not to say that evidence may not be discovered in time that points an investigation in the direction of certain individuals, including current officers or employees of King County. Those cards will fall where they may. Our purpose more specifically is to quiet this institutionalized abuse once and for all.
With our respect for the legitimate exercise of government thus stated, however, we here definitively restate our rejection of any proposition, de jure or de facto, that government may utilize the regulatory or any other process to further destructive or unlawful ends. That King County has embarked on such a program is all too apparent to many citizens in the rural area of the County. Their purpose is equally clear and publicly acknowledged. They seek to restrict use and prevent development of private property. Their stated purpose is to “protect the environment”… the law, and property owners, be damned!! No matter how they may attempt to sanctify their endeavor, however, the basic protections citizens possess cannot be sacrificed.
The abuses we have chronicled and report herein have, as their common denominator, violation of one or more fundamental protections against self-incrimination, freedom from unlawful search, and equal protection. These abuses embody the sort of malfeasance and intrusion by Government, anticipated by the Founders, and thus specifically proscribed by the original amendments (refinements, if you will) to our Constitution. A pattern of these violations so chronic to this agency, leaves no question that concerted related action… conspiracy… by DDES employees is afoot.
We will here define the nature of these abuses without attempting to detail all the many cases we have studied. We will instead outline the substance of the several patterns these cases establish with an offer of proof that should compel a determined response from your office. We can tell you that lawsuits seeking civil remedy of these abuses are being contemplated by individuals in this County, and should provide recovery of damages for some. Some of these lawsuits are already in the Court.
However it is the conviction of all of us that this pattern and practice of abuse by King County is an ongoing criminal racketeering enterprise and merits aggressive prosecution by the Federal Government. , as well. Thus our request that your office promptly and aggressively investigate!
The most aggravating factor in this scenario is the publicly acknowledged fact that this branch of King County government relies for its very existence on the generation of fees, penalties and other arbitrary economic return. Mr. Sims, in a statement published in local newspapers just a few years back, reaffirmed that “code enforcement” was the means of revenue for much of DDES... that the operation was not otherwise funded in the budget. Predictably, very aggressive enforcement follows this sort of absurdity. Imagine the abuse that would result if, for instance, traffic police officers were told there would be no paycheck unless they wrote every imaginable infraction. What wasn’t seen... could be quickly conjured. Connection of one’s employment to enforcement revenues is an absolute formula for malfeasance.
This naturally has led to unsavory practices that, considered in their true light, lead to an inescapable conclusion: some employees of King County, Washington, are engaged in a pattern and practice to extort money from citizens of the County. These employees have and continue to conspire to violate the Civil Rights of said citizens to enable the enforcement of “code violation” cases and the creation of various schemes to unlawfully inflate the expenses inflicted upon citizens in the course of plan and permit review in cases where property development or improvement are sought.
FIRST CAUSE OF CONCERN: CODE ENFORCEMENT ABUSE
Most, if not all, of the abuses we have chronicled in “Code Enforcement” stem from cases where the alleged offenses are very minor and arcane. These are the “technical fouls” that can be heaped on folks who in many cases do not even know that circumstances that may exist on their property are “violations.” Often the circumstances exist benignly and without notice for years before being “outlawed” by new Code sections and “discovery” by some predatory Code Enforcer. Protection against ex post facto contrivances in the King County Code are virtually non-existent.
Often spurious allegations are heaped on simple cases that may actually involve some minor violation to create a juggernaut that brings even able citizens to their knees. Case studies indicate that this tactic is often used on elderly or disabled folk who are already living at their wit’s end. False statements in official files are common to this abuse.
Significantly, when these abuses are challenged by supportive community members or groups, or by attorneys that have been retained, the bulk of the complaint will often quickly disappear. Attorneys we have consulted are familiar with this tactic and agree that this sudden evaporation illustrates how baseless many of these citations are to begin with. In many cases, folks are told by attorneys that the complaints are improper, but advised to make a settlement offer since defending the matter will be too costly.
County employees clearly take advantage of this predicament and have refined the calculus to attempt to keep most files out of the appeal process. For the moment, let us say of this practice that we believe it involves ipso facto, the falsification of official records to the degree that false or contrived complaints are made part of the file used to intimidate citizens to forego appeal and comply with this extortive practice.
