https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Alleged-cannabis-bribery-attempt-in-Oakland-12547973.php
Alleged cannabis bribery attempt in Oakland prompts investigation
City Council President Larry Reid said Friday an acquaintance seeking a cannabis dispensary permit offered him $10,000 when they met about a month ago.
A man who Oakland City Council President Larry Reid says tried to bribe him to help obtain a cannabis dispensary permit also allegedly offered two businessmen assistance in getting a dispensary license in exchange for bags of cash, The Chronicle has learned.
The man, local developer Dorian Gray, tried last month to give Reid an envelope he said had $10,000 in it, Reid said. Gray then approached the city official who oversees Oakland’s cannabis permit office and offered him a free trip to Spain to tour cannabis lounges there.
City Administrator Sabrina Landreth has referred Reid’s allegation to the Alameda County district attorney's office, officials said Friday. The city’s Public Ethics Commission has opened its own investigation.
Gray, who said he was seeking a dispensary permit himself and also working on behalf of another applicant, acknowledged that he offered the Spain trip to licensing official Greg Minor, but said it was not a bribe. On Friday, he denied the allegations made by Reid and the two businessmen.
“It’s very unfair and not true,” Gray said. “I didn’t do anything.”
Reid’s allegation came to light this week after he reported it to Landreth. The alleged bribery incident, however, occurred several weeks ago, Reid said. He did not explain why he had waited to report it. No city ethics law requires someone report another person’s wrongdoing. Reid also did not mention the alleged bribe attempt in an interview with The Chronicle two weeks ago, when he first acknowledged having met with Gray.
He mentioned the meeting at that time in response to questions about the allegations raised by the two permit applicants who said they’d also been approached by Gray. The men said Gray told them he worked with Reid and Councilwoman Desley Brooks.
The two men spoke to The Chronicle on the condition their names not be used because they were concerned about their ability to get a license in the future. They said they decided to tell their story after two people identifying themselves as federal agents stopped one of them outside their place of business last month and began asking questions about their experiences with the city’s permit process.
The men said a mutual acquaintance set up a meeting between them and Gray in October. The men said they had never seen Gray before and didn’t know his surname. Shown a photo of Gray, both confirmed he was the man they had met.
At the meeting, they said, Gray gave them only his first name, Dorian, and told them that they needed to give him three brown paper bags filled with cash — one for him, one for Reid and one for Brooks — and that he would take care of the rest.
As proof of his connection, they said, Gray held up his iPhone to show Brooks’ and Reid’s names on his favorites screen and offered to call them on the spot.
Both Reid and Brooks said they knew Gray, but said they had no involvement with his actions.
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
170 City of Oakland Administrator told Councilpersons they were about to "violate" and "erode" the city charter
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/07/11/oakland-council-ignores-warning-from-city-administrator-and-votes-for-strong-police-commission-ordinance
Oakland Council Ignores Warning from City Administrator and Votes for 'Strong' Police Commission Ordinance
City officials in Oakland have been engaged in a power struggle for months now over the question of who will control key staff of the new police commission created by voters in 2016 through a ballot measure. Last night, the city council voted to finalize an enabling ordinance that puts the issue of who's in charge to rest, for now. But the vote was not without one final and highly unusual display of division.
[Read related: "Oakland Officials Wrestle for Control Over New Police Commission Staff Positions"]
Just before voting on the ordinance, Oakland City Administrator Sabrina Landreth told the city council that it was her belief, and City Attorney Barbara Parker's opinion, that the councilmembers were about to "violate" and "erode" the city charter by not allowing the city administrator to have direct control over commission staff.
"The legal advice provided to all of us by the city attorney and by outside counsel, and made public in at least one briefing and posted on the city's website, opines that the enabling ordinance, as written, and before you for final adoption tonight, contains provisions that violate the city charter as it relates to administrative functions," Landreth said.
She then went on to compare the city council's actions to those of the Trump administration, saying that "as we are all living through what is happening at our national level of government, we should tread very carefully and not willfully ignore the rule of law."
Landreth and Parker have both taken the position that the police commission's new inspector general must be under Landreth's direct supervision.
According to a legal analysis prepared by an outside lawyer hired by Parker, "under the Charter, the City Administrator must be the appointing authority for the Inspector General, and will have the ability to discipline and dismiss the person who holds that office."
But activists with the Coalition for Police Accountability, one of the organizations that spearheaded the creation of the new police commission, believe that giving the city administrator this power will undermine the commission's independence.
Activists point out that the city administrator is the police chief's boss, and that in the past, police chiefs have been directly implicated in covering up misconduct by OPD officers — including the sex trafficking scandal of 2016.
Landreth herself was actually the acting police chief for a brief period that year. And the city administrator's office has other duties that may present a conflict of interest when it comes to holding the police department accountable and criticizing its policies and practices, as the commission'greys inspector general will be tasked to do.
The enabling ordinance passed last night places the inspector general under the supervision of the commission — not the city administrator.
If, however, Landreth and Parker are correct that the enabling ordinance violates the city charter, it's unclear what the consequences could be or whether some party will file a lawsuit.
Councilmember Dan Kalb voted for the ordinance last night, despite Landreth's warning. He said that because the ballot measure and ordinance contain a "severability" clause, it's his belief that any provision that might be in violation of the charter could be nullified without throwing the entire commission and its legal underpinnings into disarray.
"In the law, there's always room for disputes and gray areas," said Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan in response to Landreth's comments. "But the will of the voters was for independent oversight."
Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney called the council's actions a "good faith effort" to enact what the voters wanted for the police commission.
Only Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington voted against the ordinance. "Unfortunately, it's not possible for me to vote for something that's in violation of our city's charter," she said.
"The adoption of the enabling legislation reflected the council’s understanding that the intent of the ballot measure was to ensure that the oversight of the police would be under the authority of a citizen body that was independent of the city’s administrative structure, which had failed for decades to rein in the abuses of its police department," said Rashidah Grinage, an activist with the Coalition for Police Accountability.
Oakland Council Ignores Warning from City Administrator and Votes for 'Strong' Police Commission Ordinance
City officials in Oakland have been engaged in a power struggle for months now over the question of who will control key staff of the new police commission created by voters in 2016 through a ballot measure. Last night, the city council voted to finalize an enabling ordinance that puts the issue of who's in charge to rest, for now. But the vote was not without one final and highly unusual display of division.
[Read related: "Oakland Officials Wrestle for Control Over New Police Commission Staff Positions"]
Just before voting on the ordinance, Oakland City Administrator Sabrina Landreth told the city council that it was her belief, and City Attorney Barbara Parker's opinion, that the councilmembers were about to "violate" and "erode" the city charter by not allowing the city administrator to have direct control over commission staff.
"The legal advice provided to all of us by the city attorney and by outside counsel, and made public in at least one briefing and posted on the city's website, opines that the enabling ordinance, as written, and before you for final adoption tonight, contains provisions that violate the city charter as it relates to administrative functions," Landreth said.
She then went on to compare the city council's actions to those of the Trump administration, saying that "as we are all living through what is happening at our national level of government, we should tread very carefully and not willfully ignore the rule of law."
Landreth and Parker have both taken the position that the police commission's new inspector general must be under Landreth's direct supervision.
According to a legal analysis prepared by an outside lawyer hired by Parker, "under the Charter, the City Administrator must be the appointing authority for the Inspector General, and will have the ability to discipline and dismiss the person who holds that office."
But activists with the Coalition for Police Accountability, one of the organizations that spearheaded the creation of the new police commission, believe that giving the city administrator this power will undermine the commission's independence.
Activists point out that the city administrator is the police chief's boss, and that in the past, police chiefs have been directly implicated in covering up misconduct by OPD officers — including the sex trafficking scandal of 2016.
Landreth herself was actually the acting police chief for a brief period that year. And the city administrator's office has other duties that may present a conflict of interest when it comes to holding the police department accountable and criticizing its policies and practices, as the commission'greys inspector general will be tasked to do.
The enabling ordinance passed last night places the inspector general under the supervision of the commission — not the city administrator.
If, however, Landreth and Parker are correct that the enabling ordinance violates the city charter, it's unclear what the consequences could be or whether some party will file a lawsuit.
Councilmember Dan Kalb voted for the ordinance last night, despite Landreth's warning. He said that because the ballot measure and ordinance contain a "severability" clause, it's his belief that any provision that might be in violation of the charter could be nullified without throwing the entire commission and its legal underpinnings into disarray.
"In the law, there's always room for disputes and gray areas," said Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan in response to Landreth's comments. "But the will of the voters was for independent oversight."
Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney called the council's actions a "good faith effort" to enact what the voters wanted for the police commission.
