Is everything on earth now a public nuisance?
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2025 8:33 am
Soon to be a deep dive into PUBLIC NUISANCE
The issue is that code companies now write, or cut and paste code for cities. You will see the code for one city is the same as another. Use of public nuisance ~ they all have jumped on the bandwagon.
Over the past few years EVERY CITY now uses the term "public nuisance" and fines you. Your trash can is a public nuisance $100, your flat tire is a public nuisance $100, your non-registered farm car on your 100 acres is a public nuisance $100. The FACT all these citations end up in limited civil and not Court of Appeal permit this crazy application of the name, now generic, to be used.
Most issues subject of a citation are not "nuisances" at all. It's your job to prove to the court they are not, never were, and could not possibly be a "nuisance" let alone a "public nuisance."
As you will read in People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) "Originally, a public nuisance was an offense against the crown, prosecuted as a crime. The first known statute dealing with public nuisances-enacted in the 12th year of Richard II's reign-had as its subject the pollution of waters and ditches lying near settlements, and provided criminal liability for the offender. fn. 2 The earliest public nuisance statute thus bore a feature that marks the entire field even today: public nuisances are offenses against, or interferences with, the exercise of rights common to the public. (See generally, Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (3d ed. 1990) pp. 492-494.)
So, the fact your trash can was left out Wednesday night is not a public nuisance. It may be a violation of city law, but it is definitely not a public nuisance.
A true and recent public nuisance was the Sriracha hot sauce factory in an area of Los Angeles. It stunk up the whole city!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... california
Public nuisances began 1000 years ago. And a public nuisance was a REALLY BIG ISSUE that affected the entire public, not just one neighbor or no one for that matter! Why, for example, would your non-working refrigerator on your back porch, be a public nuisance" - of course not. IT'S A MONEY GRABBING SCAM! Public nuisances, if a true public nuisance, are to be abated, not fined.
It all began with this poorly worded court opinion: McCLATCHY v. LAGUNA LANDS LIMITED Court of Appeal of California, Third District. Feb 6, 1917
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5 ... 49347081bc
"Within reasonable limits (THE KEY WORDS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT)," there is no question, says Mr. Wood, "but that the legislature has the power to declare certain uses of property a nuisance and such use thereupon becomes a nuisance per se." (2 Wood on Nuisances, sec. 763.) The legislature has, within its undoubted power, declared the acts complained of to be a public nuisance, and such acts constitute a nuisance per se. Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance. No ill effects need be proved. (2 Wood on Nuisances, sec. 569.) And all parties to a nuisance per se, he who creates it and he who maintains it, are responsible for its effect, without limitations of condition or time. ( Thornton v. Dow, 60 Wn. 622, [32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 968, 111 P. 899, 903].)
NOTE - Wood's testimony had to do with the following: "the prevention of the diversion of the waters of any stream into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Section 12 of the act declares that the board shall have power "to maintain actions to restrain the diversion of the waters of any stream that will increase the flow of water in said Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries, and such diversion of the waters of any stream into said rivers or any of their tributaries is hereby declared to be a public nuisance which may be prevented or abated by the reclamation board."
Cities have twisted the law so that a public nuisance is ANYTHING they want it to be. This is not the law! You should fight your public nuisance designation at every turn.
READ: People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090 - Cal: Supreme Court 1997 (yes, this is the same Joan Gallo responsible for creating administrative citations)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
So then we have: City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer, 11 Cal. App. 4th 378 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 1992
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
[Soffer was a rebel who owned Sid's blue beet cafe in Newport Beach. He love old Cadillacs. He lived in west side Costa Mesa and parked about 10 of the cars on his front corner lot in front of his home. Costa Mesa had no ordinance prohibiting this so they called it a public nuisance. Effectively defining "anything the City of Costa Mesa does not like is a public nuisance" The law, was mis-quoted and pled out of context to establish the act of parking cars was a nuisance per se and anything the City said was a nuisance, was a nuisance - which is NOT what Woods said in McCLATCHY or what he has stated in his 1000 page legal treatise on public nuisances.]
https://archive.org/details/practicaltr ... pper=false
"(2) "`[T]he legislature has the power to declare certain uses of property a nuisance and such use thereupon becomes a nuisance per se.' [Citation.] ... Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance." (McClatchy v. Laguna Lands Limited (1917) 32 Cal. App. 718, 725 [164 P. 41]; see also People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Adco Advertisers (1973) 35 Cal. App.3d 507, 513-514 [110 Cal. Rptr. 849]; People v. Peterson (1920) 45 Cal. App. 457, 459-461 [187 P 1079.)[3]
Here is the problem: Crazy Sidney was pro per. He was a Newport Beach rebel. He did not correct the court when the court mis-applied the plain text of Wood's comments. H. G. Wood who wrote the book on public nuisances did not give every city carte blanch to label everything is its sight public nuisances. THE WHOLE MCLATCHY CASE WAS CITED OUF OF CONTEXT BY THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. Wood was talking about dams, rivers, flooding - NOT TRASH CANS. Gallo v. Acuna explains what a nuisance is.
