Austin Government Officials Seize Man’s Home because he had a Bunker

Source (WITH VIDEO): http://offgridsurvival.com/governmentofficialsseizebunkerhome/

Given that that they found nothing either in his house or in his bunker, can anyone think of any justification for these actions?

 

It looks like this story is a tad more complicated, I found this with a quick google search :
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/man-who-dug-space-under-home-sues-city-740829.html

 

I am having a little bit of trouble seeing how raiding a man unwillingly, confiscating his property and filling in his workshop which probably has a substantial amount of his stuff in it, and then charging him ninety thousand dollars for the unwanted service is a good idea.

Given the original premise and the fact that the SWAT raided his house, I have some qualms believing that "the security of his home" was even a part of the intention, and not more of a justification for the raid and then the payment demanded.

 

Well, clearly the city knew something was going on underground, they wouldn' t have sent the Swat team otherwise. It seems plausible that they sent a team out of genuine concern. I' m not going to pretend I have any idea of the exact procedures they have to follow in such a situation though.

I see how cementing everything without collecting any shred of evidence beforehand could sound fishy, but aren' t they allowed to bypass a few procedures if the situation is judged to be dangerous enough ?

I don' t have a clear picture of the legal kinks and I don' t have testimonies from both sides, so I' m highly reluctant to pick one.

 

Well, exactly who was put in danger if they chose not to fill his basement in with cement? And who was put in danger by them filling it in and charging him over a years' wages? Several years depending on your income.

 

No idea, it does sound fishy but I' m no expert. Surely the tribunal will ask those exact same questions.

Edit : wait, I didn' t notice there was a page 2 :

2008
Aug. 8 - City receives first complaint regarding a "large hole" under the driveway at 2006 Canterbury St. The owner told a city investigator he was building a handicap ramp.
2009
Sept. 30 - City receives complaint that a large hole on the property had been filled with water.
Oct. 7 - Investigator visits 2006 Canterbury and is told by the owner that he is filling a sinkhole and building a retaining wall. Owner receives a warning notice for working without a permit, and a stop work order is posted.
Oct. 12 - City approves a site plan exemption requiring a building permit for the property.
Oct. 23 - After the city finds no building permit has been issued, an investigator visits property, finds no one at home.
Dec. 11 - Follow-up inspection. Owner told he needs to obtain a building permit.
2010
Jan. 6 - Follow-up inspection. Appears no more work has been done.
March 25 - Follow-up visit. No one at home; investigator leaves card.
March 26 - Phone call to owner. No answer; investigator leaves message.
April 27 - Follow-up visit. No one at home; investigator leaves card.
April 28 - Owner contacts city; inspection scheduled.
May 4 - Inspection finds extensive excavation beneath house.
May 8 - Follow-up inspection. Administrative search warrant issued.
May 13 - Follow-up inspection. Notice of violation posted.

Apparently his excavations had an impact over the city, they were in violation with the law, he was informed of it, and yet he refused to stop digging or to communicate.

 

I see. Thank you for the insight.