Green Fork Kitchen owner and residents allege discriminatory permitting and enforcement by City of Live Oak staff

Shanice (Julie) Brown, who identified herself as the sole owner and operator of Green Fork Kitchen, told the City of Live Oak council that she has been blocked from opening her business and treated unfairly by city staff.

"I have not, to this day, had a building official step pinky toe into my business," Brown said, describing repeated citations without an in-person inspection. She said a violation notice was dated October 7, a related check was to be cut October 3, and she filed an administrative appeal on October 8 that had not received a response.

Residents and advocates at the meeting echoed Brown’s complaints. Anita Williams, who introduced herself as founder and president of Alliance with Community Justice, asked why a city-council-level issue had been escalated to the city attorney and called for transparency and an outside financial and fiduciary audit of city operations. "I am requesting at this moment ... this city needs a financial and fiduciary outside audit, period," Williams said.

Catherine Casey and a resident reading a written submission on behalf of Dr. Erica S. Williams alleged the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) and staff member George Curtis engaged in conduct they described as retaliatory and discriminatory in the Green Fork Kitchen matter. Valerie Gilmore, a longtime resident, told the council she is concerned CRA funds and city processes are failing minority neighborhoods.

Brown alleged that Nicholas Begona (CRA director) and Jamie Fisher assisted in placing multiple signage notices at her storefront at George Curtis’s instruction, and she said city staff repeatedly changed enforcement requests—"they keep adding and tugging"—making compliance difficult without consistent written direction. She also said an attorney had communicated with CRA staff, not the building department, and that the attorney’s involvement concerned her.

Council members did not take a formal vote in the excerpt provided. The presiding official acknowledged the complaints and said the council would request answers from staff. The meeting record shows the public-comment period included repeated requests for written clarification, faster administrative appeal responses and a review of whether CRA practices are applied equitably.

What’s next: The council opened the floor to public comment and indicated staff would be asked to respond; the transcript excerpt does not record a formal motion, vote or a timeline for staff follow-up.