Only Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington voted against the ordinance. "Unfortunately, it's not possible for me to vote for something that's in violation of our city's charter," she said.
"The adoption of the enabling legislation reflected the council’s understanding that the intent of the ballot measure was to ensure that the oversight of the police would be under the authority of a citizen body that was independent of the city’s administrative structure, which had failed for decades to rein in the abuses of its police department," said Rashidah Grinage, an activist with the Coalition for Police Accountability.
169 Oakland Public Ethics Commission PEC No. 16-14 Investigation Summary and Recommendations - Thomas Espinosa (Oakland Code Enforcement)
In the Matter of Thomas Espinosa (PEC No. 16-14); Investigation Summary and
Recommendation
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK071732
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK070736
II. SUMMARY OF LAW
On May 1, 2014, Ms. Siu applied for a building permit, mechanical permit, electrical permit,
On December 24, 2015, Ms. Siu sold 5135 Manila Ave. as a residential duplex.
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK071732
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK070736
CITY OF OAKLAND
Public Ethics Commission
Jonathan Stein, Chair
Jodie Smith, Vice-Chair
Lisa Crowfoot
James E.T. Jackson
Gail Kong
Krisida Nishioka
Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director
1 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION PEC No. 16-14
TO: Public Ethics Commission
FROM: Milad Dalju, Chief of Enforcement
Simon Russell, Investigator
DATE: October 26, 2018
RE: In the Matter of Thomas Espinosa (PEC No. 16-14); Investigation Summary and
Recommendation
I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
In October 2016, Commission Staff opened a pro-active investigation to determine whether
Thomas Espinosa (Respondent), in his capacity as a City building inspector, made governmental decisions in which he had disqualifying financial interests, disclosed confidential City information, misused City resources, misused his City position, and failed to disclose financial interests on his statement of economic interests, in violation of the Oakland Governmental Ethics Act.
The investigation was prompted by concerns that employees of the City Administrator’s
Office and the City’s Planning and Building Department brought to Commission Staff’s
attention.
In July 2018, Commission Staff completed its investigation and found probable cause that
Respondent committed, in his capacity as a City building inspector, 47 violations of the Oakland Government Ethics Act, including the following: soliciting and receiving bribes; making, and seeking to use his official position to influence, governmental decisions in which he had a disqualifying financial interest; misusing City resources for personal financial gain; misusing his City position to induce/coerce others to provide him with economic gain, and; failing to report significant loans and income from individuals with matters before him as a City building inspector.
This report summarizes Commission Staff’s investigation and recommendation to refer this
matter for an administrative hearing. If the Commission finds that Respondent committed each
of the 47 violations described herein, it has the authority to impose on Respondent
administrative penalties totaling up to $1,151,737.
II. SUMMARY OF LAW
All statutory references and discussions of law pertain to the referenced statutes and laws as
they existed at the time of the violations.
2 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
A. Jurisdiction
The Oakland Government Ethics Act was adopted by City Council on December 9, 2014, and it
authorizes the Commission to impose an administrative penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, or
three times the amount the person failed to report properly or unlawfully contributed, expended,
gave or received, whichever is greater, on any person who commits a violation of the Oakland
Government Ethics Act.
1 The enforcement authority established by the Oakland Government
Ethics Act does not apply to violations that occurred prior to December 9, 2014.2
B. Investigation Summary
At the conclusion of an investigation of alleged violations of the Oakland Government Ethics
Act, Commission Staff must prepare a written report that includes a summary of the evidence
gathered and a recommendation of whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation
occurred.
3 Upon review of the written report, the Commission may decide to dismiss, close,
request further investigation, request that Commission Staff seek a settlement, or refer the matter
to an administrative hearing.
4 If the Commission decides to refer the matter to an administrative hearing, it shall decide at that
time whether to sit as a hearing panel or to delegate its authority to gather and hear evidence to
one or more of its members or to an independent hearing examiner.5
C. Economic Interest Disclosure Requirement
Every City of Oakland (City) employee designated in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code is
required to file statements of economic interests and disclose all required information pursuant
to the California Political Reform Act and the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.6
The City’s Conflict of Interest Code incorporates Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)
Regulation 18730 and requires every Specialty Combination Inspector in the City’s Planning
and Building Department (Building Department) to report, on his or her statement of economic
interests, investments and business positions in business entities, sources of income, and
interests in real property.7 The City’s Conflict of Interest Code requires designated employees
file their statement of economic interests with the City Clerk’s Office.8
A Specialty Combination Inspector is required to report by April 1 all reportable investments
and business positions in business entities, sources of income and interests in real property,
held or received during the previous calendar year.9 He or she is also required to report within
1 Oakland Municipal Code (O.M.C.) § 2.25.080(C)(3).
2 O.M.C. § 2.25.020(D).)
3 Commission’s Complaint Procedures § III(C). 4 Commission’s Complaint Procedures § IV(A).
5 Commission’s Complaint Procedures § V(A).
6 O.M.C. § 2.25.040(B).
7 O.M.C. § 3.16.010.
8 O.M.C. § 3.161.020.
9 FPPC Regulation 18730, subds. (b)(5)(C) and (b)(6)(C).
3 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
30 days after leaving office all reportable investments and business positions in business
entities, sources of income and interests in real property, received or held during the period
between the closing date of the last statement filed and the date his or her employment with the
City is terminated.10
Reportable income is any payment received by the Specialty Combination Inspector and
includes loans other than those received from a commercial lending institution.11 The Specialty
Combination Inspector is required to report the name and address of every source of income
aggregating $500 or more in value during the period that is covered by the statement of
economic interests, the amount of income received, and a description of the consideration for
which the income was received.12
A business position must be reported when the filer is a director, officer, partner, trustee, or
employee of, or hold any position of management in, a business entity that has an interest in
real property in the jurisdiction, or does business or plan to do business in the jurisdiction or
has done business in the jurisdiction at any time during the two years prior to the date the
statement is required to be filed.13
D. Conflict of Interest
A City employee may not make, participate in making, or seek to influence a decision of the
City in which the City employee has a disqualifying financial interest.14 A City employee has a
disqualifying financial interest in a governmental decision if the decision will have a
reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on any his or her qualifying financial
interests.15
A City employee makes a governmental decision if he or she authorizes, directs, obligates, or
commits his or her agency to any course of action.16
A City employee attempts to use his or her official position to influence a decision when he or
she contacts or appears before any official in his or her agency for the purpose of affecting the
decision.17
A City employee has a disqualifying financial interest in any individual or business entity from
whom he or she has been provided or promised income aggregating $500 or more within 12
months prior to the time when the relevant government decision is made.18
10 FPPC Regulation 18730(b)(5)(D). 11 Government Code (G.C.) § 82030. 12 G.C. § 87207. 13 G.C. § 87209. 14 O.M.C. § 2.25.040(A); GC 87100. 15 FPPC Regulation 18700(a). 16 FPPC Regulation 18704(a). 17 FPPC Regulation 18704(c)(1). 18 G.C. § 87103(c).
4 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
The financial effect of a decision on a disqualifying financial interest is presumed to be
reasonably foreseeable if the disqualifying financial interest is a named party in, or the subject
of, the decision before the City employee or the City employee’s agency.19
For income received by the official, the reasonably foreseeable financial effect of the decision
on the City employee’s disqualifying financial interest is material if the source of the income is
a claimant, applicant, respondent, contracting party, or is otherwise identified as the subject of
the proceeding.20
E. Bribery
A City employee may not solicit or accept anything of value in exchange for the performance
of any official act.21
F. Using Authority as a City Official to Induce or Coerce a Private Advantage
A City employee may not use his or her position, or the power or authority of his or her
position, in any manner intended to induce or coerce any person to provide any private
advantage, benefit, or economic gain to the City employee or any other person.22
G. Misuse of Public Resources
A City employee may not use public resources for personal purposes.23 Personal purposes
means activities for personal enjoyment, private gain or advantage, or an outside endeavor not
related to City business.24 Public resources means any property or asset owned by the City,
including, but not limited to, land, buildings, facilities, funds, equipment, supplies, telephones,
computers, vehicles, travel, and City compensated time.25 Use means a use of public resources
which is substantial enough to result in a gain or advantage to the user or a loss to the City for
which a monetary value may be estimated.26
III. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Respondent was a City employee from May 23, 2005, until August 16, 2016. At all relevant
times, Respondent was a Specialty Combination Inspector in the Building Department’s Code
Enforcement Division.
