No Trespassing in Port Orange
.
Recently one of our readers reported that the Port Orange Police chased him and his young son from fishing on city owned property at the end of Spruce Creek Road It appears that the Police had responded to a complaint from a county resident at Bonks Landing. The Port Orange resident indicated that he was giving a stern warning and that he and his son may be arrested if they returned.
Apparently the former City Manager promulgated a No-Trespass regulation for this site. And directed No-Trespass signs to be installed on the site. At this time it is not clear if the Manager did so ‘on-a-whim’ or perhaps at the demand of a county resident(s) from Bonks Landing.
Nevertheless, this begs the question, does the City Manager have the legal authority to promulgate this type of regulation (prohibiting the public from using public lands) without the underlying authority of a ordinance or resolution of the governing body?
Other than appeasing a few county residents, hopefully someone on the city council can explain how prohibiting this man and his young son from fishing on city lands serves in the best interest of taxpayers of Port Orange.
At this point in time there appears to be no negative impact on the Public’s Safety; Public’s Health or Public’s Welfare with the public use of this site. And we recommend that the “No Trespass” signs be change to read “Property of Citizens of City of Port Orange —- No Littering”
Yep, the city will put up no trespassing signs and even build or move a fence to keep people off public land. Especially if it is next to a waterfront home, can’t have the common folk down there.
Newton White
Newton@newtonwhite.org
Funny story,
A councilman and I parked and walked around and down to the water there. He looked at the sign and said what are they going to do arrest a councilman and environmental board member?
If you get a trespass warning like the police do for Wal Mart, you can never again visit a Port Orange City park. Or city entity? Yipes, Wal mart has more power than the city of Port Orange.
The mayor and city council has discussed this numerous times at about 10 separate council meetings. They instruct staff to come up with a plan and the staff does absolutely nothing. Then the mayor and council will discus it again and repeat the folly. To watch their continuous inaction on this issue is very nauseating
https://youtu.be/HIHx4RmB-Kw
Dead Horse is one of my videos from 2009 in which Councilman Dennis Kennedy and representatives I think from the Saint John Water Aurhtority meet with residents from Bonks Landing discussing possible alternatives to the drainage system being planned within Bonks Landing. If you click on the you tube icon you will go up to you tube and see other videos of this meeting. In one of the other videos I asked the councilman to comment if it were true that the promise to not build a park in this area was taken back because of the “attitude of the Bonks Landing people”. Mr.Kennedy said he could not comment on that statement. — hank
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=430&v=HIHx4RmB-Kw
Hank — It doesn’t matter what a has-been councilman said 10 years ago but I see nothing on the video were any promises were made
This promise was made at a county council meeting
Why is the city police responding to complaints from county residents within county territory …. That should be the job of the county sheriffs office …. The people in that area pay no city taxes and do not fund our city police force. They are getting a free service on our dime.
Does the port orange police have surplus police personnel that have nothing else better to do within our city
Interlocal agreements same as the Fire Dept responding in County areas.
In reply to Dead Horse:
We fully understand the need for an Interlocal agreement for Fire and EMT services at certain county locations , these emergency services are time sensitive incidents.
But for a interlocal agreement for the Port Orange Police responding to trespass or parking type complaints within county territory does not make any sense. It would only take a deputy sheriff a few additional minutes to respond to the location. And at times they may even beat the city police to the location.
Why should these county enclaves get the benefits of all our city services when they pay no city taxes?
.
From: Monahan, Gerald [mailto:geraldm@port-orange.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:59 AM
To: Ted Noftall; Fenwick, Robin
Cc: Grabowski, Debbi
Subject: RE: Why are residents being denied access to City owned property ??
Ted,
We have searched our Tiburon system and cannot find the call. We need a date as a location search yielded nothing as there is no physical address. We are searching some other property references through the right of way agent. I have included the Trespass statute. You will note that the property owner or an authorized person can give an order to leave. We could not cite however, since it is not within the City limits. I am not aware as to why the property is posted. As to transmission of the call, if we are able to ascertain when it occurred and identify it, you will have to request same from Volusia County Dispatch.
