You have devoted another issue to the ongoing De Vaul drama (“For better or worse,” Sept. 29). You pointed out the sad prospect of homeless people housed on his ranch having to be moved off.
However, you neglected to report an important fact. Namely, Mr. De Vaul’s operation does not meet County Health and Safety codes.
Is it your position (1) that the Health and Safety codes should not apply to Mr. De Vaul? or (2) that the Health and Safety codes should not apply where the people housed would otherwise be homeless? or (3) the county and its courts should only selectively enforce the county Health and Safety codes? or (4) the Health and Safety codes should be abolished?
It will be a sad outcome if, as a result of the current legal action, a receiver has to be appointed for Mr. De Vaul’s property and his efforts for the homeless shut down. If that happens, however, you should place the blame squarely where it belongs. The fault lies with Mr. De Vaul’s stubborn refusal to comply with the county Health and Safety standards.
Mr. De Vaul leaves the county officials and the courts no choice. We hope that as a result of this legal action, Mr. De Vaul will see the light and bring his operation into code compliance or, in the alternative, will shut it down and put an end to this sad controversy.
This article appears in Oct 6-13, 2011.