Candidates Forum and Five Questions

.

These two articles came from last Wednesday's candidates forum:

Making Things Work is the subject of this Manteca Bulletin article, California's RDA Law.

Public Safety is City's Primary Task in this Manteca Bulletin article on police officer rehiring.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is my submission to the Manteca Bulletin for an upcoming publication of all the candidates' stump speech and stand on these five questions:

- - - - -

One driving force in my campaign for a city council seat is my conviction that "governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man" and that "all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people..."

I have voted in almost every election for the past 30-plus years. I hold a B.S. in Accounting from Utah State University, an M.S. in Business Administration from CSU Sacramento, a CPA license, and have worked for a wholesale grocery distributor in this area for 20 years. My four grown children have married and presented seven grandchildren, with an eighth on the way. I have made my home in Manteca for the last 3½ years.

Manteca’s local government and some of its citizens need some tough love. Parents of willful or wayward children know that often only the full weight of natural consequences can teach the necessary lessons. The administration of a city must be run the same way.

After becoming a resident, I received an alternative education in Manteca politics and operations. Improvements in some key areas of city administration are mandatory in order to better serve the needs of Manteca citizens. Strong and effective code enforcement of the minimum standards of citizen behavior adopted in the Manteca Municipal Code will pay dividends in law enforcement, making it easier, safer, and less utilized. Especially needed are putting police and fire protection on solid financial footing, making desperately needed technology upgrades, and giving city managers flexibility in staffing. Some persons need to be shown the door. Roads, water and sewer will be monitored closely. My biggest task will be to ensure city finances are managed conservatively, making them and RDA projects open and understandable.

New development will be controlled, not eliminated, and redevelopment will be made to serve its stated function of revitalization. Despite the last explosive growth cycle and fabulous returns to certain interests, broad swaths of the existing city have been allowed to deteriorate and many civic amenities have been ignored as the population grew. I will see that the latter projects are given priority - right behind the policing functions of city government.

There has been talk at city council meetings recently about policies and procedures being written up for some departments, but that task must also cover the vital policing departments of the city. For too long, administrative decisions have been made on whim rather than reliance on law. As Ayn Rand put it, “Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted. This is the American concept of ‘a government of laws and not of men.’ ” In terms of accountability, it is virtually impossible to measure performance against procedures that are not written down.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Manteca Bulletin's Five Questions:
1. What do you see as the city's biggest challenge, besides public safety, in the next four years?

Manteca's biggest challenge in the next four years will be developing its means and living within them.

There is more to life than a tax base and the "means" are much more than tax money; they are the health, safety, morals, volunteerism, and self-reliance of the people.

A respected jurist this year suggested five responsibilities appropriate for all citizens, whatever their religious or philosophical persuasion: 1) Understand the Constitution; 2) Support the law; 3) Practice civic virtue; 4) Maintain civility in political discourse; and 5) Promote real patriotism through "the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." Some civic virtues are obeying the law, limited government through citizen self-reliance, military service, jury service, political participation, voting, and being moral in our conduct toward others.

At the same time, in terms of money, this means leaders should be wise in spending public funds for the greatest good. A tax given to the government is right because it is for a common good, but the government does not have a legitimate claim on the remaining property. This also means not relying on so-called sin taxes, such as marijuana legalization, to pay for essential government services. Some activities are simply not within the proper sphere of any level of government, such as "welfare programs, schemes for redistributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning."

President John Adams declared, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


2. In the constraints of the current budget, would you favor hiring back police officers and, if so, how would you pay for them?

The policing function of any city government is its primary task. The people cannot outsource this "use of force" and the people cannot use force individually except for very limited circumstances. The individual right of self-defense is collectively granted to a government's policing departments. Until the City of Manteca can satisfactorily perform the policing function, namely law enforcement, code enforcement, animal control, fire protection and building safety, it should not perform any other function, operate any other program, or build any other government facility.

Every general fund program, including administration and support, as well as the enterprise and debt service funds for infrastructure, will be closely examined for cuts, closure, or true transfer to private enterprise. Staffing will shrink, labor contracts will be restricted to very short terms, and pay and benefits will be brought into line with the private sector. Sales tax revenues will increase along with the general economy (using the same theory as RDA increment taxes), as long as the city does not bribe big businesses with tax offsets, and as long as the city does not strangle small businesses with taxes, fees, undue regulations and mandates.