Respondent filed Annual Statements of Economic Interests with the City Clerk’s Office for
2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. To date, Respondent has not filed an Annual Statement of
19 FPPC Regulation 18701. 20 FPPC Regulation 18702.3(a)(1). 21 O.M.C. § 2.25.070. 22 O.M.C. § 2.25.060(A)(2). 23 O.M.C. § 2.25.060(A)(1). 24 O.M.C. § 2.25.060(A)(1)(a)(i). 25 O.M.C. § 2.25.060(A)(1)(a)(iii). 26 O.M.C. § 2.25.060(A)(1)(a)(iv).
5
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Economic Interests for 2015, or a Leaving Office Statement of Economic Interests for the
January 1 through August 16, 2016, period, with the City Clerk’s Office.
Income from Elizabeth Williams Elizabeth Williams owned, at all relevant times, approximately 15 residential rental properties in Oakland.
In 2009, the City and Ms. Williams entered into a stipulated final judgment and permanent
injunction that prohibited Ms. Williams and her agents from maintaining any of her properties
in substandard, dangerous, uninhabitable, unhealthy, or unsanitary condition, and failing to
correct code violations in a timely manner when directed to make repairs by City code
compliance inspectors. Respondent, in his official capacity, was assigned to inspect Ms.
Williams’ residential properties in Oakland and determine whether they were in compliance
with the stipulated final judgement and permanent injunction. By 2015, Respondent was no
longer assigned to the stipulated final judgment and permanent injunction between the City and Ms. Williams.
Between June 26 and September 18, 2015, Respondent received checks totaling $100,000 from
Ms. Williams and deposited each check into his personal bank account. According to Ms.
Williams, the $100,000 was a loan to Respondent and she and Respondent agreed that
Respondent would repay the loan to Ms. Williams and pay her $30,000 as consideration for the
loan. To date, Respondent has not repaid any part of the loan or the agreed upon consideration,
and Ms. Williams has not attempted to recover any part of the loan or the agreed upon
consideration.
In 2015, Respondent also received payments from Ms. Williams totaling $76,179 for
contracting work and consulting he performed for her in his personal capacity, as follows:
On March 3, 2016, Respondent received a payment of $850 from Ms. Williams for contracting
work and/or consulting he performed for her in his personal capacity.
Respondent has not, to date, reported receiving any income from Ms. Williams in 2015 or
2016. (Counts 1 and 2.)
Elizabeth Williams and 915 24th Street
915 24th Street was, at all relevant times, part of a four-plex that included 907, 909, and 911
24th Street, located in the Oakland and owned by Ms. Williams.
Date Received Amount Date Received Amount
September 24, 2015 $12,000 November 27, 2015 $7,840
October 16, 2015 $11,570 December 4, 2015 $6,365
November 6, 2015 $6,108 December 10, 2015 $6,264
November 13, 2015 $6,000 December 18, 2015 $6,404
November 20, 2015 $5,763 December 28, 2015 $7,865
6
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
On September 20, 2013, a City building inspector verified building code violations at 915 24th
Street and in response opened a code enforcement case against Ms. Williams.
In 2014, a City building inspector met several times with Ms. Williams’ agents regarding her
attempts to bring 915 24th Street into compliance with the building code and found that Ms.
Williams needed to apply for the appropriate permits for the work she was doing at 915 24th
Street.
Between June 26 and September 24, 2015, Respondent received payments totaling $112,000
from Ms. Williams, as described above.
On October 1, 2015, Respondent, in his official capacity as a City building inspector, closed the
code enforcement case against Ms. Williams for 915 24th Street. (Count 3.)
Elizabeth Williams and 857 Mead Avenue
857 Mead Ave. was, at all relevant times, a duplex in Oakland and owned by Ms. Williams. On
December 9, 2014, Respondent inspected the property and issued a “stop-work order” for
unapproved remodeling throughout the house on the property. He noted in City records that
Ms. Williams needed to also supply records and permits for a second building in the back of
857 Mead Ave.
On December 10, 2014, Ms. Williams applied for a building permit to remodel the kitchen and
bathroom of Unit B at 857 Mead Ave. In response to her application, Respondent completed,
signed, and submitted a Code Enforcement Routing Slip with Ms. Williams’ application that
waived the requirement that building code violation fees be applied to Ms. Williams’
application, that waived the requirement that a field check be conducted to confirm facts stated
in Ms. Williams’ application, and that the permit could be approved over-the-counter.
On December 12, 2014, a City building inspector conducted a field check in response Ms.
Williams’ application for a building permit and rejected her application because the work was
beyond the scope of the application.
On June 24, 2015, Ms. Williams submitted an application to expand the scope of the building
permit she applied for on December 10, 2014, to include a new electric subpanel, construction
of partition walls to enclose a water heater in the kitchen, converting the living room into a new
bedroom with a closet, and remodeling of the kitchen and bathroom in Unit A. On the same
day, the Building Department issued her a building permit, electrical permit, and plumbing
permit.
Between June 26 and December 28, 2015, Respondent received payment from Ms. Williams
totaling $176,179, as described above. During that entire period Respondent was still assigned,
in his official capacity as a City building inspector, to the code enforcement case against Ms.
Williams that he initiated on December 12, 2014.
7 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
On September 21, 2015, Respondent met, on behalf of Ms. Williams, with a PG&E
Engineering Estimator at 857 Mead Ave. to discuss electric and gas service installation at 857
Mead Ave.
On October 21, 2015, a City building inspector conducted the final inspection for the electrical
permit, issued a “no pass,” and noted eight issues that had to be addressed before the electrical
permit could be finalized.
On October 22, 2015, Ms. Williams applied for an electrical permit for a service upgrade to
857 Mead Ave.
On October 27, 2015, Ms. Williams filed a Letter of Agency for Property Owners with the
Building Department that authorized Respondent to act as her agent/representative in obtaining permits for 857 Mead Ave., 2735 Market Street, 877/879 27th Street, and other properties she owned in Oakland.
On October 29, 2015, a City building inspector conducted another inspection on the electrical
permit that Ms. Williams applied for on June 24, 2015, issued a “no pass,” and noted four
issues that would have to be addressed before the electrical permit could be finalized. No
further inspections were conducted on that electrical permit and it expired on December 23,
2015.27
On October 30, 2015, a City building inspector conducted an inspection on the electrical permit
that Ms. Williams applied for on October 22, 2015, issued a “no pass,” and noted three issues
that had to be addressed before the electrical permit could be finalized.
On November 25, 2015, Respondent billed Ms. Williams for electrical work he did for her at
857 Mead Ave.
On December 8, 2015, Ms. Williams and Respondent discussed her outstanding electrical
permit.
On December 10, 2015, a City building inspector performed another inspection on the
electrical permit that Ms. Williams applied for on October 22, 2015, again issued a “no pass,”
and noted six issues that had to be addressed before the electrical permit could be finalized.
On December 14, 2015, Ms. Williams again discussed with Respondent her concerns regarding
the electrical permit that had failed inspection twice.
On January 12, 2016, Ms. Williams again discussed with Respondent her concerns regarding
the electrical permit that had failed inspection twice. In response, Respondent told her that he
would talk to Anthony Harbaugh about it. Mr. Harbaugh is and was, at all relevant times, a City building inspector.
27 Permits are “issued” as soon as the applicant submits all the required paperwork, including the application, and pays all the associated fees. Then inspections are conducted and the permit is “finalized” after a property passes a “frame” inspection and a “final” inspection.
8INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
On January 13, 2016, Mr. Harbaugh conducted a final inspection for the electrical permit,
issued it a “pass,” and attached Green Tags on the electrical meters at 857 Mead Ave.
On January 22, 2016, Respondent solicited $300 from Ms. Williams for the final inspection and
the issuance of the Green Tags on the electrical meters at 857 Mead Ave. that took place on
January 13, 2016. (Count 4.)
On March 1, 2016, Respondent submitted an application to the Building Department for an
electrical permit for 857 Mead Ave. on behalf Ms. Williams. (Count 5.) This application
eventually expired without the permit being finalized.
Also on March 1, 2016, Respondent submitted an application to the Building Department for a
plumbing permit for 857 Mead Ave. on behalf Ms. Williams. (Count 6.) This application
eventually expired without the permit being finalized.
Elizabeth Williams and 2735 Market Street
2735 Market Street was, at all relevant times, a complex of residential buildings in Oakland and
owned by Ms. Williams.
On July 8, 2014, a City building inspector issued a “stop-work order” on 2735 Market Street
for remodeling being done without the required plumbing, electrical, and building permits. The
following day, the Building Department opened an enforcement case against Ms. Williams for
the unpermitted work at 2735 Market Street.
