Using Code Enforcement For Forced Relocation

This thought crossed my mind today, and I figured I'd do a little digging on this topic. Basically what I'm getting at here is:

What if the government used code enforcement on certain areas to force people to relocate, to whatever the government chooses, be it a "FEMA CAMP" or designated zones for masses of people to live, and maybe work for slave labor. It would give the government the chance to do a land grab, plus it would allow greedy corporations and banks to buy up land for dirt cheap.
Now, I'm not saying that certain code enforcement isn't necessary, because I've seen some places in pretty bad condition, so code enforcement can be reasonable right now, but what if they use it as another covert tactic of robbing the American people of their freedoms?

A court appoints a receiver to manage expenses created through the code enforcement process, so they could appoint banks, or rich private interests to oversee these projects, and leave you on the street. So any code gurus feel free to chime in.

Here are a few small examples of what they could use as an excuse to push people out of their homes.

How It Works

Who or what are the typical candidates for health and safety receiverships?

Packrats and hoarders; owners who cannot properly care for the property because of advanced age or disability; referrals from police and/or fire departments; properties requiring forced tenant/owner relocation; properties with illegal construction/occupation; multi-unit/apartment complexes; fire-damaged properties; properties with drug/nuisance abatement issues; bank-owned/abandoned properties; redevelopment agency properties.

What is the legal authority for appointing a health and safety receiver?

Legal authority is provided by the California Health & Safety Code sections 17980 through 17992, specifically sections 17980.6 and 17980.7.3


Who can ask the Superior Court to appoint a health and safety receiver over property?

The local enforcement agency, a tenant or tenant association or organization.

What is the receiver’s specific legal authority?4

The receiver takes full and complete control of the
property, including:

Managing and paying expenses of operating the substandard building;
Obtaining cost estimates for necessary repairs/rehabilitation;
Entering into contracts with contractors to perform necessary repairs;
Collecting rents and income from substandard building and using such rents to pay for repairs;
Borrowing funds to pay for repairs;
Relocating tenants and providing relocation compensation; and
Much more.

If a city’s/county’s rules/regulations or traditional code enforcement process provides (or requires) a lengthy notice, hearing and appeal, must these procedures be followed first?

No. Health and safety receivership “remedies shall be in addition to those provided by any other law.”5

What are the rules related to grounds for issuing a notice to repair or abate for health and safety receiverships?

Only the existence of a building is required; it can be residential or commercial, abandoned or occupied.6
Any local ordinance that is “similar in nature” to either the grounds found in the California Health & Safety Code section 17920.3 or the California Building Code can be used as grounds under the notice to determine violations, virtually encompassing all of the city/county-adopted codes related to code enforcement and property maintenance.
The conditions present must be “so extensive and of such a nature that the health and safety of residents or the public is substantially endangered.”

How much time must the city/county give to repair or abate?

A “reasonable time.”7 What constitutes a reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances presented by each individual property.

What happens when a property owner fails to comply with the Health and Safety Notice to
correct violations?

“The enforcement agency may seek and the court may order the appointment of a receiver for the substandard building pursuant to this subdivision.”8 Once the “reasonable time” to repair/abate has expired, the only remaining notice requirement to owner/recorded interests, prior to filing an ex parte emergency application/petition, is the minimum three-day notice that the city/county must give to the owner that it intends to file the petition.

Can immediate family members, friends and other relatives assist in the process of obtaining
a receiver?

Yes. Frequently family members and friends have exhausted most remedies and welcome assistance. They can even sign declarations in support of the city’s petition.

What happens if a property has negative or minimal equity? Can a receiver still be appointed, and how can the receiver borrow money?

A property’s title profile, ownership or equity status have no effect upon whether a property meets the qualifications for appointment of a receiver. Title profile and equity are relevant to the receiver in assessing how to obtain the funds to accomplish the scope of work under the receivership and to the court in ordering super-priority status to the receivership certificates.9

Does the city need to adopt an enabling ordinance to authorize the use of receiverships?