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 810
BURGLARY AND TRESPASS View Entire Chapter
810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.—
(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2. If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,
commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.
(b) As used in this section, the term “unenclosed curtilage” means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling.
(2)(a) Except as provided in this subsection, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person, or if the offender willfully opens any door, fence, or gate or does any act that exposes animals, crops, or other property to waste, destruction, or freedom; unlawfully dumps litter on property; or trespasses on property other than a structure or conveyance, the offender commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
****************
From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@tednoftall.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 4:40 PM
To: Fenwick, Robin
Cc: Monahan, Gerald
Subject: FW: Why are residents being denied access to City owned property ??
http://port-orange.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/spruceCrkEND-1024×768.jpg
Good afternoon Robin and Gerry,
The blogs are referencing an incident involving POPD and a resident at the City owned land at the end of Spruce Creek Rd that is signed as NO TRESPASSING
Please provide a copy if that incident report along with any other incident reports involving this property.
I would also like to understand how the POPD officer came to be outside the City limits in the first place.
Was it as a result of some agreement with the SO and if so please provide a copy of that agreement.Was he or she responding to a call and if so please provide a copy of that transmission requesting same.
Thank you for your assistance regarding this inquiry.
Ted Noftall
Candidate for Mayor
City of Port Orange -2016
“We could not cite however, since it is not within the City limits.” I wonder if there might be a surpreme court problem with the authenticity of the sign as being a properly posted sign ordinance having been posted outside of city limits. I would guess in a surpreme court case a lawyer would want the officer who “cites” to provide evidence that the sign was legally authorized by either the county or Port Orange, and not posted by some juvenile gang trying to claim the park for themselves, or by Bonks Landing residents. Interestingly, up on L.I. a sign in a park read “no parking after midnight”. A judge ruled that it is always after midnight and decided that the sign wa unenforceable. I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, and perhaps eveything is legally in place to enforce this parking sign ordinance, but not by Port Orange Police? Interesting.== hank
I absolutely agree because they do not pay taxes like the rest of us but use our services. I was providing the information because of this remark fropm Free Ride: “Does the port orange police have surplus police personnel that have nothing else better to do within our city
Interlocal agreements make sense on the surface but in certain areas of the city the taxpayer may have to wait a long time to get a response to their emergency because their local fire truck is subsidizing the county or other local city, usually with better service levels then we get in return.
If you chose to live in the county because taxes are lower then the trade off is you get increased response times and possily lower service levels. But these agreement provide some county and New Symrna residents with better service and faster response times at teh expense of city residents paying higher taxes.
I have video on you tube as Henry Springer and also as Capt nemo 72000. Search on you tube for Port Orange City Council. There are many videos and as you proceed through the presentations other videos than mine creep into the presentations. But keep going on the search and you will see more of my videos. 7 27 15
On you tube search for Bonks Landing: [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql_l6yg4IZU&w=560&h=315%5D
look at it this way. Volusia county buys land in the city of Port Orange, with intentions to assist drainage problems of the county. I don’t care where in Port Orange, anywhere is fine with me. Then the county turns the land into an active park. Would you be suspicious? Under the city’s ordinance, industrial usage is prohibited, but what about commercial usage? — hank
From our records it appears that you made a similar inquiry in November of 2011.
The property at the end of Spruce Creek Road was acquired as part of a drainage project that included clearing of the property and installation of an accessible stormwater filtration system. There was a concern that people entering the property and parking could damage the filtration system access. The City would also have liability exposure if someone were injured on the property. The November 21, 2011 response to your earlier inquiry states that the City Council authorized installation of the “No Trespassing” sign
From: American Forwarding [mailto:ted@americanforwarding.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:09 PM
To: Harden, David
Cc: Bob Ford (rford37@cfl.rr.com); don@amlsfl.com; Drew Bastian (db2070@cfl.rr.com); Mayor Green (agreen@port-orange.org); Scott Stiltner (sjstiltner@cfl.rr.com)
Subject: Why are residents being denied access to City owned property ??
Manager Harden,
The questions raised in my correspondence of Nov 21st 2011 attached below were never answered. Some things never change I guess.
As regards your contribution of likewise not answering the questions I posed to you I would further ask …..
