Torrance Residents Subjected to Whims of Council; Rule of Law no Longer Applies
City Hall was abuzz on Tuesday as refinery advocates crammed council chambers to hear a proposed resolution on the use of hydrofluoric acid at the refinery. As critical as that issue is, perhaps the most buzzworthy item stemming from that meeting was the Council’s decision on a much more mundane matter involving bees and a dispute between neighbors.
That decision was insightful as it is a reflection of the importance this Council puts on the rule of law. The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.
According to Wikipedia, John Locke defined freedom under the rule of law as follows:
-
“Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others.”
The law in question on Tuesday was the Bee Ordinance. It was enacted by the Council in December 2015 after a lengthy nearly three-year process involving many community meetings and public hearings. The ordinance allows a citizen to keep bees on their residential property as long as they obtain a special permit.
In July of 2016 applicant, Mr. Voorhees, became the first person ever in the City of Torrance to file for a special permit to keep bees when he applied for two bee hives to be placed along his rear yard.
The adopted ordinance requires that upon receipt of an application that the Director of Community Development notify the residents living adjacent to the applicant. Those notified have ten (10) calendar days in which to protest the application in writing.
According to the ordinance, “A written objection in response to the notification … will automatically deny the special animal permit application.”
The law in this case is abundantly clear. It’s simple, straightforward, and unambiguous. The law provides that the neighbors of the applicant have a right to object and if one of them exercises that right, then the permit is automatically denied. The law does not require that a neighbor justify their objection. The objection itself is all that is required.
Pursuant to that language of the ordinance Ms. Russman, a neighbor of Mr. Voorhees who shares the back fence line where the bees were to be placed, dutifully submitted an objection writing that:
“I live next to the requestor. I reject the request strongly. I love my neighbors, but I have a problem with bees medically and mentally.”
Pursuant to Ms. Russman’s objection, the City denied the permit. That should have been it; case closed. But Mr. Voorhees, in his enthusiasm to pursue his bee keeping hobby, was not to be denied. He appealed the denial of his permit to the Environmental Quality and Energy Conservation Commission.
In preparation for the hearing, Ms. Russman presented documents explaining that she was attacked by a swarm of bees on two prior occasions. In each instance, she was stung in excess of 50 times and had to seek medical treatment. She suffered extreme emotional distress, physical pain, and swelling and as a result she continues to suffer emotional distress from the presence of bees.
In a letter Ms. Russman wrote that:
“Each time I see bees, I envision being attacked, I see bees coming at me. I start to fight. After the fighting I become immobilized in bed for days. I experience sleepless nights for a long period of time. The phobia is real … I love my home and enjoy Torrance. I don’t want to have to sell my home and move to another city for this reason.”
Ms. Russman also submitted a letter from a PhD in clinical psychology who affirmed her condition and wrote that, “Given the long history of this condition and the symptomology … it is apparent that beehives next door will greatly upset her emotional well-being, and quality of life.”
The Commission, Vice-Chaired by James Montgomery one of the leading proponents of the Bee Ordinance, heard the case in November 2016 and amazingly ruled against Ms. Russman.
To enforce her right guaranteed to her by law, Ms. Russman hired a lawyer and made an appeal before the City Council. On Tuesday, she received little sympathy. In ruling against her, Goodrich explained:
“To create an analogy here, I’ve never had a veteran that lives in the city that’s been diagnosed with PTSD come to the Council and ask us to stop the fireworks show because they don’t like the loud noises … Bees are unavoidable. I guess another analogy is are we going to deny a two story house that somebody applies for because their next door neighbor is afraid of heights. I’m just not willing to go there…”
No, no, no Goodrich. You are the only one making those ridiculous and completely unnecessary comparisons. It’s not about whether Ms. Russman’s fear is a valid reason to deny the permit. This case should have been decided purely as a matter of law. Was an objection made? Yes, it’s not disputed that there was. End of story. The permit should have been denied. The law demands it.
The Council not only made a decision in direct conflict with a law they created, but in so doing they also displayed stunning and remarkable inconsistency. How many times have we heard them say we need to defer to the experts. On the refinery safety issue alone it’s been a constant refrain. Yet, here in this case, they so willingly put themselves in the role of a medical expert despite the fact that not one of them has any professional medical training. Their ruling essentially invalidated the opinion of a PhD in psychology even though not one iota of evidence was presented to contradict that experts opinion.
If you believe this was an isolated circumstance, then you haven’t been paying attention. The only truly unique thing about this case is that the law the Council chose to ignore is one that they themselves enacted. It’s like somebody that tells you the rules of the game and then once play starts immediately violates those rules as soon as they are no longer to their benefit. Nobody likes to play games with people like that.
For those who think this matter is of no consequence I say beware. You may not object to your neighbor harboring bees, but perhaps on some other matter on another day it may be your rights that end up being subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary whims of the Torrance City Council.
Thank you! Finally some words of wisdom that this city really needs. Shame on you Mr Goodrich you really don’t understand PTSD!
I hope this lady takes the city to court, time to vote the trash out.
So laws aren’t really laws if the Council doesn’t feel like it?