The assembly of these abusive cases begins with common means by the several Code Enforcers who have their marching orders as chronicled above… get out there and generate fines…or there may be no employment!! Citizens may find Code Enforcers at their door announcing that some complaint or other has been received (virtually always anonymous) about conditions on the citizens’ property. These “complaints” may or may not pertain to circumstances in plain view from the public right-of-way. Very often they do not.
Citizens are typically then questioned about the alleged circumstances and the Code enforcers always ask to have a “look” at whatever may be in question… an old car or two… a pile of old lumber… or any combination of items that usually give rise to mere esthetic concerns… and very often only to one or two neighbors at most. In none of the cases we have investigated has any target citizen been advised of their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights at the outset. Unwitting, and usually intimidated, citizens invariably accede to these “requests,” and a de facto search of the property is then conducted by the Code enforcers.
In the great majority of cases not only are the initial issues (complained of by whatever “anonymous” sources) confirmed… additional “violations” are cited and then the extortion begins. Citizens are informed by ensuing letter that they “have been found to be the person responsible” for violations of some and several sections of the King County Code. They are ordered to correct matters to the Code Enforcer’s satisfaction or face what are absolutely exorbitant fines and penalties. These initial “findings” are arrived at without any hearing or other process. They are “adjudicated” in absentia at the whim of the Code Enforcers and only then is any even marginal due process offered… an “appeal” hearing may be had and this is when some citizens (victims) first contact advocates or legal counsel.
And, again, this is where too often the advice is to cave in and seek a “deal,” so to speak. Attorneys, as we have said before, will confirm that the enforcement action is improper in whole or in part, but must in all prudence inform the victims that the legal battle will be far more costly than the “deal.” It is painfully clear that after the unwitting citizens permit the initial foray onto their property, it will be prohibitive or impossible to undo the harm to their interests. Capitulation usually follows.
The citizens are further informed in this initial barrage that if they fail to respond as ordered they can be charged with a misdemeanor per some section of the criminal code. The premise here is clearly that the citizens are guilty until they can prove their innocence.
This brings us back to the aforementioned Fourth and Fifth… as well as other Constitutional issues. This penal process clearly has, as a mainstay, the threat of criminal (misdemeanor) sanctions against uncooperative citizens. Introduction of this principal most certainly, then, must mandate protection from the onset against unwarranted and/or un-consented searches and unwitting self-incrimination. But this is not the case. Trickery, intimidation and other advantage are employed to con citizens into utterances against interest and/or gain access to homesteads, and then the extortion follows. The hapless victims are told they have no Constitutional protection because the process is “CIVIL” and such rights do not apply. Again, falsified complaints, as well, are not uncommon.
Additional chronic Fourth Amendment violations are found in the common practice of Code Enforcers entering onto private property in the absence of the homeowner, and admittedly without permission, to search for violations under the pretext of “environmental” concerns. Often NO TRESSPASSING signs are blatantly ignored, and Code Enforcers deny any responsibility to observe these lawful postings. Code Enforcers have continued the practice of ignoring trespass warnings even after their managers and a representative of the King County Prosecutor’s office, in concert, reiterated at a recent public meeting that it is unlawful for them to do so.
Then, once on the property, the sky is usually the limit when the Code enforcers identify many marginal or imagined “violations.” The victims are then warned that failure to comply will result in penalties that, even if marginally applicable on merit, are so draconian in scope they generate outrage that soon leads to fearful capitulation.
As an example of this petty tyranny, consider the case of a neighbor we will call Joe (not his real name). Joe suffers from two forms of cancer. He is barely mobile and often bedridden. In his front yard he had parked his pleasure boat and a vehicle in need of repair, but perfectly acceptable in appearance. In his back yard were two or three other older vehicles that belong to his son. After entering this secluded back yard without permission or a warrant, the Code Enforcer took pictures that were used to bolster this spurious investigation. Coupled with some other minor complaint, King County sent Joe a penalty notice of $9000.00 for the first month… $300.00 per day for parking violations, if you will, on his own property!!!
Even though his neighbors promptly removed these imagined threats to whatever gods the County worships, King County doubled the fine the next month. It is further noteworthy that the Code Enforcement officer twice brought along several police officers to unwittingly cover her invasion of Joe’s property under the pretext that she was in danger from this highly disabled man. She did at least apologize after the second instance. The harm done to this family’s standing in their neighborhood was hardly undone by this belated and unpublicized gesture. While Police Officers questioned Joe’s son about a minor problem, the Code Enforcement officer sneaked into the fenced back yard and took the photos mentioned above.