On July 16, 2014, Ms. Williams applied for a building permit for the remodeling being done at
2735 Market Street.
On August 4, 2014, a City building inspector conducted an inspection of 2735 Market Street,
and concluded that there was a life safety issue that required Ms. Williams to remove sheet
rock from the walls and ceiling, that she needed to apply for electrical, plumbing, and
mechanical permits for the work being done, and that the building permit that Ms. Williams
applied for on July 16, 2014, needed to be broadened.
On August 6, August 8, and September 18, October 14, 2014, January 20, February 20, March
20, March 30, May 7, June 8, July 8, August 7, and September 17, 2015, City building
inspectors inspected 2735 Market Street and each time concluded that it was still in violation of
the building code. During this time, the building permit that Ms. Williams applied for on July
16, 2014, expired without being finalized.
Between June 26 and September 18, 2015, Respondent received $100,000 from Ms. Williams,
as described above.
28 Green Tags are placed on new electrical meters by City building inspectors only after an electrical permit for a new meter has been finalized by the Building Department. PG&E will not release electricity to a new electrical meter on a property in Oakland until a PG&E technician has personally verified that the Building Department has placed a Green Tag on the new electrical meter.
9
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
On September 22, 2015, Ms. Williams applied for a building permit to remodel 2735 Market
Street. On the same day, Respondent completed, signed, and submitted a Code Enforcement
Routing Slip for Ms. Williams’ application that waived the requirement that Ms. Williams
submit an architectural plan approved by the City’s Zoning Department, confirmed that the
monetary valuation on Ms. William’s application was correct, allowed Ms. Williams’ permit to
be issued over-the-counter, and waived the requirement that Ms. Williams submit photos of the
proposed project with her application. (Count 7.)
On October 15, 2015, a City building inspector conducted an inspection of 2735 Market Street
for the building permit that Ms. Williams applied for on September 22, 2015, and found that an
inspection could not be conducted because the remodeling had already been done and covered
up with sheet rock. The City building inspector issued Ms. Williams a correction notice that
required her to remove the sheet rock on the walls and the ceiling so that he could properly
inspect the work.
On October 22, 2015, Ms. Williams applied for an electrical and a plumbing permit for 2735
Market Street.
On October 27, 2015, Respondent submitted a Letter of Agency for Property Owners form to
the Building Department that gave him the authority to act as Ms. Williams’ agent in regards to any permits for 2735 Market Street. On the same day, Building Department issued Ms.
Williams the electrical, building, and plumbing permits for 2735 Market Street. (Counts 8, 9,
and 10.)
On November 4, 2015, Mr. Harbaugh conducted inspections on the building, electrical, and
plumbing permits, passed each, and scheduled himself to conduct the final inspection for each
permit.
On November 5, 2015, Respondent solicited $300 from Ms. Williams for passing the three
inspections at 2735 Market Street. (Count 11.)
On November 20, 2015, Mr. Harbaugh conducted the final inspection for Ms. Williams’
building, electric, and plumbing permits, gave each a pass, and finalized each.
Elizabeth Williams and 877/879 27th Street
877/879 27th Street was, at all relevant times, a duplex in Oakland and owned by Ms. Williams.
Between June 26 and September 18, 2015, Respondent received $100,000 from Ms. Williams,
as described above.
On November 10, 2015, Respondent, acting as an agent for Ms. Williams, applied to the
Building Department for a building permit, an electrical permit, a mechanical permit, and a
plumbing permit, for kitchen and bathroom remodels to 877 27th Street. (Counts 12, 13, 14, and
15.)
10
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
On November 23, 2015, a City building inspector conducted a rough inspection for the
electrical and plumbing permits that Respondent applied for and did not pass either.
On December 11, 2015, Mr. Harbaugh, in his official capacity as a City building inspector,
conducted inspections for the building, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits that
Respondent applied for on behalf of Ms. Williams, and issued a pass for each.
On December 16, 2015, Mr. Harbaugh again conducted inspections for the building,
mechanical, electrical, and pluming permits that Respondent applied for on behalf of Ms.
Williams, and again issued a pass for each.
On March 1, 2016, Respondent solicited $300 from Ms. Williams for the building, mechanical,
electrical, and pluming permits for 877/879 27th Street passing rough inspection on December
11, 2015. (Count 16.)
Also on March 1, 2016, Respondent solicited $300 from Ms. Williams for the building,
mechanical, electrical, and pluming permits passing final inspection on December 16, 2015.
(Count 17.)
On March 14, 2016, Respondent, on behalf of Ms. Williams, submitted applications for a
building permit, electrical permit, and plumbing permit, to remodel the kitchen and bathroom
of 879 27th Street. (Counts 18, 19, and 20.)
Bill Charman and 4163 Rifle Lane
4163 Rifle Lane was, at all relevant times, a single-family home in Oakland. On November 14,
2013, and again on January 21, 2014, Respondent conducted an inspection of 4163 Rifle Lane,
verified building code violations at 4163 Rifle Lane, and opened an enforcement case for
building code violations at 4163 Rifle Lane.
On October 29, 2015, 4163 Rifle Lane was listed for sale, and Gimme Shelter, Inc., was, at all
relevant times, the brokerage representing the owner of 4163 Rifle Lane. On February 1, 2016,
a potential buyer entered into escrow for 4163 Rifle Lane. On the same day, the potential buyer
called Respondent to inquire about the enforcement case related to 4163 Rifle Lane. On
February 2, 2016, Respondent conducted a follow-up inspection of 4163 Rifle Lane and
warned the potential buyer of significant potential fines as a result of unpermitted work on the
property and the potential of having to conduct major inspections that would possibly require
opening up the walls of the building. In response to Respondent’s warning, the potential buyer
retracted his offer for 4163 Rifle Lane.
On February 8 and 9, 2016, Bill Charman, in his capacity as a broker at Gimme Shelter, Inc.,
representing the owner of 4163 Rifle Lane, and Respondent discussed the outstanding building
code violations at 4163 Rifle Lane over the phone and via email. Mr. Charman, at
Respondents’ request, agreed to meet Respondent outside Oakland City Hall to further discuss
the outstanding code violations at 4163 Rifle Lane.
11
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
On February 9, 2016, Mr. Charman and Respondent met outside Oakland City Hall. During
their meeting, Respondent told Mr. Charman that Mr. Charman would need to pay $1,500 for
the inspections needed to resolve the outstanding permit issues for 4163 Rifle Lane. Mr.
Charman agreed to pay the $1,500, and Respondent directed him to make the payment to
Respondent personally, rather than to the City. In response, Mr. Charman issued Respondent a
$1,500 check, which Respondent deposited into his personal bank account on the same day.
(Count 21.)
After the meeting and on the same day, Mr. Charman applied, on behalf of the owner of 4163
Rifle Lane, for building, electrical, and plumbing permits for 4163 Rifle Lane. Respondent
completed, signed, and submitted a Code Enforcement Routing Slip for Mr. Charman’s
application that waived the building code violation fees, verified that the unpermitted work had
not commenced, waived the requirement that a field check be conducted, and allowed the
permit to be approved over-the-counter. The Building Department issued Mr. Charman the
permits without submission of architectural plans for the projects, without conducting a field
check, and without collecting fees for the outstanding building code violations, due to
Respondent’s decision to waive each of those requirements.
Due to Respondent’s decision to waive the fees for to the building code violations, Mr.
Charman was only required to pay the regular fees for the three permits, totaling $1,099.09,
which he paid to the City on February 9, 2016, as part of his application for the three permits.
On February 10, 2016, Respondent scheduled himself to inspect 4163 Rifle Lane regarding the
outstanding building code violations. Two minutes later, Respondent changed the status of the
outstanding building code violations to “abated,” even though he never conducted an inspection
of 4163 Rifle Lane and the permits regarding the unpermitted addition to 4163 Rifle Lane had
not been finalized by the Building Department.
Also on February 10, 2016, Respondent asked Mr. Harbaugh to finalize the building, electrical,
and plumbing permits that Mr. Charman applied for the day before. (Counts 22, 23, and 24.) In
response, Mr. Harbaugh scheduled himself to conduct the frame inspections on the same day
and the final inspections on February 16, 2016, and signed off on the frame inspections and the
final inspections without actually conducting any inspections.
On February 24, 2016, a new buyer went into escrow to buy 4163 Rifle Lane, and on March 25,
2016, the title passed to a new owner.
Respondent has not, to date, reported receiving $1,500 from Mr. Charman. (Count 25.)
Alexandre Machado and 6220 Valley View
In October 2015, Alexandre Machado purchased 6220 Valley View Road, a single-family
home in Oakland, as an investment. His intention was to remodel it and sell it.
On November 12, 2015, Mr. Machado applied for, and was issued, a building permit for rot
repair at 6220 Valley View Road.
