Is a city ordinance prohibiting certain items in a person's yard a civil rights violation?

[George Dennison]

Jurisdiction

Oregon

The city where I own my home & live has an ordinace against storing building materials or machinery, (and other items), on one's property unless it is in a building. What has been stated to me by a City Code Enforcement Officer, (who is authorized to issue citations), is: "If a piece of equipment is intended to be stored in a building, it must be stored in a building." I do not know if this is a quote of the ordinance, or his interpretation, but the question immediately coming to my mind is, 'What if the piece of equipment if designed to handle being left our in the climate?'

He has also told me, on one occasion, "You can't have buckets of rocks in your yard." This was in reference to two plastic buckets of agates, and other types of collectible rocks which were behind a memorial garden for my deceased mother-in-law at the front of our property, and intended to be placed in the garden at a later date.

On another occasion, he told me I "couldn't have sinks laying around in my yard", but seemed to back down when the female police officer accompanying him, chuckled, then pointed out they were 'yard art'. I just laughed at him, and told him if he was going to challenge the yard art, he'd have to deal with my wife, and suggested he wouldn't enjoy the experience.

This is a serious matter for me, though, because I am attempting to rebuild my house after the effects of 8 years of litigation involving a mortgage company attempting to steal my home via illegal foreclosures, (3+ years of that time, the property was not titled in my name, I only had possession, by occupancy.

Further, he has recently cited me for building a work scaffold on the side of my garage without a building permit, (not necessary for the scaffold, or the ensuing roof work). It was being constructed so I could work from it, instead of the ground, when I began work on the roof, the following Spring. I am just finishing the roof work, and removed the scaffolding as soon as I was certain it was no longer needed.

He has also cited me for a piece of equipment in my driveway, which was intended for use in building a water drainage system deemed necessary by the same city's Head Engineer. The city repaved the road in front of my home this past Summer, and authorized the paving contractor to widen and repave the street end of my driveway because of drainage issues. The road I live on has no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks, so street runoff has been flooding the end of my driveway for the 20 years I've owned it. When I met with the City Engineer in charge of the re-paving, he told me I would need to build a drain field to handle the runoff.

I am 65, and a disabled, former building contractor. We didn't get enough money in the lawsuit settlement to hire contractors to do the necessary work on my home. We barely got enough to buy materials for the much needed roof, (we had tarps on the roof for the last 4 years before the settlement), and the materials needed for the interior leak damage: a bedroom ceiling caved in, and the dining room ceiling is ruined.

I am financially forced into a situation where I have to scrounge as much of the materials for the long delayed maintenance, and it's resulting damage, and must do the work, myself.

In addition, the house was very much a fixer upper when it was purchased in 1998, and I was in the midst of several projects when I sustained a serious brain injury, became disabled, lost my business, and it's income, in 2003. Those projects need to be completed, as well as other projects necessary to bring the house to a condition where it could be sold without us taking a loss, (primarily because of the cost of the lawsuit).

Ten years is about how long I estimate it will take me to finish the repairs and improvements.

I can't have the city harrassing me about materials and equipment I have scavenged, and will buy, or scavenge, in the future, for use on the house over those ten years.

So, bottom line, if the First Amendment provides me free expression, and my chosen route of free expression is yard art, in the form of equipment, which represent my feelings about the impact of the industrial revolution on society.

Or, forgetting all of the previous, if I simply ENJOY the look of a stack of paving blocks, would an ordinance prohibiting those items being 'stored' in my yard, be a violation of my First Amendment rights?

Thanks, in advance.

GeoD

 

[adjusterjack]

Or, forgetting all of the previous, if I simply ENJOY the look of a stack of paving blocks, would an ordinance prohibiting those items being 'stored' in my yard, be a violation of my First Amendment rights?

No.

And the answer to your title question is also no.

With all the citations, did it ever occur to you to look up your city code and see what you were doing wrong?

Those codes were enacted to prevent peoples' home from looking like junk yards.

If your home looks like a junk yard and you are annoying your neighbors with all the junk, then you will keep on getting cited and paying fines.

 

[mightymoose]

Certainly not a civil rights issue.
The 10th Amendment allows states and local governments to enact laws/ordinances so long as they do not infringe on protected rights.
No, it is not a First Amendment issue either. Often misunderstood, the First Amendment does not grant anyone any rights but prevents Congress from enacting legislation that restricts certain rights you already have. Congress certainly is not involved with how you decorate your yard.

If you have been receiving citations I would expect by now you have thorough explanation for why. Can you simply put a tarp over items you have temporarily stored in the yard? If they can't be seen then nobody should be complaining about them.

 

[Tax Counsel]

No, it is not a First Amendment issue either. Often misunderstood, the First Amendment does not grant anyone any rights but prevents Congress from enacting legislation that restricts certain rights you already have. Congress certainly is not involved with how you decorate your yard.

It could be a First Amendment issue. The Supreme Court has held that the free speech protections of the First Amendment apply also state and local governments as a result of the 14th Amendment. So saying that Congress has nothing to do with it is not the end of the inquiry. The local government does have something to do with it, and that local government may not infringe free speech any more than Congress may. That said, in this context I'm not seeing good argument for a free speech case with regard to equipment lying around the yard. But for the yard art, that might be a different matter.

 

[mightymoose]

The Supreme Court has held that the free speech protections of the First Amendment apply also state and local governments as a result of the 14th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment allows states and local governments to enact laws/ordinances so long as they do not infringe on protected rights.

Yes, I alluded to that at the beginning.

 

[adjusterjack]

But for the yard art, that might be a different matter.

Yard art is in the eye of the beholder. One man's masterpiece may be another man's eyesore.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Yard art is in the eye of the beholder. One man's masterpiece may be another man's eyesore.

And it is not the government's role to play art critic.

While there is a legitimate role for zoning and related regulations, there is also a point at which rules on appearance can cross the line into free speech infringement.