New restrictive interpretations of 24-year-old zoning laws could redefine me as a criminal, but may be motivated by a pursuit for higher revenues for the county coffer. I am not a lawyer and so my understanding of the law tends to rely heavily on commonsense and the sense of fair play for all citizens. From the Constitution to local ordinances we presumably base these on both commonsense, aka reasonableness, and fair play, aka justice. I recently viewed a bumper sticker which read, “Legalize the Constitution” which I interpreted as an ironic truth that we may be entering a political era when our expression of our basic rights as U.S. citizens and property or business owners are being criminalized, in this case through zoning laws.
Violating a zoning ordinance is considered a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months of incarceration. Effectively, I have become the test case for local motels. If denied my appeal and I would continue renting any long-term rentals at the El Dorado Motel, fighting for my right to continue serving the needs of folks in Lake County that need either temporary, aka transient, or long-term housing; needs that are scarcely met, I could go to jail and I would opt to, rather that agree to fines.
Do we have mostly unchecked powers at the local government level? What are the responsibilities and powers of a quasi-judicial body such as the Board of Supervisors? Should the pursuit of additional revenue be part of the requirement to open up the eyes of my quasi-judges? It would seem that the present wording of CR zoning and its related definitions should be considered in the debate and how much any resort owner pays in sewer/water fees or willingness to agree to unique inspections (not otherwise demanded of other resorts) or agreements to partially change a long-standing rental practice should not determine how the law itself is interpreted.
In addition, an unbiased panel of quasi-judges should be highly interested in testimonial, circumstantial and/or documentary evidence that a business has a right to continue its same practice under grand-fathering. If a business has proven that it has been acting as such since before the new 1986 CR zoning, that business would be then authorized to practice under the freedoms of the previous zoning i.e., R4, which permitted uses allowed for apartment or multi-family housing. Rather than have the county attempt to violate all beyond-30 day rentals at all resorts in Lake County under the present CR zoning, it would seem necessary to draft a new and unambiguous ordinance, which would expressly state the exclusion of long-term rentals.
At times I am still optimistic that I will be given the full opportunity to present my case before unbiased quasi-judges.
Veronica Fisher
Lakeport