President George Washington warned, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!"


3. Your thoughts on the current level of city employee compensation - pay and benefits such as pension. Is it too generous, about right, or not enough? Please explain your rationale.

The overly generous practice of comparing city worker's pay and benefits to the average of a "shopping basket" of neighboring cities is exactly the same thing neighboring cities do! The built in bias is to always increase pay, never decrease it. The practice must be discontinued, or at least tied to similar positions in the private sector. Also, defined benefits pension plans disappeared from the private sector a generation ago for the simple reason that the unfunded liabilities (contracted retirement payouts without the money to pay them) threatened to put even the biggest of businesses out of business. The math works the same for government, only government has been infinitely slower to react to fiscal reality, thinking taxpayers will always bail them out. Think again.

There must be huge increases in public employee contributions toward their own retirement plans - or all-out conversion to defined contribution plans (such as fully funded IRA's, 403b plans, etc.), where one receives in retirement what one paid into the retirement investment system.

Much of the fault for this mortgage on future taxes stems from public service unions (or call them associations, or collective bargaining units, as you will) and their role of ensuring inflexibility in staffing, pay, and benefits. Especially offensive is the concept that public employee unions, especially public safety, hold taxpayers hostage for money with the monopoly power (state use of force) granted to them by the citizens themselves. Think again.


4. Should Manteca have a separate redevelopment agency commission appointed by the council?

Yes. The California Community Redevelopment Act (H&S Code, starting at Sec. 33000) expressly authorizes the two options of an appointed, 5- or 7-member agency with a commission, or the city council as the agency. An appointed agency has some distinct advantages over the current setup: 1) The members would be one step removed from favor-seeking campaign contributors; 2) The members could be specialists in RDA law and application, or at least more knowledgeable than the generalists on the council; 3) The members would be able to focus, undistracted by other city business, on the RDA projects underway and any proposed ones; 4) Considering the sheer size of the fund, and the scope of the projects, it is time Manteca government outgrows its parochial approach to accountability; and 5) This move would help, a little perhaps, to remove election politics from the equation when considering the revamping of Manteca's albatross intersection and its surroundings.


5. If elected, what would you like to look back on four years from now as your best accomplishment?

I would like to look back and say, “The people of Manteca make the best neighbors in the world!” because we and our city hall know and trust each other to do the right thing when needed. Being good neighbors translates into seeing our streets, schools, library, shopping centers, parks, and homes as clean, safe, inviting places to be. Being good neighbors translates into a robust local economy, helping to drive a regional economy, where people can work in productive jobs near to where their families live. Being good neighbors translates into realizing that “postage stamp” property rights are not absolute; what we can and cannot do has to be tempered by courtesy, sacrifice, some civil laws, and a long history of jurisprudence. Good neighbors keep their unwarranted noise, nuisances, and intrusions to themselves; they accord respect to those who live around them; and they abide by the rules adopted by this community as minimum standards of behavior. In fact, good neighbors are free and able to perform well above minimum standards – and usually do.

.

Policing the City of Manteca

The same citizen who asked about dogs, in the previous post, also asked about reinstating law enforcement personnel.

4. What are you going to do to bring back the numerous Manteca police officers that were laid off?

My answer was probably not the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" answer sought by most people. This person, however, had already demonstrated the ability to lay out a series of thoughtful questions, and Yes or No decisions without rationale are not acceptable to thinking people.

Fourth, the policing function of a city government is the city's primary task. [Use of force is the power delegated by all individuals to a civic body (city, state, country) in an exclusive, comprehensive social contract for the protection of all individuals' health and safety. Apart from martial force, civilian use of protective force is the definition of "civilized."] The people cannot outsource this "use of force" and the people cannot use force individually except for very limited circumstances of self-defense. The [main] policing functions are: law enforcement, code enforcement, animal control, fire protection and building safety. Policing must take priority over any and all other expenditures of the city.

