Well, we are supposed to be in court today in order to get the sign removed but the owner has taken it down. I don’t know if the City will proceed to court in order to pursue an injuntion against future signs so I don’t have a lot to say other than “It’s Gone”.
UPDATE: The City Manager announced this evening that the City will still have a court date with the owner next month – the case was continued as we were asking for a temporary injunction but the immediate need for the injunction has been eliminated.
February 18, 2009 at 9:32 am
There is a definite pattern emerging:
Put up a wall without a permit, defy a stop work order.
Get a court date, show up, ask for a continuance.
Get a some press and national exposure within his movement.
Take the wall down on the evening before your new court date.
Show up for court and tell the judge the wall is gone.
Repeat again and again.
February 18, 2009 at 4:51 pm
If the City does not follow through this time, the City Council should be sued for incompetence and abiding law breaking. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
February 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I certainly hope that the City asked for this gentleman to pay the attorney fees and expenses that he has cost the taxpayers of Manassas. This is a game he continues to play with the City.
February 18, 2009 at 7:53 pm
The City should deal with it straight up. Whatever the fine is for violating a stop work order should be pursued.
Absent that, a credibility gap will result.
While seeking atty fees and related costs sounds logical, those don’t normally apply in these kind of municipal cases.
Best approach (IMHO) is to get a court order that can be enforced through a contempt proceeding. But whether that can be effectively done here involves facts and dynamics I’m not privy to.
At bottom I’m glad the structure is down. Beyond that, no reason to obsess. There are far more important matters to deal with other than mosquitos, which are annoying but not much else.
February 19, 2009 at 8:13 am
I disagree Rich. This matter has now repeatedly proven to be far more than just the minor annoyance you imply. Until this gets put to bed once and for all, and this citizen halts his unlawful activities, it will continue to distract staff and Council from the bigger issues I agree been their time. We approach this logically, he and his proponents approach it emotionally. The legal process must be pursued in its entirety to move the emotional and come to a conclusion. As long as it stays in the realm of emotional it will never cease to distract.
February 19, 2009 at 8:32 am
David:
I think that you and Rich are saying the same thing with different intensity..:)
February 19, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Probably so Andy.
So…what are your thoughts on the Fire Chief’s new plans?
February 21, 2009 at 11:29 pm
As I recall when our City Attorney read into the record his statement on all the proceedings, the City was after a temporary injunction to get the sign down, and then Mr. Bendall also said going after a permanent injunction.
My guess is the permanent is to put some teeth into actions if he ever puts up anything. Shame the City cannot bill him for any Police support required for the day of his march…I agree with Rich the other fees should be collected too.
But a permanent injuction would be nice to see next month when all are back in court. Too bad it could not contain something to the effect if he puts up any future statements as he had in the past, his property would be seized and coverted into green space.
February 23, 2009 at 3:33 pm
He will continue to be a thorn in the paw of the city: “This is not the end, like I fall down and don’t get back up,” Fernandez said. “This is just a little obstacle. We will look to get a permit and build another sign.” And a permanent injunction doesn’t mean he can’t build another sign: “With a permanent injunction, Fernandez could still build a structure with proper permits, said Martin R. Crim, a city attorney. An injunction, however, would provide the city better legal footing if Fernandez builds something again without the proper documents.” These quotes from the Compost article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003310.html