December 2016
Oakland Fire: Why Did Building Inspectors Miss the Ghost Ship?
Bay Area building inspectors describe protocols that leave much up to chance. And few satisfying answers.
On November 17, a building inspector was dispatched to the property to eyeball an alleged “Illegal interior building structure.” But nobody left the door open for the inspector to walk into. And that was that. The inspector couldn’t gain entry and, a shade over two weeks later, the warehouse burned. There was no follow-up visit.
Why no inspection follow-up took place after November 17 remains unknown. Darin Ranelletti, the interim director of Oakland’s Planning and Building Department, hasn’t returned our messages. But, weeks prior to the Ghost Ship blaze, Joe Tobener, a San Francisco tenants’ attorney, had pitched San Francisco on a story: Why not write about how Oakland building inspectors are terrible at following up? “They are poor at citing landlords for violations,” he claimed, “and they are poor at following up once they do cite landlords.
Local building inspectors tell us that, in the event of evident life-threatening situations, the city attorney will be brought into the picture and a judge’s ruling will be required for a forcible intervention (this rarely occurs; one inspector with nearly two decades on the job told us that he’s never had to take this step). But the allegation triggering November’s Oakland inspection—“Illegal interior building structure”—doesn’t necessarily rise to that level. Nor do four prior complaints leveled against the building dating back to 2004, which are listed on Oakland’s Planning and Building website—all of which involve refuse, junker cars, vermin, or other signs of blight. Other than the most recent case, which is now tragically moot, these issues were either closed or abated.
When asked what they would have done if they showed up at the Ghost Ship on November 17, the building inspectors we spoke to provided a number of intriguing answers (none said they'd do nothing, which is what happened). If the warehouse were in San Francisco and not Oakland, per the city’s guidelines, the inspector should have left a slip with his phone number on it, requesting an inspection time be worked out in the near future (good luck with that). Less officially, one San Francisco inspector said he’d call people he grew up with who now work in the fire department here, and have them take action—a charmingly small-town response. Another inspector said he’d simply drive around and return periodically until he caught someone loading or unloading, and talk his way inside. “You can walk through an open door,” he reminds us. A building inspector actually has more leeway than a cop to march through such open doors and onto properties: “I guarantee you I’d have gotten into that building.”
Coda: Following publication of this article, attorney Joe Tobener pointed out a very salient difference between San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection and its Oakland counterpart. Tenants in illegal units in San Francisco can call DBI to report safety violations and allow inspectors into their units with confidence they will not be automatically booted out of red-tagged buildings and any citations will be delivered to their landlords. Oakland residents of illegal units do not enjoy this protection, thereby incetivizing them to live in dangerous situations, not call inspectors, and bar inspectors from the premises. Tobener suggests inhabitants of illegal units "should have a private inspector come out and work with the landlord. San Francisco is less hostile than Oakland, but they will still red-tag."
http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/oakland-fire-why-did-building-inspectors-miss-the-ghost-ship
