California Fire Department Sues Hoarders Over Safety Concerns
A California fire department concerned about the fire hazards associated with a house of hoarders (Collyer Mansion), has taken the drastic step of suing the three brothers who own and reside in the property.
The Tiburon Fire Protection District and the city of Belvedere, California have filed suit against John, Paul and Ted Kraus, who live at 89 Bellevue Avenue. They are seeking to have the home declared a “public nuisance” in violation of city code, and to have a receiver appointed to manage the cleanup on the property.
The suit is the culmination of years of efforts by city and fire officials to get the Kraus’s to clean up the property, and lessen the safety risks. The oldest of the three brothers, John Kraus, 59, claims his brothers will fight the lawsuit. He was quoted in the Marin Independent Journal as saying “The fact of the matter is, our house is not a danger… We have done things that the police have asked us, and the fire people.”
According to the suit, the house is stuffed old newspapers, paper bags, food cartons, and similar debris that is packed so tightly that doors cannot be opened or closed, and that flammables are stacked too close to the furnace and hot water heater. The home also lacks working smoke detectors and investigators found spoiled food inside the house.
I’m all for firefighter safety but this is dangerously close to infringing on civil liberties. Not being able to see the neighborhood or the residence it’s hard for me to make a case for the greater public safety in this situation.
I guess my first thought is that if the owner has been warned that their house is a fire trap there’s little more that a government agency should be able to do. When the fire breaks out it’s a surround and drown situation, end of discussion.
My biggest concern is what comes next, do city leaders begin using this as precedence to go after any property they don’t like the looks of?
It’ll be interesting to see how this Case unfolds/
California still has the old “Fireman’s Rule” on the books so at least the Fire District can start any fire suppression actions in Defensive Mode.
We can make a successful fire attack on these homes, just have to change some tactics. Viewsfromthejumpseat.blogspot.com
I have some suggestions….
Shane
Good point and one that I have heard others raise. The same argument can be raised to virtually anything government restricts (speed limits, firearms, tanks, bombs, hazardous chemicals, rockets).
The expression “We are a government of laws not men” means government has to act within the laws… and not go further simply because the men who are employed by the government think it would be a “good idea”. If there is a law that allows the fire department to force someone to correct a fire hazard, the fire department should enforce the law… but go no further.
Surround and drown might work in some hoarding situations… but not all. What if your apartment or condo was on the second floor and the hoarder was on the first – would you still like surround and drown? Or perhaps if the hoarder lived in the wood frame house next door to your wood frame house separated by a 3 foot walk way? What happens when his “rights” infringe on your rights? Are his rights to hoard somehow more valuable than your rights to live in relative safety?
Government does have the right … scratch that – We as citizens have a right to place reasonable restrictions on each other – for our own collective good (speed limits, stops signs, red lights all infringe on our freedoms). It has to be done lawfully – and part of that is to debate these issue BEFORE a law authorizing legal action is enacted.
How far can that go… can government dictate the color of your shutters? Yeaaaahhhhh…. wwwweeeeeelllll… you won’t like that answer…. Let’s save that for another blog. But when it deals with the safety of firefighters and civilians – government does has a legitimate right to enact laws that restrict people’s freedoms.
Mmmmm…. it all depends on the structure, exposures, and whether the occupants have self-evacuated. If the residents are trapped and calling for help…..
I completely agree with where you are coming from about tactics. In reading this I was picturing a single family structure, in which case a surround and drown can be acceptable; obviously apartments and over-built communities are a completely different story, thus the crux of the issue.
As you stated, this subject must be debated BEFORE the incident arises and the public needs to be informed, something I still think the American fire service is not doing enough of as a whole. Of course that’s a topic that can go on for days all by itself.
Thanks again for highlighting these issues that we need to pay attention to.
It’s tough to do sometimes, but this is one of those cases where I find myself trying to balance my interests as a firefighter with my interest in personal freedoms.
If the house is a nuisance or danger to the neighborhood, then something must be done. By this, I’m talking about things like allowing rodents to breed or being attached or very close to neighboring structures as to create the threat of conflagration.
However, we can’t protect everyone. If the problems *inside* this house aren’t causing issues for anyone on the *outside,* then I say we have to let the Kraus brothers do their own thing.
What about firefighter safety? That’s easy. Flag that address in the CAD system as “Defensive Operations Only.” Explain in no uncertain terms to the Kraus’ that the FD won’t be coming in to put their fires out or attempt a rescue.
The article — like most news articles — doesn’t give all the facts. I’d hesitate to fall on one side or the other without finding out more. But if you talk to a code enforcement officer from any city, you’ll probably hear a story or two about a response to a disgusting house full of rats, cats, sewage, illegal wiring, structural issues, or any combination thereof.
If this house is as bad as the city claims, well then, that’s what code enforcement is for. As Justice Holmes once said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” If the facts in this case show that these slobs are indeed creating a dangerous situation for their neighbors (which is possible), then the city is justified in acting.
This story reminds me of a slightly more drastic action by the government in dealing with buildings thought to be presenting a fire risk. During the massive fires that followed the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, many buildings were dynamited in order to create a fire break. Many property owners were not happy with this, particularly when it was found that some of the destroyed buildings might not have needed to have been destroyed in the first place.
Hawkeye
I agree 100%.
One question… in the aftermath of a fatal fire where the firefighters actually do refuse to go in (of course they might ignore the order as well) – are we back in an Alameda Dilemna – where the public becomes outraged with our safety-first decisionmaking??? Publically accusing firefigters of being cowards and derelict in our duties??? The second guessers will come out and say how we really could have safely gone in… etc etc etc….
It is not a good situation… a no-win situation.
If we have a legal option to address the situation – I say take it. If there is no legal option we are going to have to play our hand with the cards we are dealt.
Ferg
Nice quote. Agree on all counts!!!
I appreciate what you’re saying and you are correct… if the fire department “lets” people die inside a fire, there will be negative backlash.
That’s why the fire department has to be VERY vocal about what their strategies and tactics are going to be on such residences. The community has to know before a fire occurs in such a place what the consequences are going to be.
I don’t know how well-staffed the Tiburon Fire Protection District is… But in my city, we could easily explain to the citizens that we don’t have the resources to fight a fire in such a structure with any reasonable amount of safety.
Sorry, but there is no excuse for hoarding to the extent that the property becomes a fire hazard and a breeding ground for rats and other vermin. A house packed full of filthy, disease-carrying rats and a serious fire hazard, just the kind of neighbor everyone wants. And God forbid children are living in those sub-human conditions. Such negligent, irresponsible hoarders have forfeited their “rights” when they endanger their neighbors and their children like that. Such conditions do warrant a court-ordered cleanup under deadline, or a jail sentence and heavy fines; like, the city takes on the cleanup job and bills the hoarder for it.