This charade… bringing the Police along… has the predictable effect of intimidating the citizen even further. And most respectable citizens conclude that if the Police are present, the Code Enforcement officers must be acting lawfully. In Joe’s case, one Police Officer was unwittingly enlisted to help unlawfully enter a storage container in the back yard. Police Commanders we have approached are beginning to have second thoughts about such Police presence. Hopefully, better guidelines are emerging… but much damage has been done.
Another modus of Code Enforcement fraud has to do with filing of fraudulent liens on the homesteads of persons accused of “code violations”. In such cases the accused have successfully appealed the initial complaint to the County Hearing Examiner who rules against the County and effectively terminates the cause of action at that point. Rather than move for reconsideration or file a criminal complaint in a higher jurisdiction, King County subtly waits a convenient period of time and assesses penalties as if the Hearing Process had never taken place. The victim citizen first learns of this when they receive a “NOTICE OF LIEN” by mail. This fraudulent encumbrance of title to a homestead is a clear violation of the Washington State Criminal Code (Sec. 9. 38. 020) and yet is practiced with impunity. It raises due process issues and further advances the argument that a conspiracy is afoot.
A final example of tampering with Official Documents is the mysterious “disappearance” from DDES files of permit applications and other critical documents. This ploy is used to suggest that citizens have failed to initiate corrective action or refused to comply with permit requirements in a timely manner. Fines and other penalties soon accrue…and again the hapless victim is left to prove their innocence. Fortunately many have kept copies…but even then the chicanery continues. DDES sometimes still seeks to penalize the applicants or deny previously promised conditions.
In a recent decision (circa 1996), the United States Supreme Court ruled that civil penalties that are excessive to any showing of actual harm to a public interest are subject to Eighth Amendment sanctions. King County pretends to be ignorant of these constraints. The outrageous penalties regularly inflicted upon citizens of the County are in each instance thus unlawful…and taken in concert further illustrate the pattern and practice of civil rights violations by the County to advance their “racketeering enterprise”! In one recent appeal a King County Superior Court Judge pointedly remarked to a King County Deputy Prosecutor that the penalties in the case clearly appeared excessive. An offer to negotiate the amounts and even exclude certain citations that were clearly falsified was immediately tendered by the Deputy Prosecutor. The matter is pending.
As a further indication of the conspiracy, conflict of interest and abuse of power in DDES, we have found that the Director, Mrs. Stephanie Warden, is a frequent and significant political contributor to the County Executive, Ron Sims, who hired her, as well as the most of the seven Democrat Members on the King County Council, as well as Seattle Democrat Council Members or Mayor.
SECOND CAUSE OF CONCERN: PERMIT PROCESS FRAUD
The other prime modus for fraud and extortion by King County is the permit process required of property owners/developers. Already literally the most onerous in the Country, King County has set the stage for even more egregious abuse of folks who may seek to improve private property in the County with passage of a new “Critical Areas Ordinance.” Not only are fees and penalties excessive on their face, in virtually every case the hapless owner/developer will find duplication of fees by chicanery in the permit process language and processing. Portions of the new Critical Areas Ordinance now faces a lawsuit brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation which alleges that portions of said ordinances are clearly unconstitutional on their face.
Inflation of figures for time invested by King County employees in plan review and site inspection is but one of the many means of fraud in this process. Here again County staff is under orders to “bill” at least six hours every working day and this is a clear incentive to abuse. In addition, state law forbidding any public employee from inflating or duplicating official fees of any sort is regularly violated by clever manipulation of permit line item language.
This entire modus of abuse is currently in the Court and designated “class action” status in an action under Case Number 03-2-05287-4, (Snohomish County). This action was filed in the Superior Court of Snohomish County for a group of King County plaintiffs, because the King County Prosecutor is the regular defender of these questionable practices and is compensated from these ill-gotten funds, and thus a potential defendant as well. A memorandum from that case file, submitted by Counsel for the Plaintiff’s is included with this letter.
