Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-Appeal to Council ;'::":' :,,~' i.,:. - /-0 ~_~ 1-4 iF. " :- L ~4 i" . Robert 5. Shirley P.O. Box <16, Coron?,C~. 91718 (71<1) 737-0462 RECEIVc---....T'(~LERi' McGee ~'--'.~ - : CITY r:.-LE:F<.I< Foy~Mayor and Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" St. San Bernardinio,Ca. 92418 '89 GEe 21 P4 :14 Re: ~~ij3~O from Board of Building Commissioners Hearing Gentlemen: On Oct. 28,1989 ,~e ,as Plaintiffs in an Unla~ful Detainer Eviction Action ,Case No. l22259,in yhe San Bernardino Municipal Court, received a Writ of Possesion from the Court for our house located at 680 West 11th St. in San Bernardino. A Sergent W.R. Wayman was the Marshal who met us at the property and gave us posses ion of our house,per the Court's Writ. At the time we met Sgt. Wayman at the property he proceeded to remove all persons occupying our house and gave us a receipt for possesion,which we signed. While Sgt. Wayman was. still on the premises at 680 West 11th St., we proceeded to lock and secure all doors and windows on our house.Sgt. Wayman witnesses that we not only locked all doors and windows,but we also installed hasps and padlocks on all doors and nailed all windows shut. Sgt. Wayman commented at the time that we had done a very thorouqh job of securing our house. When we were ready to leave and come back home to Corona,Ca. we noticed that the tenant whom Sgt. Wayman had just physically evicted kept driving by the house to see if we were all still there.Upon our all observing the tenant doing this,we asked Sgt.Wayman if he would mind "checking" our house on his.way home that night.Sgt. Wayman agreed. Approximately 7pm that night,Sgt. Wayman called us on the telephone at our home in Corona. He said that he had gone by our house on his way home and found the tenant he had just evicted that afternoon breaking the glass on our rear door on our house,and gaining entry. Sgt. Wayman said when he appeared in front of the house,the tenant,who was inside then ran to the back where he had broken into the house and escaped by jumping over our rear fence to the adjacent property. Since there had been damage to the rear door on our house,Sgt. Wayman told us he was going to ask the Bldg. and Safety Dept. to se- that back door only. Since the evicted tenant had already broken our back door,and since it was late at night,we had no choice but to agree, in order to keep the tenant from returning to do more damage to our house. our the When we later made arrangements for a contractor to meet us at house,LESS THAN 72 HOURS LATER ,we were completely amazed to see that City Bldg. and Safety Dept had sent someone out and RIPPED ALL OF ~ 2. ALL OUR PADLOCK~ OFF and installed boards over ALL of our doors and windows,installing their own padlocks! In addition,the contractor who did the work did not bother to follow the standard F.H.A. board-up procedure;they simply drove their bolts throuqh all of the windows, breaking the glass in all of our windows! (FHA board-up procedure calls for simply raising the window slight~y on the bottom and low- ering the window slightly on the top,to allow the bolts to go inside to the anchor-boards,so that no windows will be damaged).This pro- cedure was ignored and all of our windows were simply broken out! h~en we saw this had been done to our house,less than 72 hours from the time we got the Marshal's possesion,AND after we had just done such a good jOb of securing our house,as witnessed by Sgt.Wayman, we complained loudly to the City Bldg. and Safety Dept..In addition, we wrote a Certified letter to the City Bldg. and Safety Dept.pro- testing the "OYER-REACTION" of doing these things to our house!Our letter was IGNORED by the San Bernardino Bldg. and Safety Dept.! We then demanded a hearing by the Board of Building Commissioners. On Dpr. 6.198g. we received a Certified letter from the San Bernardino Bldg. and Safety Dept.,advising us that there was going to be a Hearing before the Board of Bldg. Commissioners,regarding our complaint,on DEC. 1st,1989!By the time we received this letter,they had already had the Hearing and denied our complarn~l We bitterly complained of this "OYER-REACTION of Sgt. Wayman's Report and of the ridiculous notification and holding of Hearing BEFORE we even received the NOTIFICATION OF SUCH MEETING.! Now,on Dec. IS,we have received another letter from City of San Bernardino,telling us that we have one appeal left on this matter: we are to send this letter of Appeal to the Mayor and Common Council before Dec. 28,1989 and address to City Clerk's Office,for apparent chance to hear OF OUR MISTREATMENT by the San Bernardino City Bldg. Safety Dept.! It appears that we now must ask the Mayorand Common Council to take our unjust treatment by the over-reactive Bldg. and Safety Dept. under consideration to give us relief from the thousands of dollars they are liening our property with and demanding we pay;this lien and billing is for unnecessary security work which had already been done-and it includes over $1000. for "Administrative fees". What did the over $12,000. in Property taxes we have paid in the past 14 years go for? If the Mayor and Common Council grant us a hearing after Jan.1, 1990,we request time to prepare our presentation and we request that Sgt. W.R. Wayman of the Marshal's Office be present. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, /f?A~L Robert and Shirley McGee Homeowners and citizens with rights. RMM;sam cc: file M. Irvine