12
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
On January 20, 2016, a City building inspector found that the work being done at 6220 Valley
View Road was outside the scope of the building permit issued to Mr. Machado and opened an
enforcement case against him.
On February 27, 2016, Respondent received $1,700 from Mr. Machado.
On February 29, 2016, Mr. Harbaugh conducted an inspection of 6220 Valley View Road and
finalized Mr. Machado’s building permit.
On March 1, 2016, Mr. Machado applied for a building permit to replace the roof at 6220
Valley View Road.
On March 13, 2016, Respondent received $200 from Mr. Machado.
On March 31, 2016, Respondent posted an official “stop-work order” from the Building
Department on 6220 Valley View Road that stated that Mr. Machado was required to stop all
work being done to 6220 Valley View Road until the work was approved by Respondent.
(Count 27.) Respondent did not follow any of the policies and procedures of the Building
Department in issuing the “stop-work order,” and never recorded issuing the “stop-work order” into the Building Department’s records. Respondent used the “stop-work order” to coerce Mr. Machado into providing Respondent with more payments. (Count 28.)
On April 11, April 13, and April 27, 2016, Respondent received $1,000, $4,500, and $5,000,
respectively, from Mr. Machado.
On May 10, 2016, Mr. Machado applied for a building permit to legalize 1322 square feet on
the lower floor, remodel the upper floor, and abate the building code violation that the City
verified on January 20, 2016.
On May 13, 2016, Mr. Harbaugh conducted a field check and finalized the building permit Mr.
Machado applied for on May 10, 2016.
On May 20, 2016, Respondent received $450 from Mr. Machado.
Respondent has not, to date, reported receiving $12,850 from Mr. Machado. (Count 26.)
Vivian Tang and 8925 Lawlor Street
8925 Lawlor Street was, at all relevant times, owned by Vivian Tang and located in Oakland.
On February 14, 2014, Respondent verified building code violations at 8925 Lawlor Street,
issued a “stop-work order” for unpermitted conversions of the basement and the attic, and
opened an enforcement case against Ms. Tang.
On December 10, 2014, Ms. Tang applied for building, electrical, and plumbing permits to
return the attic to its original use to abate the building code violations. Respondent reviewed
13
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Ms. Tang’s permit applications and waived the required approval from the Zoning Department
and the required field check to issue the permits.
On January 15, 2015, Ms. Tang hired Respondent to convert the attic and basement of 8925
Lawlor Street for $21,500.
On January 21, 2015, Respondent passed inspections for Ms. Tang’s building, electrical, and
plumbing permits, and closed the enforcement case against her. (Counts 30, 31, 32, and 33.)
On January 22, 2015, Ms. Tang applied for building, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
permits to convert the basement of 8925 Lawlor Street.
On January 29, 2015, Respondent received $10,000 from Ms. Tang pursuant to their
agreement. On February 6, 2015, Respondent received the remaining $11,500 from Ms. Tang
pursuant to their agreement.
On February 19, 2015, Respondent passed inspections for Ms. Tang’s building, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing permits. (Counts 34, 35, 36, and 37.)
On April 28, 2015, a City building inspector finalized Ms. Tang’s building, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing permits.
On May 20, 2015, Respondent received an additional $3,100 from Ms. Tang for work he did, in
his personal capacity, at 8925 Lawlor Street.
Respondent has not, to date, reported receiving $24,600 from Ms. Tang. (Count 29.)
Ana Siu and 5135 Manila Avenue
5135 Manila Ave. was, at all relevant times, a single-family home in Oakland. On August 13,
2013, Ana Siu bought 5135 Manila Ave.
On December 11, 2013, a City building inspector opened an enforcement case against Ms. Siu
for building code violations at 5135 Manila Ave.
On December 24, 2013, Ms. Siu applied for a building permit for 5135 Manila Ave.
On February 21, 2014, Respondent issued a “stop-work order” on 5135 Manila Ave.
On May 1, 2014, Ms. Siu applied for a building permit, mechanical permit, electrical permit,
plumbing permit, and obstruction permit, to convert and remodel 5135 Manila Ave.
On May 16, 2014, May 24, 2014, January 16, 2015, and January 26, 2015, Respondent
inspected 5135 Manila Ave. for the enforcement case against Ms. Siu and Ms. Siu’s permits.
14
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Between February 12 and April 30, 2015, Respondent received payments totaling $66,277 from
Ms. Siu for real estate services and general contracting work at 5135 Manila Ave. and another
property Ms. Siu owned.
In March and April 2015, City building inspectors inspected 5135 Manila Ave. for the
enforcement case and Ms. Siu’s permits.
Between October 21 and October 28, 2015, City building inspectors inspected 5135 Manila
Ave. for the permits Ms. Siu had applied for and finalized each of the permits.
On December 24, 2015, Ms. Siu sold 5135 Manila Ave. as a residential duplex.
Respondent has not, to date, reported receiving $66,277 from Ms. Sui. (Count 38.)
Income from One Development and Investment Corporation
One Development and Investment Corporation (ODIC) was, at all relevant times, a corporation
conducting real estate business in Oakland through Ms. Siu, its owner, and Respondent, its
president.
Between May 27 and June 25, 2015, Respondent received income totaling $19,770 from ODIC
for real estate and general contracting work.
Respondent has not, to date, reported receiving $19,770 from ODIC or that he was its president
in 2015. (Counts 39 and 40.)
Other Reportable Sources of Income
On March 15, 2015, Respondent received $1,000 from Pat Viswanathan, a person doing
business in Oakland, for consulting services. Respondent has not, to date, reported Mr.
Viswanathan as a source of income. (Count 41.)
On April 3, 2015, Respondent received $3,000 from Apex Construction, a business entity doing
business in Oakland, for consulting services. Respondent has not, to date, reported Apex
Construction as a source of income. (Count 42.)
On April 8, 2015, Respondent received $3,000 from Zati Uysal, a person doing business in
Oakland, for consulting services. Respondent has not, to date, reported Mr. Uysal as a source of
income. (Count 43.)
On August 15, 2016, Respondent received $3,500 from Jerry Tran, a person doing business in
Oakland, for consulting services. Respondent has not, to date, reported Mr. Tran as a source of
income. (Count 44.)
15
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Misuse of Public Resources
On several occasions in June and July of 2015, Respondent drove a City-owned vehicle to
Orinda to conduct personal business. (Count 45.)
In July and August 2015, Respondent used a City-owned computer and a City-owned printer to
print hundreds of pages of personal materials. (Count 46.)
In October 2015, Respondent, while on vacation, used a City-owned cell phone to make
personal phone calls totaling 587 minutes. (Count 47.)
IV. VIOLATIONS
Based on the aforementioned evidence, there is probable cause that Respondent committed the
following violations of the Oakland Government Ethics Act.
Count 1: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report the Source of Income
Respondent was a Specialty Combination Inspector in the Building Department in 2015, and as
such was required to report all sources from whom he received income, including loans other
than those received from a commercial lending institution, totaling $500 or more during the
January 1 through December 31, 2015, period, by April 1, 2016.
In 2015, Respondent received income totaling $176,179 from Ms. Williams, a person doing
business in Oakland. Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by failing to report Ms. Williams as a source of income by April 1, 2016.
Count 2: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report the Source of Income
Respondent was a Specialty Combination Inspector in the Building Department until August
16, 2016, and as such was required to report all sources from whom he received income
totaling $500 or more during the January 1 through August 16, 2016, period, by September 15,
2016.
On March 3, 2016, Respondent received income totaling $850 from Ms. Williams. Respondent
violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to report Ms.
Williams as a source of income by September 15, 2016.
Count 3: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
As a City employee, Respondent was prohibited from making, participating in making, or
attempting to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he had a
disqualifying financial interest.
16
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
An official has a disqualifying financial interest in any governmental decision that involves an
individual from whom the official was promised or provided income totaling $500 or more
within 12 months prior to the time when the governmental decision is made.
On October 1, 2015, Respondent had a disqualifying financial interest in any governmental
decision involving Ms. Williams because he had received income totaling $112,000 from her
within the prior 12 months. On October 1, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of
the Oakland Government Ethics Act by closing a code enforcement case against Ms. Williams
for 915 24th Street.
Count 4: Bribery Violation: Soliciting Money in Exchange for Performance of an Official Act
As a City employee, Respondent was prohibited from soliciting or accepting anything of value
in exchange for the performance of any official act.
On January 22, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.070(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by soliciting $300 from Ms. Williams in exchange for the Building Department
passing inspections for her permits, and issuing Green Tags, for 857 Mead Avenue.
Count 5: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
A City employee attempts to use his or her official position to influence a decision when he or
she contacts or appears before any official in his or her agency for the purpose of affecting the
decision.