Does the Council realize that they no legal standing if we taxpayers are sued? Not that you,Council, care about throwing away our money in lawyers…
Goodrich, you need to go.
Another great example of arbirtrary rulings by the foolish City Council. Property rights in Torrance truly mean nothing to them, absolute fools!
Is Torrance now in the business of supporting the attorney industry in LA County? seems like they keep busy LOOKING for trouble. WHY DO YOU THINK THE LADY HIRED AN ATTORNEY? DUH!!!!!
Has anyone checked for connections between these law firms and Torrance Council members?
You people are so whiny. Who knew conservatives would become spineless crybabies lol
“Spineless” is the failure to uphold the law.
Difficult concept.
Just blame Obama lol
I dislike Neighborhood being used to voice political agendas..especially one they are not involved in
The subtitle of the page is that this is ABOUT political discussion.
Respectfully submitted Mr. Paulson. Torrance Municipal Code, provides an appeal process if an application for the keeping of bees is denied by the Director of Community Development. This appeal process could be used, for example, in the event of an automatic denial from a written objection made by a neighbor. The applicant for the keeping of bees makes the appeal in writing (with a fee) to the Environmental Quality and Energy Conservation Commission. Then there is an appeal hearing. However, even the decision of the Environmental Quality and Energy Conservation Commission is not final. The Commission’s decision is appealable to the City Council. Evidently, the neighbor did appeal to the Council however Council found her or her attorney’s arguments unpersuasive and she did not prevail. Councilman Goodrich’s analogies, characterized as “ridiculous and completely unnecessary comparisons” have no bearing on this case unless one can prove the Council’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The fact is this matter was fully adjudicated in full accordance with Torrance Municipal Code. The fact is this case was decided purely as a matter of law. Yes, an objection was made. The permit should have been denied. And in accordance with the law, it was, at least initially. But after the matter was fully adjudicated, the applicant prevailed and the neighbor lost. Perhaps a more talented lawyer would have prevailed.
Yes, totally agree that the law afforded the applicant the right to appeal the initial denial of the permit. Are you saying, however, that upon appeal the governing body should not have to adhere to the plain meaning of the law? Everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess, but yes I do find it ridiculous that the City Council chose to act in such an arbitrary manner by choosing not to enforce a law they themselves only recently enacted.
Respectfully Mr. Paulson, from what I’ve read about case and from reading the applicable Torrance Municipal Code sections, I just don’t see where the governing body did *not* adhere to the plain meaning of the law or acted arbitrarily with regards to enforcement. I would be grateful if you could elaborate. As I read it, the law provides for an automatic denial upon receipt of a written objection as the first step of a fairly exhaustive appeal process, This is a common provision in law and provides the aggrieved party with a stay to challenge the decision. The automatic denial provision was never intended to be the final judgement. It merely grants time for both parties to make their cases in front of one or more appellate bodies. Evidently, all of these steps played out per the Code as written. As far as opinions, I don’t think I offered any opinion. But I assure you I have great compassion for all people.
CLDriver I appreciate your well articulated perspective and am glad you were willing to offer your viewpoint as I enjoy a respectful dialogue. I agree that the law allowed for an appeals process. The question seems to be how the Council should decide a case upon appeal. Acting as a judicial body, I believe the Council should make every attempt to enforce the plain meaning of the written law as it is the written law that citizens rely upon when deciding how to act. You seem to be arguing that because the law allows for an appeals process to the City Council that it is fine for the Council to disregard the law entirely when deciding the matter. I believe that is a worrisome argument as it would lead citizens to believe that any law may be completely overturned as long as they make an appeal and get in the good graces of the City Council.
Mr. Paulson, I too appreciate your viewpoints and your patience with me. The crux of the matter seems to be with the interpretation of the statute. You are correct that the plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. Automatically deny means exactly that: automatically deny. But that phrase occurs in just one provision. Each provision of the statute must be interpreted in relationship to the other provisions. Courts or appellate bodies are also guided by the basic principle that a statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its separate parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context and purpose. With regards to purpose, we must concede this statute was written to codify the “Requirements for Special Animal Permits” as the title says. And, we see that each provision is to ensure Due Process of Law for both the applicant and the notified residents and owners. Note that after a) 10 which provides for the automatic denial follows a) 11, which begins: “Any applicant who has been denied, or has been granted a special animal permit…may appeal the denial or granting of the special animal permit…by the Director of Community Development to the Environmental Quality and Energy Conservation Commission.” It stands to reason from the language and sequence of the provisions that the appeal process provided for in a) 11 was to be used to ensure Due Process of Law in the event a permit was automatically denied as provided for in a) 10. In light of the foregoing, I do not believe the Council disregarded the law and trust this reply sheds some light on my view of Council’s interpretation of the statute.
If I may, my recommendation is it might be easier for the aggrieved neighbor to locate someone in the specified notification area who would be willing to obtain adequate medical certification of a bee sting allergy (a life threatening condition) and merely have that person request that the hives be removed as provided for in 41.10.060, b), Revocation. By law, that would leave Council with few, if any, options.
Great fans you got here
Yeah, don’t know where the moderator is.
Not sure removing racist comments is at the top of his list.
I am 100% sure it is- he hasn’t seen it, guaranteed.