More to come soon...
The issue is that code companies now write, or cut and paste code for cities. You will see the code for one city is the same as another. Use of public nuisance ~ they all have jumped on the bandwagon.
Over the past few years EVERY CITY now uses the term "public nuisance" and fines you. Your trash can is a public nuisance $100, your flat tire is a public nuisance $100, your non-registered farm car on your 100 acres is a public nuisance $100. The FACT all these citations end up in limited civil and not Court of Appeal permit this crazy application of the name, now generic, to be used.
Most issues subject of a citation are not "nuisances" at all. It's your job to prove to the court they are not, never were, and could not possibly be a "nuisance" let alone a "public nuisance."
As you will read in People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) "Originally, a public nuisance was an offense against the crown, prosecuted as a crime. The first known statute dealing with public nuisances-enacted in the 12th year of Richard II's reign-had as its subject the pollution of waters and ditches lying near settlements, and provided criminal liability for the offender. fn. 2 The earliest public nuisance statute thus bore a feature that marks the entire field even today: public nuisances are offenses against, or interferences with, the exercise of rights common to the public. (See generally, Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (3d ed. 1990) pp. 492-494.)
So, the fact your trash can was left out Wednesday night is not a public nuisance. It may be a violation of city law, but it is definitely not a public nuisance.
A true and recent public nuisance was the Sriracha hot sauce factory in an area of Los Angeles. It stunk up the whole city!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... california
Public nuisances began 1000 years ago. And a public nuisance was a REALLY BIG ISSUE that affected the entire public, not just one neighbor or no one for that matter! Why, for example, would your non-working refrigerator on your back porch, be a public nuisance" - of course not. IT'S A MONEY GRABBING SCAM! Public nuisances, if a true public nuisance, are to be abated, not fined.
It all began with this poorly worded court opinion: McCLATCHY v. LAGUNA LANDS LIMITED Court of Appeal of California, Third District. Feb 6, 1917
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5 ... 49347081bc
"Within reasonable limits (THE KEY WORDS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT)," there is no question, says Mr. Wood, "but that the legislature has the power to declare certain uses of property a nuisance and such use thereupon becomes a nuisance per se." (2 Wood on Nuisances, sec. 763.) The legislature has, within its undoubted power, declared the acts complained of to be a public nuisance, and such acts constitute a nuisance per se. Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance. No ill effects need be proved. (2 Wood on Nuisances, sec. 569.) And all parties to a nuisance per se, he who creates it and he who maintains it, are responsible for its effect, without limitations of condition or time. ( Thornton v. Dow, 60 Wn. 622, [32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 968, 111 P. 899, 903].)
NOTE - Wood's testimony had to do with the following: "the prevention of the diversion of the waters of any stream into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Section 12 of the act declares that the board shall have power "to maintain actions to restrain the diversion of the waters of any stream that will increase the flow of water in said Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries, and such diversion of the waters of any stream into said rivers or any of their tributaries is hereby declared to be a public nuisance which may be prevented or abated by the reclamation board."
Cities have twisted the law so that a public nuisance is ANYTHING they want it to be. This is not the law! You should fight your public nuisance designation at every turn.
READ: People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090 - Cal: Supreme Court 1997 (yes, this is the same Joan Gallo responsible for creating administrative citations)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
So then we have: City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer, 11 Cal. App. 4th 378 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 1992
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
[Soffer was a rebel who owned Sid's blue beet cafe in Newport Beach. He love old Cadillacs. He lived in west side Costa Mesa and parked about 10 of the cars on his front corner lot in front of his home. Costa Mesa had no ordinance prohibiting this so they called it a public nuisance. Effectively defining "anything the City of Costa Mesa does not like is a public nuisance" The law, was mis-quoted and pled out of context to establish the act of parking cars was a nuisance per se and anything the City said was a nuisance, was a nuisance - which is NOT what Woods said in McCLATCHY or what he has stated in his 1000 page legal treatise on public nuisances.]
https://archive.org/details/practicaltr ... pper=false
"(2) "`[T]he legislature has the power to declare certain uses of property a nuisance and such use thereupon becomes a nuisance per se.' [Citation.] ... Nuisances per se are so regarded because no proof is required, beyond the actual fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance." (McClatchy v. Laguna Lands Limited (1917) 32 Cal. App. 718, 725 [164 P. 41]; see also People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Adco Advertisers (1973) 35 Cal. App.3d 507, 513-514 [110 Cal. Rptr. 849]; People v. Peterson (1920) 45 Cal. App. 457, 459-461 [187 P 1079.)[3]
Here is the problem: Crazy Sidney was pro per. He was a Newport Beach rebel. He did not correct the court when the court mis-applied the plain text of Wood's comments. H. G. Wood who wrote the book on public nuisances did not give every city carte blanch to label everything is its sight public nuisances. THE WHOLE MCLATCHY CASE WAS CITED OUF OF CONTEXT BY THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. Wood was talking about dams, rivers, flooding - NOT TRASH CANS. Gallo v. Acuna explains what a nuisance is.
More to come soon...