United Stand (Building Code Confrontation, California Style)

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Now, therefore, be it resolved that a task force be created and that a representative from the building, health, and sheriff's departments join with a representative of the District Attorney's office to seek out the violators and pursue whatever remedies may be available to correct the violations.

"Citizens" were distinguished from "people" and "violators". Couldn't a violator be a citizen?

The notion that the victims of the task force were treated discriminantly was to become a central issue in the defense articulated by United Stand. More evidence than just the semantics of the Grand Jury resolution supported the contention that a lifestyle was under attack. One Grand Juror explicitly revealed his prejudice in excerpts from a letter to the supervisors:

I was your first building inspection director and fought for years for compliance with this very same type of vociferous minority. They have always wanted to desecrate the most beautiful county in California.

This same vociferous minority contributes little or nothing to the tax base of this county, and in many instances are a detriment to the county's economy.

Who will determine where these substandard homes may be built? It will be either pure discrimination, or it will open up our county to every indigent in the United States.

I am a third generation Mendocino County resident, and I beg of you not to allow these pressure groups to change our codes.

Chief Building Inspector Don Uhr out did the Grand Juror for bigoted and untenable remarks. In a November 1974 New Times article Uhr said:

Suppose Mendocino does lower its building standards . . . every hippie and freak from all over the world is going to come storming here. They'll all be on welfare, or maybe just 50% on welfare. It would break the county .

. . . last week we had a fellow beat to death in one of the state parks on the coast. It could have been the motorcycle group or it could have been anyone. But when a guy professes peace and runs around with peace symbols on his collar, it don't mean he isn't going to beat your brains out if he gets a chance.

These statements reflect the attitudes which gave rise to the task force.

Two sympathetic experts offered their resistance in those formative days of United Stand. One was Sim Van Der Ryn, a U.C. Berkeley professor of architecture. He gave Mid-Mountain representatives copies of his Owner-Built Home Resolution and his plans for a composting toilet. He put them in touch with the Housing Law Center at Berkeley and promised to provide health, sanitation, and architectural experts for their day in court.

Invaluable legal advice came from Carl Shapiro, an elderly and experienced attorney, who had successfully defended Marin County houseboat inhabitants from a land-fill, high-rise development planned for their harbor. Shapiro told United Stand organizers that their problem could not be defended from the posture of economic discrimination, for judges do not understand poverty. A defense built upon discriminate implementation had already been attempted and had failed. Furthermore, it would be inconsistent to demand that an unjust law be imposed on everyone equally.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print