He wanted to work on an old car in his yard. Now he owes $573K in Sacramento code violations
April 13, 2022 07:49 AM
Seven years ago, Daniel Altstatt parked a bright orange vintage 1972 VW bus in the backyard of his East Sacramento home.
Alstatt is a retired mechanical engineer and likes to work on vehicles. They are mostly older Volkswagens. They sat in the driveway and backyard of his home, a 1,440 square-foot house, which he inherited from his parents in 1981, on H Street just a block from the affluent Fab 40s.
He also had five other vehicles on the property, including two he inherited when his brother died. All were “operable,” he said, meaning, basically, they could be driven.
A neighbor complained. The city in 2014 issued code violations for the vehicles, claiming they appeared to be inoperable. It also issued violations for other items Altstatt had in the fenced private backyard — car parts, generators, propane tanks and fruit that had fallen off his picturesque orange and grapefruit trees.
Within a couple of months of being issued the violations, Altstatt removed the vehicle and other items from the backyard, he said. But seven years later, the bill continues to climb.
He now owes $573,000 to the city.
It’s a predicament that he and other home owners can face when city code violations pile up. In the worst cases for homeowners, the city can place a property under a judge’s control through a process known as receivership.
Alstatt has also been defending himself against a city lawsuit since 2015 when the city sued him in Sacramento County Superior Court. The case is now in the Third District Court of Appeal. 


“I suffered seven years of hassle,” Altstatt, 83, said. “I’ve lost lots of sleep over this. The whole system is incredibly stacked against the people.”
Sacramento sued 94 property owners
The city has sued at least 94 property owners for “public nuisance,” “general blight” or “substandard housing,” since 2010, according to documents The Sacramento Bee obtained from a California Public Records Act request. That does not include cases in which the city alleged drug-related charges including growing cannabis.
Some are apartment complexes with frequent police calls — deemed a “social” nuisance. Others are vacant, boarded-up commercial buildings. But some, like Altstatt’s, are owner-occupied single-family homes, which appear tidy from the street, but are the subject of city fees. The city has put some of the property owners under court-appointed receivership, meaning an attorney has taken full control of their properties and has the ability to sell or demolish them.
Even for homeowners who have been able to fend off the city’s attempt at receivership, like Altstatt, the city has the ability to charge the property owner $250 to $25,000 per day if it deems the violation to be outstanding — even if it is minor or appears to be addressed.
For Altstatt, the daily charges caused the civil penalties bill to soar to $573,000.
On a recent weekday, Alstatt wore his typical uniform of old blue jeans and hiking boots. His white and gray beard almost reached his chest. He is soft-spoken, but also appeared worn down and defeated. Seven years of fighting the city had taken its toll. It has also taken a toll on his finances. He estimates he’s spent at least $50,000 defending himself so far, depleting his savings account.
“They’ve got all the power and an infinite amount of money to hassle you and you don’t have any,” Altstatt said. “The homeowner has zero experience dealing with the legal system. They’re overwhelmed and bewildered. They thought they had rights but they find they don’t have any. Their rights are stolen.”
City spokesman Tim Swanson did not respond to a list of questions for this story by The Sacramento Bee’s publication deadline.
Altstatt is on a fixed income and does not have an attorney. He’s devoted hours researching the law, scouring over hundreds of documents full of legalese, and showing up for court dates.
“I have suffered seven years of litigation abuse,” Altstatt said. “It’s difficult to put a dollar amount on the level of aggravation, pain and suffering it has caused.”
But even homeowners who can afford to hire lawyers can find themselves in a similar situation.
Hot tub battle
Robin Brewer is an attorney for the state Department of Water Resources and once hosted an event for U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff at her house.
In 2019 she installed a hot tub in the side yard of her $1.3 million Curtis Park home after obtaining a city permit, she said. The city in 2019 issued a code violation for unpermitted construction for the hot tub and also a fence. It then sued her.
The city has been charging her $250 a day since May 2019 for the alleged violations, said Daniel O’Donnell, her attorney. The bill so far has totaled more than $270,000.