On March 1, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by submitted an application to the Building Department on behalf of Ms. Williams.
for an electrical permit for 857 Mead Ave.
Count 6: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On March 1, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by submitted an application to the Building Department on behalf of Ms. Williams.
for a plumbing permit for 857 Mead Ave.
Count 7: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On September 22, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by waiving the requirement that Elizabeth Williams submit an architectural plan
approved by the City’s Zoning Department with her building permit application for 2735
Market Street, confirming that the monetary valuation on her building permit application was
correct, allowing her building permit to be issued over-the-counter, and waiving the
17
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
requirement that she submit photos of the proposed project with her building permit
application.
Count 8: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On October 27, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) by attempting to use his
official position to influence the Building Department’s decision to issue Ms. Williams an
electrical permit for 2735 Market Street.
Count 9: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On October 27, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) by attempting to use his
official position to influence the Building Department’s decision to issue Ms. Williams a
building permit for 2735 Market Street.
Count 10: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On October 27, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) by attempting to use his
official position to influence the Building Department’s decision to issue Ms. Williams a
plumbing permit for 2735 Market Street.
Count 11: Bribery Violation: Soliciting Money in Exchange for Performance of an Official Act
On November 5, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.070(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by soliciting $300 from Ms. Williams in exchange for her permits for 2735 Market
Street passing inspections.
Count 12: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On November 10, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Ms. Williams a building permit for 877/879 27th Street.
Count 13: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On November 10, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Ms. Williams an electrical permit for 877/879 27th Street.
18
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Count 14: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On November 10, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Ms. Williams a mechanical permit for 877/879 27th Street.
Count 15: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On November 10, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Ms. Williams a plumbing permit for 877/879 27th Street.
Count 16: Bribery Violation: Soliciting Money in Exchange for Performance of an Official Act
On March 1, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.070(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by solicited $300 from Ms. Williams in exchange for building, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing permits for 877/879 27th Street passing rough inspections.
Count 17: Bribery Violation: Soliciting Money in Exchange for Performance of an Official Act
On March 1, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.070(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics by solicited $300 from Ms. Williams in exchange for building, mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing permits for 877/879 27th Street passing final inspections.
Count 18: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On March 14, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Ms. Williams a building permit for 877/879 27th Street.
Count 19: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On March 14, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Ms. Williams an electrical permit for 877/879 27th Street.
Count 20: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On March 14, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Ms. Williams a plumbing permit for 877/879 27th Street.
19
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Count 21: Bribery Violation: Soliciting Money in Exchange for Performance of an Official Act
On February 9, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.070(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by soliciting and accepting $1,500 from Bill Charman in exchange for resolving
outstanding permit issues for 4163 Rifle Lane.
Count 22: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On February 9, 2016, Respondent violated of Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Mr. Charman a building permit for 4163 Rifle Lane.
Count 23: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On February 9, 2016, Respondent violated of Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Mr. Charman electrical permit for 4163 Rifle Lane.
Count 24: Conflict of Interest Violation: Attempting to Influence a Governmental Decision
Involving a Source of Income
On February 9, 2016, Respondent violated of Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by attempting to use his official position to influence the Building Department’s
decision to issue Mr. Charman a plumbing permit for 4163 Rifle Lane.
Count 25: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
On February 9, 2016, Respondent received income totaling $1,500 from Mr. Charman and was
therefore was required to report him as a source of income by September 15, 2016.
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report Mr. Charman as a source of income by September 15, 2016.
Count 26: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
Between February 27 and May 20, 2016, Respondent received income totaling $12,850 from
Alex Machado, who was doing business in Oakland.
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report Mr. Machado as a source of income by September 15, 2016.
20
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Count 27: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On March 31, 2016, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by issuing a “work-stop order” on 6220 Valley View, a property owned and being
remodeled by Mr. Machado.
Count 28: Misuse of City Authority: Using One’s City Authority to Induce or Coerce a Person
to Provide an Economic Gain
On March 31, 2016, Respondent issued a “work-stop order” on 6220 Valley View, a property
owned and being remodeled by Mr. Machado, for the purpose of inducing or coercing Mr.
Machado into providing Respondent with payments.
By attempting to use his authority as a City official to induce or coerce a person to provide him
with an economic gain, Respondent violated Section 2.25.060(A)(2) of the Oakland
Government Ethics Act.
Count 29: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
Between January 29 and May 20, 2015, Respondent received income totaling $24,600 from
Vivian Tang, a person doing business in Oakland.
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report Ms. Tang as a source of income by April 1, 2016,
Count 30: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On January 21, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by closing a code enforcement case against Ms. Tang for 8925 Lawlor Street.
Count 31: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On January 21, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by passing an inspection for Ms. Tang’s building permit for 8925 Lawlor Street.
Count 32: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On January 21, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by passing an inspection for Ms. Tang’s electrical permit for 8925 Lawlor Street.
21
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Count 33: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On January 21, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by passing an inspection for Ms. Tang’s plumbing permit for 8925 Lawlor Street.
Count 34: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On February 19, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by passing an another inspection for Ms. Tang’s building permit for 8925 Lawlor
Street.
Count 35: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On February 19, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by passing another inspection for Ms. Tang’s electrical permit for 8925 Lawlor
Street.
Count 36: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On February 19, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by passing another inspection for Ms. Tang’s plumbing permit for 8925 Lawlor
Street.
Count 37: Conflict of Interest Violation: Making a Governmental Decision Involving a Source
of Income
On February 19, 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government
Ethics Act by passing inspection for Ms. Tang’s mechanical permit for 8925 Lawlor Street.
Count 38: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
In 2015, Respondent received income totaling $66,277 from Ana Siu, a person doing business
in Oakland.
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report Ms. Siu as a source of income by April 1, 2016.
Count 39: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
In 2015, Respondent received income totaling $19,770 from One Development and Investment
Corporation, a business entity doing business in Oakland.
22
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report One Development and Investment Corporation as a source of income by April 1, 2016.
Count 40: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Business Position
In 2015, Respondent was the president of One Development and Investment Corporation, a
business entity doing business in Oakland.
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report his business position with One Development and Investment Corporation by April 1,
2016.
Count 41: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
On August 15, 2016, Respondent received income totaling $3,500 from Jerry Tran, a person
doing business in Oakland.
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report Mr. Tran as a source of income by September 15, 2016.
Count 42: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
On March 15, 2015, Respondent received income totaling $1,000 from Pat Viswanathan, a
person doing business in Oakland. Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland
Government Ethics Act by failing to report Mr. Viswanathan as a source of income by
September 15, 2016.
Count 43: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
On April 8, 2015, Respondent received income totaling $3,000 from Zati Uysal, a person doing
business in Oakland.
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report Mr. Uysal as a source of income by April 1, 2016.
Count 44: Economic Interest Disclosure Violation: Failing to Report a Source of Income
On April 3, 2015, Respondent received income totaling $3,000 from Apex Construction, a
business entity doing business in Oakland.
Respondent violated Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act by failing to
report Apex Construction as a source of income by April 1, 2016.
23
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
PEC No. 16-14
Count 45: Misuse of Public Resources Violation: Using City Resources for Personal Matters
In 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.060(A)(1) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act
by using a City-owned vehicle for personal matters unrelated to any City business.
Count 46: Misuse of Public Resources Violation: Using City Resources for Personal Matters
In 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.060(A)(1) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act
by using a City-owned computer and printer for personal matters unrelated to any City
business.
Count 47: Misuse of Public Resources Violation: Using City Resources for Personal Matters
In 2015, Respondent violated Section 2.25.060(A)(1) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act
by using a City-owned cell phone for personal matters unrelated to any City business.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Because there is probable cause that Respondent committed 47 violations of the Oakland
Government Ethics Act, as described above, Commission Staff recommends that the
Commission refer this matter for an administrative hearing. If the Commission decides to refer
this matter for an administrative hearing, Commission Staff recommends that the administrative
hearing be held before a panel of three members of the Commission.
168 City of Oakland Code Enforcement Rich Fielding is under investigation for improperly shutting down electricity at 1919 Market Street
Oakland Ethics Commission votes to continue, rather than to close, an investigation into the planning and building department involving Rich Fielding, who was accused of improperly having a building's electricity shut off
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/11/06/corruption-probe-into-oaklands-code-enforcement-inspectors-widens
Corruption Probe Into Oakland's Code Enforcement Inspectors Widens
At least two building code inspectors are under investigation for bribery and corruption, and outside law enforcement agencies have opened cases.
Earlier in the meeting, the ethics commission voted to continue, rather than close, a similar investigation into the planning and building department involving another code inspector who was accused of improperly having a building's electricity shut off.