* That you please advise as to the nature and location of the filtration system on the subject property, and explain exactly how parking could damage this system ?
Because to my knowledge the structures on this property consist of * a buried concrete storm water pipe, AND * a concrete outfall including baffle box at the Creek itself.
* AND that you also advise as to the meeting where Council authorized the No Trespassing sign, or otherwise advise under what specific authority it remains in place ?
Ted Noftall
Candidate for Mayor
City of Port Orange -2016
**************
From: Harden, David
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 2:46 PM
To: Ted Noftall
Cc: Bob Ford; don@amlsfl.com; Drew Bastian; Green, Allen; Scott Stiltner
Subject: RE: Why are residents being denied access to City owned property ??
From our records it appears that you made a similar inquiry in November of 2011.
The property at the end of Spruce Creek Road was acquired as part of a drainage project that included clearing of the property and installation of an accessible stormwater filtration system. There was a concern that people entering the property and parking could damage the filtration system access. The City would also have liability exposure if someone were injured on the property. The November 21, 2011 response to your earlier inquiry states that the City Council authorized installation of the “No Trespassing” sign.
**********************
From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@tednoftall.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:13 AM
To: Harden, David
Cc: Bob Ford; don@amlsfl.com; Drew Bastian; Green, Allen; Scott Stiltner
Subject: Why are residents being denied access to City owned property ??
http://port-orange.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/spruceCrkEND-1024×768.jpg
Manager Harden,
Why is there a No Trespassing sign on City owned property at the end of Spruce Creek Rd ?
Who installed that sign, And under what specific authority was it installed ?
The City also owns an additional parcel of land approximately 100 ft north of the parcel at the end of Spruce Creek Rd. that is not noticed as No Trespassing, AND I am wondering why 2 City owned properties 100 feet apart are being treated differently in terms of denying City residents access to same ?
What is going on here Manager Harden
Thank you,
Ted Noftall
Candidate for Mayor
City of Port Orange -2016
********************
********************
From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@americanforwarding.us]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:39 PM
To: ‘Donna Steinbac (dsteinebac@port-orange.org)’
Cc: ‘Parker, Ken’
Subject: FW: Noftall Property Inquiry
Thank you Donna as always,
After reading the concluding City minutes regarding public access on 12/01/09 I feel confident Ken will l want to provide much needed answers to the questions posed below.
Ted
*********************
From: Steinebach, Donna [mailto:dsteinebac@port-orange.org]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 2:38 PM
To: Ted Noftall
Cc: Parker, Ken; Fenwick, Robin; Pike, Warren; Silvey, Michael
Subject: RE: Noftall Property Inquiry
Ted,
The City Clerk’s office has located the attached minutes from November and December 2009 to help respond to your inquiry. No other City Council minutes have been found subsequent to the 12/1/09 meeting that address the issue of public use/public access to the property at the end of Spruce Creek Road. It appears that I will be unable to completely answer the questions you have raised today. As we discussed by telephone this morning, I have primarily assisted in the assembly of materials on this issue to help Mr. Parker respond to you. Others who have more direct knowledge of the situation may be a better resource and more capable of responding at the level of detail you seek.
Regards,
Donna J. Steinebach, AICP
Assistant to the City Manager
1000 City Center Circle
Port Orange, FL 32129
telephone: (386) 506-5508
e-mail: dsteinebac@port-orange.org
City website: http://www.port-orange.org
*******************
From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@americanforwarding.us]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 1:30 PM
To: Steinebach, Donna
Cc: Parker, Ken
Subject: FW: Noftall Property Inquiry
Donna,
Thanks to you, Ken and staff for assembling the attached information. Council will be greatly informed upon receipt of same if they were not before.
I do have a question as to the conditions the Council placed on the Spruce Creek Property at the time the No Trespassing sign was ‘approved’….….. Was it voted upon ?
If sitting out is permitted and launching a canoe is prohibited…….. Would other uses such as Picnicking or Fishing or tossing a Frisbee be permitted or prohibited AND how are City residents’, or the Police meant to determine who must follow, and who may safely ignore the No Trespassing warning ??