No.10 A city does not need to adopt any type of enabling ordinance to access the enforcement remedies provided in the Health & Safety Code.

Have courts upheld a receiver’s discretion as it relates to whether to demolish, rehabilitate or vacate properties?

Yes. Most recently, in Santa Monica, the court appointed a receiver over substandard residential rental property and authorized the receiver to contract for demolition of the property over the owner’s objection, in a case where the property had a long history of unsafe and unsanitary conditions in violation of local building codes.11 The California Supreme Court upheld the receivership and also upheld the lower court’s decision and direction to the receiver to demolish the residential structure.

Is the city or county responsible for supervising the actions of the receiver or responsible for actions the receiver takes?

No. A receiver is an agent and officer of the appointing court.12 As an officer of the court, a receiver is not an agent of any particular party to the action, but represents all persons interested in the property.13 Property in receivership remains under the court’s control and continuous supervision.

Can we recover our attorney’s fees associated with asking the court to appoint a health and safety receiver?

Yes. The “prevailing party” in an action to appoint a receiver “shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs as may be fixed by the court.”14

Putting the Burden Where It Belongs

Many local agencies are seeing an increase both in code violations and recalcitrant attitudes on the part of property owners and occupants. Even the courts have recognized that it frustrates code enforcement efforts and rewards noncompliance if the city has to bear the fees it incurred as a result of a property owner’s recalcitrance.15 Instead, using code enforcement tools that require property owners to reimburse the city for its legal fees “induces compliance with the city’s regulatory authority.”16

Health and safety receiverships offer an aggressive, effective remedy for substandard property that puts the burden and cost of abatement where it belongs — on those who created the blight and/or are responsible for the property.

Califor nia Example

I would like to also point out, that the family can appoint a receiver, but I'm not too sure on that process, as if it might be a highest bidder type thing or not.

My main thought was that it would be a covert way to get people out, especially if they decide to go through with a gun grab... Plus and assault on free speech, what could you really do if they forced you out because you broke a few code violations.

It seems that they could tie you up in litigation, and keep the process in the courts to deplete your money supply, then the state or whatever entity may appoint their own receivers.

Why would the government want to do this?

Any good conspiracy needs a basis in reality to begin with.

Originally posted by Spookycolt
Why would the government want to do this?

Any good conspiracy needs a basis in reality to begin with.

It depends. A lot of land deemed to not sustain a habitat for people has been purchased by governments, and private interests before. Also if government chooses to use it for whatever they deem necessary.

you have to PAY TO PLAY basically, and when you run out of the funds to fight in court, they will just steam roll you and take it. How would you stop them?

How the Government Takes Private Property

As the government makes its plans for expansion and improvement of publicly maintained roads and utilities, it determines which private parcels will be affected. Once it makes that determination, the government will work with its own appraisers to determine the appropriate price for the necessary property interests. When the government has established its estimation of the property value, it may offer the landowner a particular price for the property. If the property owner agrees, the government buys the land. If the property owner disputes the government's valuation and they cannot agree on a price, the matter will go to condemnation proceedings.

During condemnation proceedings, the property owner will get to offer his or her own valuation for the property.
Typically, the property owner will work with an attorney and an appraiser. The attorney will protect the property owner's legal rights respecting the involved property, and the appraiser will work to establish the property's fair market value. The property owner may also oppose a forced sale by contesting the government's proposed use of the property. As long as the use is proper, however, this type of challenge will fail. As an alternative, the landowner may also claim that the extent of the property the government is attempting to condemn is too great and that its purposes can be fulfilled with less intrusion. Generally speaking, the government is only allowed to invade the property rights of individuals to the extent necessary to accomplish the intended public purpose.

Source

law.psu.edu... (good read, but not quite sure about it all)

This is how they will depopulate the Loisiana territories for their huge oil refinery....

Originally posted by stirling
This is how they will depopulate the Loisiana territories for their huge oil refinery....