Every general fund program, including administration and support, as well as the enterprise and debt service funds for infrastructure, will be closely examined for cuts, closure, or true transfer to private enterprise. Staffing will shrink, labor contracts will be restricted to very short terms, and pay and benefits will be brought into line with the private sector. Revenues will increase along with the general economy (the same theory as RDA increment taxes), as long as the city does not "bribe" big businesses to locate here with tax offsets, and as long as the city does not strangle small businesses with taxes, fees, and undue regulations and mandates. Government is supposed to be a servant, not a master.

The policing powers that ONLY the city can wield must be maintained and controlled by the city administration, not by public sector unions, or votes of individual officers, or failure by civic leaders. When government goes beyond serving the needs of the general public and serves, instead, only the whims of the influential, or the profits of the monied, or the demands of entrenched special interests, it then becomes a weapon wielded by a corrupted few to extort and control the many.

Dogs in Manteca

“You think dogs will not be in heaven? I tell you, they will be there long before any of us.”

(Robert Louis Stevenson, Scottish essayist, poet and author of fiction and travel books, 1850-1894)

- - - - -

A citizen recently asked my "stance" on the subject of dogs and animal control in Manteca.

I am a registered Manteca voter who is deciding who should be on our City Council. Would you please answer a few questions for me:

1. What is your stance on the condition of the Manteca Animal Shelter?

2. What is your stance on Pit Bulls within our city limits?

3. What are you planning to do to help the animal shelter with the enormous amount of stray animals that they receive?

Thank you for your prompt response

[ ___ ]
A Registered Manteca Voter

This is my response in blue, with additional comment in red:

Dear [Registered Voter],

First, a new animal shelter design and funding plan has just been approved as part of the new city corporation yard on Main and Wetmore Streets. [This was a long-delayed action by the current and previous councils during the "boom" years. Except for the apparent vote-buying by this council, this city facility upgrade is a case of better late than never.]

Second, I have no problem with pit bull breeds, or any other dogs, in the city or anywhere, as long as the owners strictly control them and follow all city animal laws. Dogs only become problems when the owners make them so. [Dogs are not criminals; irresponsible and law-breaking owners are. Besides their inherent natures, animals do what their owners teach them or allow them to do. The Manteca Municipal Code and the Animal Control Department are as much a "policing" fuction of the city as is the Police Department.]

Third, most "stray" animals are not strays but feral, or dumped or abandoned by brainless people. There is only a finite capacity for adoptions out as owners become "saturated" with pets. Even shipping them out to other facilities has a saturation point. After the point of saturation, the only option is euthanasia, horrific as that sounds. They should be pets and have their rights as animals, but they are not people with human rights. [People should be stewards of the earth, its resources, and its life. Husbandry techniques for livestock and pets has been around for how many centuries? Unfortunately, many uneducated or uncaring people foster the problem of animal overpopulation, which puts conscientious people in the unsavory position of cleaning up after them. Even so, I am flat out opposed to animal rights activists who constantly push for granting human rights to non-human species.]

Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in our form of self-government. I appreciate your questions and hope my answers give you the confidence to make your choice of representative to Manteca’s City Council.

Richard Behling

Tough Love & Money: Propositions, Sales Tax, and Measure M(orphine)

The sales tax history of the State of California, and the City of Manteca in particular, tells part of a sad, sad story.

In 1978, California voters staged what has been described as a property tax revolt by approving a statewide ballot initiative known as Proposition 13.

Proposition 13 followed many years of rapidly rising real property taxes in California. From fiscal years 1967-1968 to 1971-1972, revenues from these taxes increased on an average of 11.5% per year. See Report of the Senate Commission on Property Tax Equity and Revenue to the California State Senate 23 (1991) (Senate Commission Report). In response, the California Legislature enacted several property tax relief measures, including a cap on tax rates in 1972. Id., at 23-24. The boom in the State's real estate market persevered, however, and the median price of an existing home doubled from $31,530 in 1973 to $62,430 in 1977. As a result, tax levies continued to rise because of sharply increasing assessment values. Id., at 23. Some homeowners saw their tax bills double or triple during this period, well outpacing any growth in their income and ability to pay. Id., at 25. See also Oakland, Proposition 13—Genesis and Consequences, 32 Nat. Tax J. 387, 392 (Supp. June 1979).


