Opinion ID: 607688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenge to Milwaukee Ordinance 200-17

Text: 19 Ordinance 200-17 establishes a Standards and Appeals Commission (SAC). Appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Building Inspection can be taken to the SAC, which has authority to consider variances for hardship. Heldstab argues that Ordinance 200-17 violates his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. He claims that the average citizen has no chance of prevailing in an appeal to the SAC. He also claims that Commissioner Jensen and his agents engaged in ex parte communications with the SAC. Further, based on certain comments made by members of the SAC, he charges them with bias. Finally, he argues that Ordinance 200-17 fails to afford due process under the test stated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). 20 Heldstab appears to argue that he was entitled to a hearing before the City issued the Order to Correct in 1984. We disagree. Certainly, Heldstab has a property interest in his building, but the mere issuance of the Order to Correct did not deprive him of that property interest in any way. Thus, under Mathews, no prior hearing was required. 21 Heldstab also challenges the fairness of the hearing that he received after the issuance of the Order to Correct. Although neither party cites any authority regarding whether enforcement of the Order to Correct would deprive Heldstab of a property interest, we will assume that it would, and we proceed to consider whether Heldstab received a fair hearing. 22 Heldstab claims that no citizen has ever prevailed in an appeal to the SAC. He further claims that the defendants have admitted this proposition by their failure to deny it in their answer. Heldstab is wrong. Their answer specifically denied this allegation. R. 11, p. 6. Indeed, it was only the defendants who offered any evidence on this issue at the summary judgment stage. Philip Stollenwerk averred that, as secretary for the SAC, he has observed applicants for variances succeed in obtaining the requested relief in excess of 80% of all cases. R. 19. Heldstab argues in his brief on appeal that all of these variances went to big contractors and engineering firms, not average citizens, yet there is nothing in the record to support this assertion. Finally, we do not agree with Heldstab's claim that a variance would not protect his property interest. He fails to explain his reliance on Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986), and we find no support in it for his position. 23 Heldstab also argues that members of the SAC were biased against him. He cites several references by members of the SAC to a building inspector as our inspector. He also points out that, in response to his suggestion that he might not let inspectors in his building to check for smoke alarms, Commissioner Bentley said, We'll get a warrant. We have reviewed the entire transcript of the hearing before the SAC. Heldstab asked for a variance to allow his building to weather naturally, but presented no evidence of hardship. Moreover, he presented no evidence in support of his claims that the other code violations cited by the inspector had been corrected. It seems clear that his appeal was denied for these reasons. We do not believe that the few offhand remarks cited by Heldstab would enable a jury to return a verdict in his favor on the issue of bias. Hence, summary judgment in favor of the defendants was appropriate on the claim of bias. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). 24 We also reject Heldstab's other due process claims. He claims there were improper ex parte communications to the SAC. With respect to Commissioner Jensen, the one page of deposition testimony that Heldstab attached to his motion for summary judgment does not indicate whether or not the communications mentioned therein were ex parte. R. 14, exh. H. As for Philip Stollenwerk, his unrebutted affidavit states that he never made any ex parte communication to the SAC. R. 19. 25 Finally, Heldstab states that summary judgment is precluded by the magistrate's failure to address his charges of public fraud against the defendants. Heldstab presents no argument on this point, so he has abandoned it. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d at 1384. 26