That's a good example of what I mean by "private interests" It's a complete smash and grab at this point as far as government and private buyers is concerned. There are so many abandoned houses around the US, they could seize a lot more land IMO, they are just going to use a subtle approach.

I could be wrong though.

Originally posted by Spookycolt
Why would the government want to do this?

Any good conspiracy needs a basis in reality to begin with.

i can't speak for the op
but i will say this
when the UN sees it fit time to implement agenda 21 in america
they will
they call any and all property either sustainable or un-sustainable

articles on agenda 21 being implemented currently upon Brazilians make for jaw dropping read

currently the un is having a tough time trying to get the small arms treaty in america right
this comes to vote again on march 8th
so what do they the UN do who now run the show in america...they use every application of law or codes against guns in america

so this thread of the op
makes perfect sense and is option for future agenda 21...if they must
until they can establish it as UN rule of law
they will
use code enforcement as with any trick in the book that will work

well known is UN on conspiracy forums even though it's FACT
planned takeover of the world

reply to post by lasvegasteddy


Good point, this would tie in perfectly with agenda 21. Here is a small example to back up what you're getting at.

OCALA - A decades-old scheme to eliminate private ownership of land has been working quietly to snatch up thousands of acres in North-Central Florida and across the nation under the guise of environmental protection. The plan, formally known as “Agenda 21,” was originally outlined in a 1976 United Nations report called ‘Habitat I.’

The two ideologies are irreconcilable, but Agenda 21 marches on with the support of the U.S. government and even state and local governments. “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment,” the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs explains on its Web site.

Individual rights must take a backseat to community interests. Sound familiar? That’s probably because it’s been the ideology that American presidents have been agreeing to since 1992. Enter Agenda 21, the 40 chapter document from the United Nations that establishes environmental “principles” at local, national, regional, and international levels-and the object of Ayn Rand’s nightmare. Defined these days as “sustainable development,”

Agenda 21 seeks to transform humanity with “new global ethics.” At the most basic level, beyond the soft words like “sustainability” and “eco-friendly environments”, Agenda 21 takes away private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices, and privately owned farms.

These socialist ethics, as described by Mikhail Gorbachev at the UN Rio Conference in 1995, mean that “we should restrict and limit our consumption and also reassess our way of life, we should be more modest.”

Source
Source2

They can push it under the guise of saving the environment.

if you look up online
you'll see what brazilians are currently facing
it's so rude

you've seen the constitution free zone right
american borders to 100 miles in...have no constitutional rights
i think all of hawaii is a "CFZ"

my best guess is
DHS is only a cover name and is actually the UN
we lost our country

reply to post by lasvegasteddy


Yeah I just read a little bit of that, what if that same agenda could happen here in America, to force people off of farm land and what not?

Using code enforcement would be a soft and quiet approach to push agenda 21.. pretty crazy.

Some entity could offer you a form of insurance to help cover any kind of taxation, whereas you sign them your land if you fall back on your agreement. Read the fine print when it comes to that stuff I suppose

you must be kind of new to seeing something is going on

this is and will happen

their credo used to be...don't do too much too quick
this has changed
force readiness checks out good to go...WE LOST OUR COUNTRY

here's quick video


if you really weren't aware and are new
give a just enough respect before you right me off here
watch videos in this ATS link...www.abovetopsecret.com...
except replace the term "the grand design" with "the GRAND UN"
and get back to me if needed...but it shouldn't be
all the connecting of dots will connect

last note...DHS...is department of homeland security...not department of people on the homeland security...

reply to post by lasvegasteddy


It's not that I'm new to the subject, I just skimmed through a lot of information in the past few years, and I forget a lot of stuff I researched, so this was kind of a refresher for me.

I'm glad you brought up agenda 21, because it'll help spur my memory to add more on this subject

I'll check that video out also, it might have slipped by my previous research.

you're all good and i hope nothing i conveyed implied disrespect...