Is the IPMC Unconstitutional or just UnAmerican?

[Razmear]

I just posted this to the local newspapers forum and thought I'd share it here as well. Fell free to repost/reuse as you wish.

eb


Is the IPMC Unconstitutional or just UnAmerican?

If your like me, you probably had no idea what the International Property Maintenance code was until today.
I learned because I got a notice from the county, and hopefully you'll learn because of this posting.

The notice I received threatened me with legal costs in excess of one thousand dollars because of "weeds or plant growth in excess of 12 inches" and referenced Anderson County Ordinance 10-81 "otherwise known as the International Property Maintenance Code".

Now I don't even think we should be in the United Nations, so I surly don't want some international committee telling me how tall my weeds can grow, especially in a region where some weeds can grow 12 inches in a matter of hours. So wondering what this IPMC is I turned to google and found the entire code, which has been adopted by many local governments and rejected by the more freedom loving communities. The complete code can be found here:
http://www.talgov.com/dncs/neighborhood/pdf/intpropmaint.pdf

Now to me this issue is not about property maintenance, but about private property rights. This is America right? So long as what happens on my property does not infringe upon my neighbors land (toxic dumping, etc) then it is none of the governments business if there are some weeds or if I choose to store a parts vehicle in my back yard in case my daily driver breaks down.

If you take the time to read the entire code, you will find that it goes far beyond just how nice your lawn looks.

Here are some of the more disturbing sections of the code:

104.4 Right of entry. The code official is authorized to enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect subject to constitutional restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures.
If entry is refused or not obtained, the code official is authorized to pursue recourse as provided by law.

104.4 states the county inspector can ask to come in your house, if you refuse he can call the Sheriff's department who can insist that you let the inspector in.

Fines are assessed as a lien on the property.
In my weed situation the code (302.4) states that if my weeds should not be in compliance the county can hire someone to trim my weeds to the legal length of 11 3/4 inches, then file a lien against my property for the cost of trimming the weeds. Now imagine you are on a long summer vacation and the county visits your home every two weeks to trim your weeds at $1500 per visit (they can charge anything they wish) and you come back to find your house up for auction to satisfy a $9000 lien by the county. It may seem an unlikely scenario, but it can be done under this law.

Section 302.8 relates to motor vehicles and states that I can not work on my vehicle in my driveway, only in an enclosed garage. Seeing how I do not have a garage, this section effectively prohibits me from working on my own vehicle. Sure they don't actively enforce that part of the law, but it's on the books and they can whenever they like against whomever they please. Now what can be more unAmerican than keeping folks from working on their own cars?

What else can they fine you for under the IPMC?
Have any peeling or chipped paint on your house? You are in violation of section 304.2

Do you have your house number stuck to your house and visible to the road with numbers that are at least 4 inches tall? If not you are in violation of section 304.3

Does your roof leak? Your in violation of section 304.7

Do you have screens on all your windows and doors?
If not you are in violation of section 304.14

Do you have rodent shields on your basement windows? (do you even know what a rodent shield is?)
If not you are in violation of section 304.17

Are your windows clean? If not section 305.3 will try to set you right.

I could go on and on quoting violations of your personal freedoms that are contained in this International Law that governs how you maintain your house, but it is all there at the link above for you to see.

Now I might be more biased against these nanny state laws than most because I'm a transplant from Vermont where most counties don't even have building inspectors for residential properties. Surprisingly enough our houses don't fall down due to a lack of a bureaucratic authority telling us what to do. If you build your house poorly and it collapses, then thats your own fault. If you buy a poorly built house without having an inspector check it out, then that is your own fault as well.
It is all about personal responsibility, something that has been vanishing from American society at a rapid pace, and which will be needed if we are to restore this country to it's former glory.

Razmear

[Razmear]

A bump for personal freedom (and cuz it took me a long time to write)

eb

the post in its original context with local comentary:
http://aimnewmedia.net/charalambous/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=40397

[pcosmar]

I had some "run in's" with Code Enforcement when I lived in Key West. It was one of the final straws that helped me decide to sell.
Where I live now I am zoned "agricultural" and can do pretty much as I please.

The whole concept seems to violate both privacy and property rights.

[pcosmar]

You might also google "Agenda 21" and see what other laws are being implemented under the UN mandate.
Up here "Stupak (http://www.house.gov/stupak/)" is trying to implement several.
Including meters on private wells.
I am supporting Linda Goldthorpe for congress.
http://www.goldthorpeforcongress.com/

[pcosmar]

Bump, for more input.

[Razmear]

I just posted this update to the local news forum, posting here too incase anyone has expierance with eminent domain laws or the IPMC being used to seize property in this way.

eb

It now seems that most of the people in my neighborhood are getting these IPMC complaint letters from the B&C department for assorted very minor complaints, all threatening massive legal costs which according to the IPMC will be assessed as liens against their property.