The building, a live-work warehouse located at 1919 Market Street, was inspected by code enforcement officers starting in April 2015 and city staff eventually decided the building was unsafe for habitation, so in November 2015 they sent a packet of information that included a copy of letter addressed to PG&E calling the property "unoccupied, and an attractive nuisance," and asking that utilities be shut off.
Joy Newhart, who lived in the building, filed a complaint with the ethics commission, alleging that the inspector, Rich Fielding, misused city resources to help the landlord, Danny Haber, remove about 100 tenants and empty the property. She alleged that the city's request to PG&E to have the electricity shut off was illegal.
On Jan. 29, 2016, the city red-tagged the building, which was empty by then, and it was later demolished.
Ethics commission investigators said that they could find no violation of the city's laws because Fielding never actually sent the letter to PG&E. Rather, it was standard department practice for code enforcement to draft a letter to PG&E and send it to the landlord.
Several commissioners said this practice was disturbing, even if it was department policy. They asked that the matter be investigated further for other potential violations and voted to keep the probe open.
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/11/06/corruption-probe-into-oaklands-code-enforcement-inspectors-widens
Corruption Probe Into Oakland's Code Enforcement Inspectors Widens
At least two building code inspectors are under investigation for bribery and corruption, and outside law enforcement agencies have opened cases.
The building, a live-work warehouse located at 1919 Market Street, was inspected by code enforcement officers starting in April 2015 and city staff eventually decided the building was unsafe for habitation, so in November 2015 they sent a packet of information that included a copy of letter addressed to PG&E calling the property "unoccupied, and an attractive nuisance," and asking that utilities be shut off.
Joy Newhart, who lived in the building, filed a complaint with the ethics commission, alleging that the inspector, Rich Fielding, misused city resources to help the landlord, Danny Haber, remove about 100 tenants and empty the property. She alleged that the city's request to PG&E to have the electricity shut off was illegal.
On Jan. 29, 2016, the city red-tagged the building, which was empty by then, and it was later demolished.
Ethics commission investigators said that they could find no violation of the city's laws because Fielding never actually sent the letter to PG&E. Rather, it was standard department practice for code enforcement to draft a letter to PG&E and send it to the landlord.
Several commissioners said this practice was disturbing, even if it was department policy. They asked that the matter be investigated further for other potential violations and voted to keep the probe open.
167 City of Oakland Code Enforcement Bribery and Corruption Probe widens: Thomas Espinosa and now Anthony Harbaugh
Corruption Probe Into Oakland's Code Enforcement Inspectors Widens
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/11/06/corruption-probe-into-oaklands-code-enforcement-inspectors-widens
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK071732
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK070736
At least two building code inspectors are under investigation for bribery and corruption, and outside law enforcement agencies have opened cases.
Public Ethics Commission Deputy Director Milad Dalju said that outside law enforcement agencies are investigating corruption in Oakland's planning and building department.
The Oakland Public Ethics Commission has broadened the scope of its investigations into allegations of corruption by building code enforcement officers.
In addition, outside law enforcement agencies, including the Alameda County District Attorney, are examining bribery and other potential crimes committed by building inspectors.
The news that Oakland's Planning and Building Department is under investigation by law enforcement agencies, and that multiple code enforcement staff are suspected of bribery and other crimes, was disclosed by Public Ethics Commission staffers at last night's commission meeting.
For years, rumors have abounded about code enforcement officers illegally extorting property owners, colluding with landlords to push out tenants, or accepting bribes and other inducements to close out code violation cases. Some building inspectors are also suspected of running contracting businesses on the side, sometimes working for property owners who are simultaneously the subject of city enforcement actions, thereby creating conflicts of interest.
Last week, ethics commission investigators confirmed these suspicions when they issued a report alleging that Thomas Espinosa, a former city specialty combination inspector, received several hundred thousand dollars in bribes and other illicit payments from landlords, and that he hid these illegal payments while he was employed by the city of Oakland. Espinosa's alleged conduct went on for years, but eventually city staff blew the whistle by filing a complaint with the ethics commission.
The commission's investigation of Espinosa is the most complex case it has ever undertaken; it includes 47 separate alleged violations of the city's Government Ethics Act. PEC staff are recommending that Espinosa be fined $1,151,737.
Espinosa appears to be contesting the charges, however.
Milad Dalju, the ethics commission's deputy director, said at last night's meeting that Espinosa has declined to reach a settlement regarding the charges. As a result, the ethic commission voted to refer Espinosa's case to an administrative hearing, a process similar to a trial.
When Espinosa's case is finally heard, it could include even more charges in addition to the 47 he already faces. Dalju said that since publishing the PEC report last week, the PEC has received new tips from the public, Dalju said.
Dalju asked, and the commission granted, that these new allegations will be included in charges adjudicated at the upcoming hearing.
When Commissioner Jodie Smith asked Dalju about another code inspector named in the report about Espinosa, it became clear that the corruption probe has widened to examine other city employees.
Anthony Harbaugh, a specialty combination inspector just like Thomas Espinosa, was mentioned several times in the report as having worked with Espinosa to close out code violation cases or approve building inspections after Espinosa allegedly solicited bribes.
"We opened an investigation of bribery into Mr. Harbaugh," Dalju told commissioners.
Public Ethics Commission Chair Jonathan Stein then asked, if PEC staff have referred these same cases to criminal prosecutors. (The Oakland Public Ethics Commission enforces the city's ethics rules, not criminal laws.)
"Early in this investigation we referred it to several law enforcement agencies, and have been assisting," Dalju said about Espinosa's case. Dalju specifcally named the Alameda County DA's office, but he added that federal law enforcement official have also been contacted.
Several members of the public who attended last night's meeting urged the ethics commission to look deeper into Oakland's Planning and Building Department.
"Expand it," Michael Taylor told the commissioners about the investigation.
Taylor alleges that he was forced out of his apartment building after Espinosa allegedly colluded with his landlord, Patrick MacIntyre, to have the building improperly red-tagged.
In October, the PEC opened its investigation into Espinosa and notified him of the matter.
In November 2016, Interim Director of Planning and Building Darin Ranelletti sent Espinosa a letter notifying him that the city intended to fire him after an internal investigation uncovered evidence that he conspired with MacIntyre and then lied to his supervisors.
That same month, Espinosa retired from the city.
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/11/06/corruption-probe-into-oaklands-code-enforcement-inspectors-widens
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK071732
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK070736
At least two building code inspectors are under investigation for bribery and corruption, and outside law enforcement agencies have opened cases.
Public Ethics Commission Deputy Director Milad Dalju said that outside law enforcement agencies are investigating corruption in Oakland's planning and building department.
The Oakland Public Ethics Commission has broadened the scope of its investigations into allegations of corruption by building code enforcement officers.
In addition, outside law enforcement agencies, including the Alameda County District Attorney, are examining bribery and other potential crimes committed by building inspectors.
The news that Oakland's Planning and Building Department is under investigation by law enforcement agencies, and that multiple code enforcement staff are suspected of bribery and other crimes, was disclosed by Public Ethics Commission staffers at last night's commission meeting.
For years, rumors have abounded about code enforcement officers illegally extorting property owners, colluding with landlords to push out tenants, or accepting bribes and other inducements to close out code violation cases. Some building inspectors are also suspected of running contracting businesses on the side, sometimes working for property owners who are simultaneously the subject of city enforcement actions, thereby creating conflicts of interest.
Last week, ethics commission investigators confirmed these suspicions when they issued a report alleging that Thomas Espinosa, a former city specialty combination inspector, received several hundred thousand dollars in bribes and other illicit payments from landlords, and that he hid these illegal payments while he was employed by the city of Oakland. Espinosa's alleged conduct went on for years, but eventually city staff blew the whistle by filing a complaint with the ethics commission.
The commission's investigation of Espinosa is the most complex case it has ever undertaken; it includes 47 separate alleged violations of the city's Government Ethics Act. PEC staff are recommending that Espinosa be fined $1,151,737.
Espinosa appears to be contesting the charges, however.
Milad Dalju, the ethics commission's deputy director, said at last night's meeting that Espinosa has declined to reach a settlement regarding the charges. As a result, the ethic commission voted to refer Espinosa's case to an administrative hearing, a process similar to a trial.
When Espinosa's case is finally heard, it could include even more charges in addition to the 47 he already faces. Dalju said that since publishing the PEC report last week, the PEC has received new tips from the public, Dalju said.
Dalju asked, and the commission granted, that these new allegations will be included in charges adjudicated at the upcoming hearing.
When Commissioner Jodie Smith asked Dalju about another code inspector named in the report about Espinosa, it became clear that the corruption probe has widened to examine other city employees.