As regards permitted uses Is it preferred that residents park their vehicle at this site or at the other City owned property slightly to the North ???
Ted
********************
From: Rivera, Cynthia [mailto:CRivera@port-orange.org]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:28 AM
To: ted@americanforwarding.us; City Council
Cc: Parker, Ken; Steinebach, Donna; Johnson, Linda; Lovallo, Susan; Donahue, Kent; Gurnee, Stella; Pike, Warren
Subject: Noftall Property Inquiry
Sent on behalf of Ken Parker:
I have reviewed the materials prepared by staff related to your questions about the property at the end of Spruce Creek Road and the Russell property. The only modification I would make is that the property restrictions at the end of Spruce Creek were placed on it by the City Council. However, in order to actually allow the property to be used as a canoe launching facility, Volusia County permits may be required. We would have to provide parking and additional stormwater treatment if a canoe launching facility were constructed at this location.
As with the Russell property, residents can currently access the property, but it is difficult. They must access it from the Creek itself. Once the dock is constructed, it will be much easier for individuals on the Creek to access this property.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
–Ken
************************
From: Steinebach, Donna
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:02 AM
To: Rivera, Cynthia
Subject: Noftall Property Inquiry
Here you go Cindy. Let me know if you need anything else.
Donna J. Steinebach, AICP
Assistant to the City Manager
1000 City Center Circle
Port Orange, FL 32129
telephone: (386) 506-5508
e-mail: dsteinebac@port-orange.org
City website: http://www.port-orange.org
*******************
From: Parker, Ken [mailto:kparker@port-orange.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Ted Noftall
Cc: Steinebach, Donna; Parker, Ken
Subject: RE: Access to City Owned Lands
Ted: I have already assigned this to others to provide the information. Thank you for your suggestion about Donna being the coordinator.
Ken
*****************************
________________________________________
From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@americanforwarding.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:02 PM
To: Parker, Ken
Cc: Steinebach, Donna
Subject: RE: Access to City Owned Lands
Ken, I can appreciate that you and Margaret will likely be occupied with the garbage mess for quite some time. Might I suggest that you hand this information request off to Donna. I have every confidence that she could ferret out these answers in a morning with minimal cooperation from finance and legal.
Ted
*******************
From: Parker, Ken [mailto:kparker@port-orange.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:31 PM
To: Ted Noftall
Cc: Parker, Ken
Subject: Re: Access to City Owned Lands
Ted: I will get the information. However, it may not happen this week or next.
Ken
Sent from my iPad
******************
On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:19 PM, “Ted Noftall” wrote:
Ken,
I would like to inquire as to citizen access and use of 2 City lands purchased and maintained with taxpayer monies.
Spruce Creek Property ( South end of Spruce Creek Rd )
As you are aware the City recently spent an un-disclosed amount of taxpayer dollars acquiring and upgrading the property on Spruce Creek at the South end Of Spruce Creek Rd.
What is the total taxpayer investment in this property ?
What is the annual cost to taxpayers to maintain this property ?
Is a resident permitted to bring a lawn chair to this site and sit out to read a book ?
Is a resident permitted to launch a canoe or kayak into Spruce Creek from this site ?
What is the specific authority for the No Trespassing sign the City has posted at this site?
Why is this property, outside of City limits, mowed and otherwise impeccability maintained when Riverwalk in the heart of the City is weeded and otherwise overgrown ?
Russell Property on Spruce Creek
As you are aware the city is considering spending several hundred thousand tax payer dollars to place a dock and stairs on Spruce Creek, presumably to provide access to the Russell Property from Spruce Creek as the Sanctuary Homeowners Association is denying access across their property.
What is the total taxpayer investment in this property ?
What is the annual cost to taxpayers to maintain this property ?
Are residents currently permitted to assess this property from Spruce Creek ?
What are its permitted uses AND is primitive camping one of them ?
Who are the Authorized Personnel Only currently permitted access to this property through the gate at Deerfeed Trail in the Sanctuary subdivision ?
Why is this property, that not one resident in a thousand has ever seen or visited, mowed and otherwise impeccability maintained when Riverwalk in the heart of the City is weeded and otherwise overgrown ?
Ted Noftall
***********************