Post by High Priestess on Jan 10, 2018 6:47:18 GMT
Oakland property owners which were fined for blight conditions have appealed their cases and the courts have ruled that Oakland's process of fining for blight and not allowing appeals, violates state law.
www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oaklands-ability-to-clamp-down-on-blight-threatened/Content?oid=12465384
There are pros and cons to this ruling. The benefit is to property owners who have been oppressed by Oakland's system, such as being fined for the same violations or having multiple liens placed against their property. These measures can be overly harsh and unfair, and in some cases written about in previous news reports, the city actually demolished property based on blight issues. THe drawbacks would be that for neighbors of a blighted property, it could be more difficult to get the blight cleaned up.
One of the problems with citing property owners for blight, is that if the property is vacant, the property owner may be a victim of illegal dumping. I have seen that many times -- vacant properties become targets for neighbors who want to get rid of things who just dump them on someone else's property. Rather than punish the property owner for this, the city should be helping clear the debris out.
www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oaklands-ability-to-clamp-down-on-blight-threatened/Content?oid=12465384
The appellate court ruled that landlords must be able to appeal blight fines and fees to an independent panel or the city council and that Oakland's system, in which a single hearing officer appointed by the agency that imposes the fines, is unlawful. The court's decision also threatens Oakland's efforts to bring illegal live-work warehouses up to code following the deadly Ghost Ship fire 13 months ago.
There are pros and cons to this ruling. The benefit is to property owners who have been oppressed by Oakland's system, such as being fined for the same violations or having multiple liens placed against their property. These measures can be overly harsh and unfair, and in some cases written about in previous news reports, the city actually demolished property based on blight issues. THe drawbacks would be that for neighbors of a blighted property, it could be more difficult to get the blight cleaned up.
The case stems from a series of citations that landlord Thomas Lippman received in 2009 and 2010 at his one-story triplex in the 3500 block of Galindo Street off 35th Avenue in the city's Fruitvale district. According to his attorneys, Lippman eventually racked up over $10,000 in city fines and fees.
The city cited Lippman twice in mid-April 2009 for overgrown vegetation, trash, and debris. According to court filings, Lippman disputed the fees levied against him, but a building services supervisor rejected his dispute twice. Eventually, the city assessed a lien of $2,680 against Lippman, though he continued to try to appeal the fines.
While he was fighting those fees, Lippman continued to be cited for the same rental property. The city cited him in April 2010 for a leaking roof, stuck doors, cracks in the ceiling, and missing foundation vents. He was cited again in July 2010 for trash at the property, including a mattress and toilet in the carport.
The city assessed fees against Lippman for the substandard living conditions, and he once again appealed the decision. According to the city, Lippman had not abated the violations as of September, so he was cited again. The city placed another lien on the property while Lippman continued to fight the fee assessments.
This isn't the first time Oakland has been confronted about its appeals process or dysfunction in its Building Services department. In 2011, an Alameda County Grand Jury report found flaws in the city's abatement processes, including in its policies, training, communication, and appeals. The department was criticized in a 2000 grand jury report as well, and the 2011 report indicated the department had deteriorated
The city cited Lippman twice in mid-April 2009 for overgrown vegetation, trash, and debris. According to court filings, Lippman disputed the fees levied against him, but a building services supervisor rejected his dispute twice. Eventually, the city assessed a lien of $2,680 against Lippman, though he continued to try to appeal the fines.
While he was fighting those fees, Lippman continued to be cited for the same rental property. The city cited him in April 2010 for a leaking roof, stuck doors, cracks in the ceiling, and missing foundation vents. He was cited again in July 2010 for trash at the property, including a mattress and toilet in the carport.
The city assessed fees against Lippman for the substandard living conditions, and he once again appealed the decision. According to the city, Lippman had not abated the violations as of September, so he was cited again. The city placed another lien on the property while Lippman continued to fight the fee assessments.
This isn't the first time Oakland has been confronted about its appeals process or dysfunction in its Building Services department. In 2011, an Alameda County Grand Jury report found flaws in the city's abatement processes, including in its policies, training, communication, and appeals. The department was criticized in a 2000 grand jury report as well, and the 2011 report indicated the department had deteriorated
One of the problems with citing property owners for blight, is that if the property is vacant, the property owner may be a victim of illegal dumping. I have seen that many times -- vacant properties become targets for neighbors who want to get rid of things who just dump them on someone else's property. Rather than punish the property owner for this, the city should be helping clear the debris out.