I also found out tonight that there is a company that is interested in building a plant on the property where my neighborhood is, and it now seems that the county is using the IPMC rules to harass and obtain liens on peoples property in an effort to clear the neighborhood for a company that wants to build a new plant here.

Given that the IPMC rules are so easy to be broken, they can file a complaint against your property for not having screens or having dirty windows, it seems that Anderson County is using this ordinance to clear out the property owners without having to resort to eminent domain until they get down to the last few hold outs.

I'd be interested to see if the IPMC complaints are being evenly spread around the county or if my neighborhood is being targeted.
If records show that they are specifically targeting one neighborhood so they can increase tax revenue (or kickbacks) by letting a company buy up our land cheap at auctions set because the property owners can not pay unreasonable liens placed against their property for noncompliance with this unAmerican law then Anderson County can expect a class action lawsuit against them.

Sorry for being less coherent in this posting than the original, but I just got home from work after learning about these new developments, and I'm a bit ticked off.

eb

[Razmear]

Looks like I'm not alone:

http://www.liberatereadingpa.com/

" * RETALIATION
o Property owner exercises Constitutional rights in regard to inspection. Codes office retaliates with search warrant.
o Codes office retaliates using search warrant
o Codes Office fines property owners $500 for trash (Is concrete trash?)
+ Culprits: Brad Reinhart(Codes Administrator), William Frymoyer, Jr.(Codes Officer)
+ Ordered to remove concrete ("trash") within 24 hours
+ Codes Officer Frymoyer orders property owner to remove concrete from underneath porch within 24 hours, resets it for 30 days, and then cites him with a week! Makings of a "routine and systematic inspection?"
+ Independent inspector doesn't classify the concrete as trash
+ Pictures of heavy concrete ordered removed within 24 hours.
# Picture 1, Picture 2
+ Frymoyer issues violation notice at another address (same property owner) on the same day with no inspection notice"

[pepperpete1]

I just posted this update to the local news forum, posting here too incase anyone has expierance with eminent domain laws or the IPMC being used to seize property in this way.

eb

It now seems that most of the people in my neighborhood are getting these IPMC complaint letters from the B&C department for assorted very minor complaints, all threatening massive legal costs which according to the IPMC will be assessed as liens against their property.

I also found out tonight that there is a company that is interested in building a plant on the property where my neighborhood is, and it now seems that the county is using the IPMC rules to harass and obtain liens on peoples property in an effort to clear the neighborhood for a company that wants to build a new plant here.

Given that the IPMC rules are so easy to be broken, they can file a complaint against your property for not having screens or having dirty windows, it seems that Anderson County is using this ordinance to clear out the property owners without having to resort to eminent domain until they get down to the last few hold outs.

I'd be interested to see if the IPMC complaints are being evenly spread around the county or if my neighborhood is being targeted.
If records show that they are specifically targeting one neighborhood so they can increase tax revenue (or kickbacks) by letting a company buy up our land cheap at auctions set because the property owners can not pay unreasonable liens placed against their property for noncompliance with this unAmerican law then Anderson County can expect a class action lawsuit against them.

Sorry for being less coherent in this posting than the original, but I just got home from work after learning about these new developments, and I'm a bit ticked off.

eb

First of all, I really need to read the whole ordinance. But let me ask just now,
who is the code official and county inspector. Under which agency is this job description given?

I have had my real estate license for over 20 years and this is the first I have heard of an International Property Maintenance Code? What county in it's right mind would allow the adoption of such an ordinance?

I'll read the whole thing tomorrow as it is 2 AM and I am going to bed now.
I will get back to you.

[pinkmandy]

I'm actually stunned right now. Need to digest this one and get back to you. Are you saying that your county is trying to force property owners out of their homes by fining you guys under a UN resolution?

[Razmear]

First of all, I really need to read the whole ordinance. But let me ask just now,
who is the code official and county inspector. Under which agency is this job description given?

I have had my real estate license for over 20 years and this is the first I have heard of an International Property Maintenance Code? What county in it's right mind would allow the adoption of such an ordinance?

I'll read the whole thing tomorrow as it is 2 AM and I am going to bed now.
I will get back to you.

It seems a lot of counties have adopted this code. The link to the whole evil thing is in the first post. I've been googling and finding other instances of this code, which was written by the ICC, which happens to be run by the former director of FEMA James Lee Witt according to this page:
http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/article.php?sid=423 (about 2/3 down the page under the header: How Local Governments Implement Agenda 21)
, being used to harass citizens and seize property.

The notice is sent by the Anderson County (SC) Buildings & Codes Department (aka B&C) The only signature on the document is of the "authorized agent".

I'll scan it and post a link here in a bit.

eb

[pinkmandy]

Maybe I missed it, but what is the ICC? I thought we were talking about IPMC?

