ACLU Questions City of Vader’s Code Enforcement Practices

The city of Vader is coming under scrutiny from the American Civil Liberties Union and is defending itself in legal actions from its residents due to code enforcement policies that the ACLU is concerned “fall short of constitutional minimums.”

“It is hard to believe that the health and welfare of Vader’s citizenry is threatened if a resident lives in a motorhome for over fourteen days — yet, that is precisely the kind of code violation that Vader is prosecuting,” a Nov. 18 letter from the ACLU to the city of Vader reads. “Rather than penalizing Vader citizens who are struggling financially, the City should work cooperatively to help those citizens remediate properties that pose true public health and safety risks.”

A petition filed by Vader resident Tod Miller and attorney Tonya Hebert Nov. 20 with Lewis County Superior Court also questions the city’s code enforcement and calls the policies unconstitutional — specifically stating that they violate residents’ rights to due process. 

Part-time Vader resident Cindy Radcliffe and her husband Layton also recently sought an attorney’s help to push back against code violations alleged by the city, and what they estimate to be $30,000 in fines accrued in the month after receiving their notice of violation. 

“I love the little town, I was born and raised there. I’ve been gone for a long time and we just recently bought property there, but it has its issues,” Cindy Radcliffe said. “Unfortunately, people do not know their rights.”

On Nov. 18, the ACLU of Washington wrote to Vader Mayor Ken Smith and the Vader City Council of concerns about the city’s code enforcement practices.

“The ACLU of Washington appreciates that cities have a legitimate interest in protecting public health and safety,” the organization’s letter to the City of Vader begins. “But that legitimate interest is bounded by the due process protections of the United States and Washington Constitutions. Limits also exist as to what constitutes real risks (to) public health and safety rather than local beautification campaigns.”

The ACLU letter does not reference any formal action against the city.

The letter was a brief topic of discussion during the Nov. 30 Vader City Council meeting and was scheduled to be discussed in an executive session. 

“The ACLU has just written a letter containing its observations about the city’s code-enforcement efforts,” Smith said in the meeting. “They’re not claiming any action against the city. They just sent a letter of support to those who are fighting the city but that’s not a letter that should be taken necessarily as a potential lawsuit.”

Smith did not return a request for additional comment Monday.

Current Vader city councilors are Andy Wilson, Jason Dailey, Joe Schey, Mike Parsons and Leona Sander-Hunter. Dailey, Schey, Parsons and Sander-Hunter all ran unopposed in the November election. 

Wilson did not file for reelection, and will be replaced in 2018 by Judy Costello. 

According to the letter from the ACLU, Vader residents learn of alleged code violations when served with a notice of violation from the city. They have 15 days to appeal before the notice is deemed final. Unresolved violations result in fines of $500 per day, per violation.

“Vader residents do not receive a prior warning letter,” the ACLU states. “For a resident strapped for cash, the accumulated fines can quickly exceed the costs of fixing the underlying alleged violation and exceed the value of their property.”

An August 2017 nuisance abatement complaint filed in Lewis County Superior Court shows the city successfully levied fees of $1,500 per day after a Vader property owner failed to respond to notice of three violations of city code — for overgrown vegetation, dilapidated buildings and junk vehicles — issued in mid-2016.

The city’s complaint notes taxes were paid but described the property as looking “abandoned.”

In October, Superior Court Judge James Lawler issued an order directing the property owners — who had not responded to the court or the city regarding the case — to pay the accrued fines of $583,500 at 12 percent interest to the city. 

Miller’s petition notes that as of November his fines had accrued to $218,000. 

Radcliffe said, based on what she knows of Vader property values, having recently bought property there, she believes the fines likely greatly exceed the values of the properties in cases like these. 

“(I) have to wonder what the goal is for (the) city,” she wrote in an email to The Chronicle.

While there is an appeal process for residents charged with a violation, the ACLU’s letter reports, citing the city’s online fee schedule, that filing an appeal costs $500. 

“Vader residents have had their appeals rejected because they didn’t know about the well-hidden $500 appeal fee,” the organization’s letter states. “And, no doubt, some Vader residents have not appealed because they could not afford the hefty $500 fee.”

The ACLU’s letter asks the city to begin sending warning notices to residences before the notice of violation, revise its appeal process and to limit its code enforcement actions to incidents that pose “actual threats” to public health or safety. 

The council discussed the letter for several minutes in open session at the Nov. 30 meeting, with some members saying they believed the city had already addressed some of the organization’s concerns, such as offering a warning before a formal violation. 

The ACLU declined to comment further when contacted by The Chronicle Monday. ACLU representative Amy Roe said the organization has not yet received a response from Vader and planned to wait for a reply before commenting beyond the letter. 

Cities typically use code enforcement programs to deal with violations of city ordinances related to unkempt yards, garbage and junk cars.  

Cindy Radcliffe said she and her husband received their first violation this summer after driving their motorhome to Vader from their other home in Arizona. They parked the motorhome next to their Vader home, a farmhouse the couple is remodeling, and kept the water and electric plugged in out of a desire to keep the motorhome in a state of good repair. 

They thought all was well until they got a letter from the city accusing them of living in the motorhome for longer than allowed in city code. The Radcliffes denied the city staff member’s assessment of their living situation.

“By her own admission she looked in windows and said she didn’t think it was livable,” Cindy Radcliffe said. “It’s an old farmhouse we’re remodeling but it has everything you need to live in.”

The Radcliffes took exception to the city staff member’s inspection of their property without their knowledge, which Cindy Radcliffe said included bypassing a locked gate 150 feet back from the road. They contacted their attorney and challenged the violations. 

“That should not be the standard,” she said. “I shouldn’t have to prove to them that I live there.”

Their attorney resolved the issue, getting the city to waive the accrued tens of thousands in fees and nullifying the violations. 

Considering the house is undergoing renovations, no junk vehicles were present and the yard was kept clean, Radcliffe said she feels targeted for personal reasons.

“I think it was personal because I had been outspoken at the council meeting,” she said. 

Miller was also accused of living in a recreational vehicle, according to his petition, having an illegal connection to the city’s sewer, and for having a dangerous building and junk vehicles. 

Miller addressed the sewer connection, which he was unaware was a code violation, according to his petition, and appealed the remaining violations. 

However, his appeal was denied because he did not pay the $500 appeal fee, according to the petition. 

Miller’s petition asks for the court to issue a stay, allowing a review of his case. 

“The petitioner has been deprived of the ability to sell his home, finance his home, and according to the city’s (notice of violation), to live in his home,” the petition states. “The city claims he has the option to ‘repair’ his home but provided no list of repairs in the NOV that have not already been resolved. The City has refused to acknowledge NOV allegations that have been completed and the only remaining item on the NOV is the boarding up and abandonment of the Petitioner’s home.”

A hearing on a motion for summary judgement in the case is scheduled for Dec. 29 in Lewis County Superior Court.