“It’s so much per day,” said Brewer. “I will take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if I have to.”
Like Altstatt, she was also able to block the city from putting her house in receivership, but she still lost many rights, she said.
“They put a lien on my title,” Brewer said. “You can’t get a home loan. You can’t refinance. It’s like you no longer own your house.”
Similarly, Altstatt is not allowed to sell his house.
Brewer said the city’s process is unfair because it causes the city to go after the houses that get the most complaints, not the worst offenders.
On a weekday afternoon last month, a city code enforcement officer visited Linda and Bruce Siegrist’s North Sacramento home, which is under receivership. He told them they needed to move their car, which broke down last month, from the driveway into the garage. As he got in his vehicle to leave, he was just several feet away from a pickup truck parked on grass, which is against city code, at a neighbor’s house. He ignored it.
Every time code violation officers visit properties that the city has sued, they find more violations, even if the owner fixes the ones they originally cited, Altstatt said.
“You can fix what they say is offensive, but next time they come, they’re gonna find more,” Altstatt said. “It’s like you need to have nothing but bare dirt in your yard.”
The city applies its “junk and debris” code violation liberally. Altstatt’s backyard is an oasis, nestled in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Sacramento. But there is a table and chairs set up, as well as some plant pots — things he said fears could be considered “junk and debris.”
Similarly, when a woman placed a fridge in her Oak Park side yard to help feed the poor last month, a neighbor complained and the city automatically sent her a notice for “junk and debris.”
Today, Altstatt typically has three vehicles in his driveway — two VW white vans from the 1990s and a 1997 Chevy Suburban. All are operable, he said, complying with the code, but they are older, in contrast to the sports cars and Teslas that dot the street.
“Some people may not think his car fits the neighborhood, but he’s been neighborly,” said Virginia Thompson, who owns the house next door. “And he keeps his grass mowed.”
‘Creating homelessness’
In addition to the more than $570,000, the city this year charged Altstatt a property tax bill that was roughly seven times higher than his typical bill, due to “administrative penalties,” according to an email from the city. Worried if he did not pay it, the city would sell it in a sheriff’s sale for unpaid taxes, he paid $9,600 earlier this month. His typical tax bill is $1,400, he said.
But even though he paid the taxes, he worries the city could still sell it in a sheriff’s sale due to the outstanding $573,000 bill stemming from the code violations.
If it does, Altstatt could be homeless. He has no children or family members in the Sacramento area.
“The city says they are trying to help homelessness, but they’re creating homelessness,” said Kim Glazzard, Altstatt’s friend. “They’re preying upon vulnerable people.”
Wanda Clark, whose Oak Park house was demolished in January after the city sued her for code violations, is now homeless, sleeping on her sister’s couch. She’s 71.
“They have essentially institutionalized elder abuse,” Glazzard said. “They use code enforcement as their weapon of choice by imposing exorbitant fines and fees far beyond what even actual criminals are charged.”
Budget deficit looming
Due to the 1978 property tax initiative known as Proposition 13, California cities do not reassess properties each year. That means in affluent neighborhoods like East Sacramento, for homes that have not been sold for decades, the city gets far less in taxes than it would if the house was sold.
The city has not assessed Altstatt’s home since he inherited it in 1981 — when it set the assessment at $125,000. A house 500 feet from Altstatt’s and roughly the same square footage (less than 2,000 square feet) sold for $1.2 million last year.
Altstatt accuses the city of trying to increase its tax revenue and also collect the hundreds of thousands in fees to help pad city coffers. A recent projection found the city will be in a deficit starting July 1.
“The city finances are in shambles,” Altstatt said.
If the 3rd District Court of Appeal rules against Altstatt, he plans to appeal his case to the state Supreme Court and maybe higher. He believes the city has violated his property rights in the U.S. Constitution.
“Legal plunder is the key to this thing,” said Richard Lee, Altstatt’s friend who’s helping him with the case. “They say you can’t fight City Hall. You can fight them, but can you win? We’re trying to set a precedent.”