[Razmear]

Here is the notice with my personal info blacked out:


http://razmear.us/IPMC.jpg


http://razmear.us/IPMC.jpg

eb

[Razmear]

Maybe I missed it, but what is the ICC? I thought we were talking about IPMC?

The ICC is the International Code Committee which are the ones who wrote the IPMC and other similar codes.

eb

[Razmear]

I'm actually stunned right now. Need to digest this one and get back to you. Are you saying that your county is trying to force property owners out of their homes by fining you guys under a UN resolution?

It's not a UN resolution. It is a code written by the ICC which many local counties have adopted and some are using for the purpose of seizing property without using eminent domain.

I'm still digesting all this too, which is why I'm asking for assistance seeing how my neighborhood seems to be targeted by the county.

eb

[pinkmandy]

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[pcosmar]

There are two threads going now that have the same core issues.
Please do some research on Agenda 21.
Here is a good video for a start.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&safe=off&resnum=0&q=agenda+21&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1#

[freelance]

First of all, I really need to read the whole ordinance. But let me ask just now,
who is the code official and county inspector. Under which agency is this job description given?

I have had my real estate license for over 20 years and this is the first I have heard of an International Property Maintenance Code? What county in it's right mind would allow the adoption of such an ordinance?

I'll read the whole thing tomorrow as it is 2 AM and I am going to bed now.
I will get back to you.

I was reading the other day about some of these very restrictions being "codified," if you can call it that, in Brussels for the EU.

In addition to the things cited in the OP's posts, they cannot work on their plumbing or work on their car in or out of a garage. There are something like 107,000 new laws on the books over the past year. Everyone is a criminal, because no one can possibly keep current on all the new laws.

They've just about figured it all out--they're taking away retirements and they're taking away homes. What's left?

One other thing. We're not keeping our eye on the ball. While we're busy trying to watch our own government and being distracted by the elections, I think the real action is at the international level--UN and the Codex people. That's where our laws are coming from, not from our own shores. Just wait until that new law passes in Canada, something-or-the-other 51--the one that takes away natural supplements. The SPP (via the FDA) will jump right on it in order to harmonize. The action is not happening here--it's out there. Forget our media, and read the foreign press.

[pinkmandy]

I'd want to know which county officials decided these unconstitutional codes were okay to use in the first place.

[ARealConservative]

any way to show a shot of the yard in question without violating privacy?

[pcosmar]

I'd want to know which county officials decided these unconstitutional codes were okay to use in the first place.
This should give some idea.
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm

The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN's official policy on land. The Preamble says:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."


The Preamble is followed by nine pages of specific policy recommendations endorsed by the participating nations, including the United states. Here are some of those recommendations:

Recommendation A.1

(b) All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population...over the national territory.

(c)(v) Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources.

Recommendation D.1

(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.

(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements....

Recommendation D.2

(a) Agricultural land, particularly on the periphery of urban areas, is an important national resource; without public control land is prey to speculation and urban encroachment.

(b) Change in the use of land...should be subject to public control and regulation.

(c) Such control may be exercised through:

(i) Zoning and land-use planning as a basic instrument of land policy in general and of control of land-use changes in particular;

(ii) Direct intervention, e.g. the creation of land reserves and land banks, purchase, compensated expropriation and/or pre-emption, acquisition of development rights, conditioned leasing of public and communal land, formation of public and mixed development enterprises;

(iii) Legal controls, e.g. compulsory registration, changes in administrative boundaries, development building and local permits, assembly and replotting.

Recommendation D.3

(a) Excessive profits resulting from the increase in land value due to development and change in use are one of the principal causes of the concentration of wealth in private hands. Taxation should not be seen only as a source of revenue for the community but also as a powerful tool to encourage development of desirable locations, to exercise a controlling effect on the land market and to redistribute to the public at large the benefits of the unearned increase in land values.

(b) The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or decision or due to the general growth of the community must be subject to appropriate recapture by public bodies.

Recommendation D.4

(a) Public ownership of land cannot be an end in itself; it is justified in so far as it is exercised in favour of the common good rather than to protect the interests of the already privileged.

(b) Public ownership should be used to secure and control areas of urban expansion and protection; and to implement urban and rural land reform processes, and supply serviced land at price levels which can secure socially acceptable patterns of development.

Recommendation D.5

(b) Past patterns of ownership rights should be transformed to match the changing needs of society and be collectively beneficial.

(c)(v) Methods for the separation of land ownership rights from development rights, the latter to be entrusted to a public authority.

[Thomas Paine]

any way to show a shot of the yard in question without violating privacy?

Ditto that request.

[qaxn]

someone show me where in the us constitution it states that local governments cannot regulate the use of property

[Razmear]

Ditto that request.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yzVheDupiU