By 1978, property tax relief had emerged as a major political issue in California. In only one month's time, tax relief advocates collected over 1.2 million signatures to qualify Proposition 13 for the June 1978 ballot. See Lefcoe & Allison, The Legal Aspects of Proposition 13: The Amador Valley Case, 53 S. Cal. L. Rev. 173, 174 (1978). On election day, Proposition 13 received a favorable vote of 64.8% and carried 55 of the State's 58 counties. California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote and Supplement, Primary Election, June 6, 1978, p. 39. California thus had a novel constitutional amendment that led to a property tax cut of approximately $7 billion in the first year. Senate Commission Report 28.

(Ref: U.S. Supreme Court opinion, NORDLINGER v. HAHN, 505 U.S. 1 (1992)*)

When property owners passed Proposition 13 in 1978, the State of California, the counties, the cities, and the school districts all experienced a huge and immediate decline in revenues - and faced a future without the windfalls of the past. They were used to the "fat" and must now make do with the "lean."

Municipalities started diverting the skinnier local property taxes into project-restricted Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) to keep it from going to Sacramento. School districts cried "Foul" and another proposition was passed to lock in a fixed percentage of the state general fund allocated to education. A system of pass-throughs was implemented to equalize the distribution of money and other sources of revenue became a government survival imperative.

One of those sources was ad valorum sales tax - raise the rates and keep raising them. Leading up to 1994, things got so bad where the people live that the state added a half-cent increment to the sales tax collections, earmarked for Local Law Enforcement (Counties and Cities).

The City of Manteca decided, leading up to 2007, just before another real estate bubble burst and recession ensued, that another half-cent sales tax was the ticket. They were using sales tax breaks as chips in a bidding war against nearby cities to woo big retail business into the new but empty shopping centers lining Hwy 120. The trouble is that they were already "locked in" to some long term and overly generous labor contracts, especially those of the public safety service unions. To both play (shoveling tax breaks out the back door) AND pay (front door revenues to sustain high local law enforcement costs), Measure M(orphine) was just the injection needed to sustain the frenetic activity. The voters were convinced to supply the drug.

However, the problems with morphine are: it is addictive; it only treats the pain, not the condition; and, it does not heal terminal patients. An overdose may just kill the patient outright - or incite the geese that lay the golden eggs to vigorously attack the profligate patient!

Voters are now being bombarded with, "Wait! Can't we just trade - or add - marijuana and morphine? Couldn't that solve our revenue problems?" See Proposition 19 - Legalizes Marijuana in California. Why not add another "sin tax?" Why not condone drug use while chasing the almighty $$$ ? Vote NO.

Thrusts, feints, strikes and parries, counter-strikes and hosts of other maneuvers continue to this day over the raising and distribution of various taxes, fees, and other euphemisms for the citizens' money. See Proposition 22 - Prohibits the State from Borrowing or Taking Funds Used for Transportation, Redevelopment, or Local Government Projects and Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (And everybody thinks water politics is bad in California? Money politics is worse!)

Tough Love

The solution is to pare the government back to where it performs only the duties delegated to it by the sovereigns - the citizens. All other programs, transfers, activities, etc. need to be jettisoned or truly transitioned back to private interests. "Privatize" is merely a code-word for government out-sourcing, where the money is collected or paid by government out to a private firm - the money still goes through the government's books. Except for specifically delegated and essential services, do not let government touch the money! Every time it does, the money or service comes back to you in a diminished fashion and constitutes an interference in the economy.

When this approach to limited, efficient government is made to work, the repeal of Measure M(orphine) could be achieved.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Court humor: In the Supreme Court opinion referred to, above, Justice Blackmun used these words to sum up the position of protecting current homeowners from upward spiraling property taxes versus those who newly buy a home with the higher assessment values and, thus, higher beginning propertry taxes:

In short, the State may decide that it is worse to have owned and lost, than never to have owned at all.

It is a humorous, but true, adaptation of Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem In Memoriam:27, 1850:

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Setting the Groundwork - Position on Abortion Public Funding

Richard W Behling
Position statement regarding abortions and the use of public funds
September 13, 2010

I am a lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) and subscribe fully to the position of God and His prophets on the sanctity of life. Regarding abortions:

“Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion.”

“Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically.” *

On demand abortion is mankind's pathetic attempt to avoid the consequences of wrong reproductive choices. Regarding this most physically obvious of personal morality issues, that most unfortunate of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), created a legacy of cascading social error, wholesale destruction of human life, and incalculable moral harm to those who choose the "easy" way out. Beyond the morals arguments, there is no social justification for this practice. Not one cent of public funds should support the abortion practitioners, advocates, and industries that sprang up, or were legalized, in the wake of Roe v. Wade.

I would personally be overjoyed to see this pillar of evil demolished in my lifetime. Whether it is or not, millions of this generation will answer to their would-have-been children and to God, much higher powers than selfish indulgence and the erring SCOTUS.

There may not be much call to action in city council decisions, but my moral foundation stones of sanctity of life and accountability for one’s actions in life are set solidly.

- - - - -
* Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Liahona, Mar 2000, 15. From a devotional address given at Brigham Young University on 9 February 1999.

A Great Summation of Politics (Business and Government)

.

"The free market is simply not capable of screwing up the entire economy without the devoted and unethical assistance from unrestrained and malignant politicians colluding with unethical and malignant businessmen, both of whom are insulated (for a while, at least) from the rule of law and from reality."

Wednesday, August 18, 2010
BETWEEN BRAINS
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/


This is certainly true for the national economy, when the federal lawmakers (oh, how I hate that word), those prostituted puppets, get to mucking around where they have no business mucking.

And a more focused look at California's self-strangulation from The City Journal. (hat tip, Manteca's City Managers Blog, August 14, 2010, "Some Issues Bear Repeating.")

As far as Manteca politics go, the collusion begins almost immediately upon qualifying as a candidate. Thus far, I've had solicitations from two "associations" representing individual professionals and small contractors to come and "interview" in return for (possible) contributions to my political campaign for city councilman. Their public posture is: "We can influence the votes of a block of influencial people on your behalf." The not-so-public deal is: "If we think you will protect and enhance our money-making ability, we'll give you $100 and expect you to vote in our favor on certain questions."

Gee, here I thought that a representative owed a duty, freely given, to individual citizens - not associations, unions, other big enterprises, less-than-general segments of private or public sectors, etc. - those entities other than citizens being known collectively as special interests.

Perhaps these two associations' political marketing dollars should be spent on the public, the voters, to influence their selection of officials, not on the officials to influence their fiduciary votes on the public's business (and maybe against the public's interests.) These associations are perfectly free to make such independent expenditures, as reaffirmed in the January 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

"In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. It has been noted that "Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles," Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 490, 127 S.Ct. 2652, 168 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007) (WRTL) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us."

Perhaps these two associations should sponsor a public forum for ALL candidates to publically announce their views on whatever questionnes du jour these associations wish. You know, ...above board ...out in the open ...encourage public discussion of any issues.

Code Enforcement for Construction, Land Use and Civil Behavior

'sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas'

[so use your own as not to injure another's property]

Manteca Municipal Codes are minimum standards of construction, land uses, and civil individual behaviors. Everyone is free to observe these laws even more strictly than just the bare minimum. Live your life giving offense to no one, and expect the same from your neighbors.

My views reflect my deep belief that property means nothing. A person enters life with nothing and exits the same way, taking only experience (which most often produces knowledge) and relationships - but not property. In the USA, some people acquire and control lots of property (wealth), others none, while most people are the stewards of enough property to sustain their temporary lives... then it is left behind.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An interview by the Manteca Bulletin:

Behling vows to focus on ‘inner workings’ of city government
by Dennis Wyatt
July 19, 2010
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/16003/


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Zoning ordinances are constitutionally upheld as part of California state government's "police powers" in Miller v. Board of Public Works:

Supreme Court of California
195 Cal. 477; 234 P. 381; 1925 Cal. LEXIS 386; 38 A.L.R. 1479

GEORGE LEE MILLER et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents

February 27, 1925

[Regarding] those [regulations] which prescribe the use to which buildings within certain designated districts may be put.

It is conceded, as indeed it must be, by the opponents of the ordinance in controversy here that it is within the police power, by zoning, to banish nuisances and "near-nuisances" from certain districts.

...the court... has held that certain business establishments, harmless in themselves, may become "near-nuisances" because of the character of the neighborhood in which they are operating. ... [A]ny zoning regulation is a valid exercise of the police power which is necessary to subserve the ends for which the police power exists, namely, the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It will thus be seen that the police power as evidenced in zoning ordinances has a much wider scope than the mere suppression of the offensive uses of property, and that it acts not only negatively but constructively and affirmatively for the promotion of the public welfare.