The facts related therein are a compelling picture of the arrogance of agents of King County in advancing their racketeering. From the depositions of King County Executive, Ron Sims, Ms. Stephanie Warden Director of King County D.D.E.S. and others quoted in this memorandum, the pattern and practice of ignoring State law that prohibits using any official permitting process to charge applicants fees in excess of those necessary to provide the requested service is manifest. All this is clearly unlawful (RCW 82.02.020). Both Executive Mr. Sims and Ms. Warden plead “ignorance of the law” seeking to avoid responsibility for the spurious practice they have utilized to build an illegal “slush fund” in the millions of dollars.
Here again the overriding pattern and practice is inarguable and consistent with the previously cited application of outrageous penalties in Code Enforcement, which is also under the direct authority of Sims and Warden. Other agents of King County, also quoted in the memorandum, either feign similar ignorance, or appear to be unwitting co-conspirators.
One typical example of the fraud/overcharging in this process is commonly found in such files. A developer/builder applies for a permit to begin some site preparation or construction and is presented with a bill that specifies amounts for certain aspects or stages of the project… such as plan application… grading… drainage management… or site inspection… by County staff. Historically those fees covered the activity or service then permitted or delivered by the County.
In recent times the spurious practice of duplication of these costs to the applicant has emerged in not so subtle, even blatant, fashion. After paying the “fees,” the applicant soon finds, upon proceeding with the project, that they will be charged for “file management”, or “site inspection”, or billing inquiries, or a special overseer will be assigned at an additional hourly rate that sometimes dwarfs the initial fee that historically covered these matters. Protest often leads to threats of delays or even greater costs to the project. In such endeavors… where time is money… again, capitulation is often the outcome.
THIRD CAUSE OF CONCERN: DIVERSION OF TAX REVENUES
Some years back, King County began collecting a “SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE” with the stated purpose of flood relief for various areas of King County. To date over two hundred million dollars has been collected with only a small portion going to any real effort at flood control. Some records indicate that at least 80% of the funds Over one hundred million has have gone to staff and facility featherbedding in what we believe is a violation of Washington State law.
FOURTH CAUSE OF CONCERN: FALSE CIVIL CLAIMS
In recent years Federal funding (ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT) has been available for certain salmon habitat creation/restoration. King County has completed several projects that we believe were funded under this Federal Act because they are said to be on streams or waterways that are salmon bearing, although this is clearly not the case. Very substantial sums may have been gotten from the Federal Treasury under such false pretense. We offer as an example a fish ladder/box culvert built, we believe, with Federal Endangered Species Act money. Not only have there never been salmon in this stream, it runs dry six months of the year!! Locals call it the “fish ladder to nowhere”!! It is located in the 16100 blk of S.E. 116th Street in King County. It bears a painted project logo…”ESA 103”…which is apparently a reference to the Endangered Species Act.
AND FINALLY
One of the most critical means for the Citizenry to monitor Government conduct is the Washington State Public Disclosure Act, which compels government to be promptly forthcoming with all documents that bear on any question raised by Citizens about Government activity. King County is guilty of most egregious abuse of this law…cases have been decided in the County Courts finding the County in violation of the Act…yet the abuses continue. One can imagine no other purpose for this obfuscation than concealment of illegal conduct by agents of the County.
We reiterate here that private actions in the Court will originate… in fact some already have… to bring relief to those who are able. But it is a harsh fact that actions related to property issues cannot be elevated to class action, thus leaving those who cannot afford individual efforts at the mercy of this pernicious governmental abuse. That is unacceptable.
All the more reason this racketeering must be investigated and exposed for what it is, and an end put to it. Therefore we undersigned Citizens of King County Washington challenge you to meet your responsibility to the public and act promptly.
SINCERELY,
I have been dealing with King county ddes for 7 months now. I purchased a property that I cleaned up, removed trash, blackberries, made it look very nice. I have paid over $3,000 for misc hours and fines for not getting a permit.I paid them to get it off my back and I thought I was done. But no, I keep on getting new charges one for $500 and another for $400. I called thier "customer service number", and they said I need to speak with the person charging me. I called that person numerous times, emailed him. I never get an answer, these fees are 140/hour and for what?. They don't explain the work they do, It seems like all the worker(s) do just charge me for no reason. Does anyone know what I can do? I feel like it's just me against king county ddes. I don't know where to go or who to speak with. Can anyone help me or suggest anything? Thanks.
This is directed to the anonymous poster on 11/17/08. We can recommend reaching out to Mike Bradley here on Vashon. He is a permitting consultant and has assisted many people in dealing effectively with DDES. His number is 206-463-2055.
Post a Comment