Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Misconduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells Palm Coast code board she experienced years of targeted enforcement by an officer
Summary
At the July 1 Code Enforcement Board meeting, resident Edith Victory alleged years of selective enforcement and harassment by a city code officer, asked the board to consider a pattern of complaints and requested dismissal or reduced fines; the city said the complaint is under investigation and the board accepted staff's recommendation to allow negotiation.
Edith Victory, the respondent in a repeat improper-parking case at 92 Wheatfield Drive, told the Palm Coast Code Enforcement Board she has faced years of what she described as "selective targeted code enforcement" by one officer and asked the board to look at the pattern rather than only the citation before them. Victory told the board she had received dozens of citations over years, that the officer repeatedly drove past her house to take photos, and that similar complaints by other residents suggested a pattern. "This specific officer has weaponized his position against me," she said, adding that she is selling the home and leaving Palm Coast because she no longer felt safe.
City staff told the board the complaint had been raised with the department in the past few days and would be investigated. Louis Sanders for the city said the allegations would be examined and that some investigations are handled by an outside source. Sanders also told the board that photographs cited in the file were taken from public view and therefore met the department's evidentiary standard.
Board members debated whether to pause enforcement while the investigation proceeds. The board ultimately voted to accept the city's recommendation to approve the order on the case and to permit staff to negotiate an agreement consistent with the enforcement order given Victory's stated plan to close on the property soon. The board's motion did not itself dismiss the fines; it authorized staff to pursue the next administrative steps set out in the order and to continue the investigation into the misconduct allegations.
The case file notes the city requested a repeat-violation fine for a period the file lists as 57 days at $125 per day plus administrative costs; the board accepted staff's recommendation and allowed staff to negotiate in light of the ongoing inquiry and the respondent's stated pending property sale. Sanders told the board the complaint is under investigation and that staff will follow up with any discipline or process required by findings.
The board did not announce a final adjudication of the alleged officer misconduct at the meeting; the city said it would report on the investigation according to internal processes.