...

Much is said about the constitutional guaranties attaching to the ownership of property in the individual. In this behalf it will be noted that:

(11) "It is thoroughly established in this country that the rights preserved to the individual by these constitutional provisions are held in subordination to the rights of society. Although one owns property, he may not do with it as he pleases any more than he may act in accordance with his personal desires. As the interest of society justifies restraints upon individual conduct, so, also, does it justify restraints upon the use to which property may be devoted. It was not intended by these constitutional provisions to so far protect the individual in the use of his property as to enable him to use it to the detriment of society. By thus protecting individual rights, society did not part with the power to protect itself or to promote its general well-being. Where the interest of the individual conflicts with the interest of society, such individual interest is subordinated to the general welfare.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The next year (1926), the decision regarding Miller v. Board of Public Works was cited in Euclid v. Ambler:
U.S. Supreme Court

VILLAGE OF EUCLID, OHIO v. AMBLER REALTY CO., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)

Reargued Oct. 12, 1926.
Decided Nov. 22, 1926.
 
Building zone laws are of modern origin. They began in this country about 25 years ago. Until recent years, urban life was comparatively simple; but, with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing, which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in [272 U.S. 365, 387] urban communities. Regulations, the wisdom, necessity, and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained, a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall.

The ordinance now under review, and all similar laws and regulations, must find their justification in some aspect of the police power, asserted for the public welfare. The line which in this field separates the legitimate from the illegitimate assumption of power is not capable of precise delimitation. It varies with circumstances and conditions. A regulatory zoning ordinance, which would be clearly valid as applied to the great cities, might be clearly invalid as applied to rural communities. In solving doubts, the maxim 'sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,' [so use your own as not to injure another's property] which lies at the foundation of so much of the common law of nuisances, ordinarily will furnish a fairly helpful clew. And the law of nuisances, likewise, may be consulted, not for the purpose of controlling, but for the helpful aid of its analogies in the process of ascertaining [272 U.S. 365, 388] the scope of, the power. Thus the question whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a particular kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a particular thing is a nuisance, is to be determined, not by an abstract consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality. Sturgis v. Bridgeman, L. R. 11 Ch. 852, 865. A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 294 , 44 S. Ct. 325.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Camara v. Municipal Court is a San Francisco case that rose to the Supreme Court regarding code enforcement's "police power" to inspect private property to ensure compliance with local codes:

Supreme Court of United States.
387 U.S. 523 (1967)

CAMARA v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Argued February 15, 1967.
Decided June 5, 1967.

The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable governmental interest. But reasonableness is still the ultimate standard. If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant. Cf. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186. Such an approach neither endangers time-honored doctrines applicable to criminal investigations nor makes a nullity of the probable cause requirement in this area. It merely gives full recognition to the competing public and private interests here at stake and, in so doing, best fulfills the historic purpose behind the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable government invasions of privacy. See Eaton v. Price, 364 U. S., at 273-274 (opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN).

Since our holding emphasizes the controlling standard of reasonableness, nothing we say today is intended to foreclose prompt inspections, even without a warrant, that the law has traditionally upheld in emergency situations. See North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago, 211 U. S. 306 (seizure of unwholesome food); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (compulsory smallpox vaccination); Compagnie Francaise v. Board of Health, 186 U. S. 380 (health quarantine); Kroplin v. Truax, 119 Ohio St. 610, 165 N. E. 498 (summary destruction of tubercular cattle). On the other hand, in the case of most routine area inspections, there is no compelling urgency to inspect at a particular time or on a particular day. Moreover, most citizens allow inspections of their property without a warrant. Thus, as a practical matter and in light of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a warrant specify the property to be searched, it seems likely that warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry. Similarly, the requirement of a warrant procedure does not suggest any change in what seems to be the prevailing local policy, in most situations, of authorizing entry, but not entry by force, to inspect.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

When everyone does no crime and follows MINIMUM standards of behavior, everyone enjoys the benefits of public peace, health, safety, morals and general welfare. Surely, these are things that Manteca residents want. What to do when a selfish neighbor refuses to conform? Call Code Enforcement.

.