Anthony Harbaugh, a specialty combination inspector just like Thomas Espinosa, was mentioned several times in the report as having worked with Espinosa to close out code violation cases or approve building inspections after Espinosa allegedly solicited bribes.
"We opened an investigation of bribery into Mr. Harbaugh," Dalju told commissioners.
Public Ethics Commission Chair Jonathan Stein then asked, if PEC staff have referred these same cases to criminal prosecutors. (The Oakland Public Ethics Commission enforces the city's ethics rules, not criminal laws.)
"Early in this investigation we referred it to several law enforcement agencies, and have been assisting," Dalju said about Espinosa's case. Dalju specifcally named the Alameda County DA's office, but he added that federal law enforcement official have also been contacted.
Several members of the public who attended last night's meeting urged the ethics commission to look deeper into Oakland's Planning and Building Department.
"Expand it," Michael Taylor told the commissioners about the investigation.
Taylor alleges that he was forced out of his apartment building after Espinosa allegedly colluded with his landlord, Patrick MacIntyre, to have the building improperly red-tagged.
In October, the PEC opened its investigation into Espinosa and notified him of the matter.
In November 2016, Interim Director of Planning and Building Darin Ranelletti sent Espinosa a letter notifying him that the city intended to fire him after an internal investigation uncovered evidence that he conspired with MacIntyre and then lied to his supervisors.
That same month, Espinosa retired from the city.
166 City of Oakland Bldg Dept Tim Low and other inspectors knew about unsafe and substandard conditions at a West Oakland bldg where 2 people died and 87 were displaced
Landlord Of West Oakland Building Destroyed By Fire Was Working To Evict Tenants
A 2005 city inspector wrote that 'babies are getting asthma and very sick' in the building.
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/03/27/landlord-of-west-oakland-building-destroyed-by-fire-was-working-to-evict-tenants
Tenants of the San Pablo Avenue apartment building destroyed by a fire early this morning were resisting a controversial eviction, according to court records and interviews.
The residents even obtained a restraining order against the building's landlord. And, now, their lawyer is calling for an arson investigation.
Records also show that the West Oakland building's dangerous conditions were known to the landlord, master tenant, the City of Oakland, and other authorities.
The building's landlord, Keith Kim, was seeking to evict Urojas Community Services, a nonprofit that leased part of the building for a transitional-housing program that served dozens of homeless and very-low-income people.
But Urojas and some of its clients who lived in the building refused to leave.
James Cook, an attorney with John L. Burris Law Offices who is representing Urojas, said in an interview that Kim initially tried to evict the nonprofit right after the deadly Ghost Ship fire last December. Most recently, Kim gave Urojas a 30-day notice to vacate the building, but Urojas was fighting this eviction.
The legal battle had escalated in recent weeks.
"Next thing I know, I get up this morning, my client’s building is on fire, it’s up in smoke," Cook told the Express.
"I want it to be investigated as an arson."
Two have been confirmed dead in the fire and 86 people are displaced.
It's unclear what caused the blaze, but the structure has a recent history of numerous building code violations, including broken plumbing and heating, exposed wires, pests, electrical problems, and more.
Urojas Community Services filed the most recent complaint with the city, alleging that Kim had "deferred maintenance," allowing the building to fall into a state of disrepair. This housing-habitability complaint was verified by a city inspector who went to the address on March 3, according to city records.
The inspector noted that there was a major plumbing leak spilling sewage into the first and second floors. "The 3rd floor is occupied with squatters," the inspector wrote.
According to court records, Kim and a group of men tried to physically evict some of the residents in February. In response, the residents sought a court restraining order against Kim.
Tenant Brenda Corley, who also helped manage the Urojas program, wrote in a court document that Kim showed up with twelve men on February 14 to "forcibly remove items" and change locks.
"They threw our items into the street," Corley wrote. "The men threatened violence if anyone intervened."
According to Corley's account, Kim also told the building's tenants not to pay rent to Urojas Community Services, the master tenant. And Corley accused Kim of calling the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services agency to ask that Urojas' funding be cut off. (The county helps fund Urojas' programs.)
The Express was unable to reach Kim for comment, but a temporary restraining order was granted by the court on February 15 preventing him from physically evicting tenants from his building.
The restraining order was later dismissed, on March 6, after Corley and Kim both failed to show up to a court hearing.
Cook said that Oakland City Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney had intervened in the dispute between Kim and Urojas to try to reach a deal. But Cook said that McElhaney was trying to resolve the situation by having Urojas vacate the building, and working with Kim to possibly secure it as an affordable-housing site.
Gibson McElhaney did not return a call or email seeking comment.
Oakland City Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney and her staff toured the building in February, according to a building inspector's report. McElhaney was reportedly working with Dignity Housing West, Inc. to take over part of the building for an affordable housing center, a move that would have displaced Urojas.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives is on its way to conduct an investigation of the fire alongside the Oakland Fire Department.
So far, one person has been confirmed dead, and several seriously injured. Other bodies could be hidden in the three-story building.
The Alameda County Sheriff's office is flying a drone equipped with a thermal camera over the building to locate hot spots and search for survivors or victims.
The fire comes almost four months after the deadly Ghost Ship fire that killed 36.
Other city and court records show that the building's substandard condition was known to the landlord, Urojas, and other authorities.
In May of 2016 a city building inspector found that a smoke alarm was missing in one of the units leased by Urojas from Kim.
A lawsuit filed in August of last year by a woman who used to live in the building alleges that the complex had no locks on the doors, no heat, defective plumbing, inadequate wiring, and other serious defects, including "hazardous fluids and materials" on the premises.
The woman filed a complaint with the city and felt the landlord and property manager had been given adequate time to fix the building's defects. Instead, the woman was sexually assaulted in August 2015, according to the lawsuit, due to the fact that her unit had no locks on the door.
In 2013 Oakland building inspector Timothy Low cited the building's owner for "hazardous and injurious" conditions and hit Kim with $3,239 in fees.
In 2005 city inspectors were called to the building to investigate a complaint that women and young children were living in overcrowded rooms infested with mold and leaky plumbing. "Babies are getting asthma and very sick," reads a building inspector's comments.
In 1996 another building inspector found that the fire escape was "tied up so tenants cannot get away in case of a fire."
Keith Kim bought the building in 1991 through a company called Mead Avenue Housing Associates, according to county records.
A 2005 city inspector wrote that 'babies are getting asthma and very sick' in the building.
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/03/27/landlord-of-west-oakland-building-destroyed-by-fire-was-working-to-evict-tenants
Tenants of the San Pablo Avenue apartment building destroyed by a fire early this morning were resisting a controversial eviction, according to court records and interviews.
The residents even obtained a restraining order against the building's landlord. And, now, their lawyer is calling for an arson investigation.
Records also show that the West Oakland building's dangerous conditions were known to the landlord, master tenant, the City of Oakland, and other authorities.
The building's landlord, Keith Kim, was seeking to evict Urojas Community Services, a nonprofit that leased part of the building for a transitional-housing program that served dozens of homeless and very-low-income people.
But Urojas and some of its clients who lived in the building refused to leave.
James Cook, an attorney with John L. Burris Law Offices who is representing Urojas, said in an interview that Kim initially tried to evict the nonprofit right after the deadly Ghost Ship fire last December. Most recently, Kim gave Urojas a 30-day notice to vacate the building, but Urojas was fighting this eviction.
The legal battle had escalated in recent weeks.
"Next thing I know, I get up this morning, my client’s building is on fire, it’s up in smoke," Cook told the Express.
"I want it to be investigated as an arson."
Two have been confirmed dead in the fire and 86 people are displaced.
It's unclear what caused the blaze, but the structure has a recent history of numerous building code violations, including broken plumbing and heating, exposed wires, pests, electrical problems, and more.
Urojas Community Services filed the most recent complaint with the city, alleging that Kim had "deferred maintenance," allowing the building to fall into a state of disrepair. This housing-habitability complaint was verified by a city inspector who went to the address on March 3, according to city records.
The inspector noted that there was a major plumbing leak spilling sewage into the first and second floors. "The 3rd floor is occupied with squatters," the inspector wrote.
According to court records, Kim and a group of men tried to physically evict some of the residents in February. In response, the residents sought a court restraining order against Kim.
Tenant Brenda Corley, who also helped manage the Urojas program, wrote in a court document that Kim showed up with twelve men on February 14 to "forcibly remove items" and change locks.
"They threw our items into the street," Corley wrote. "The men threatened violence if anyone intervened."
According to Corley's account, Kim also told the building's tenants not to pay rent to Urojas Community Services, the master tenant. And Corley accused Kim of calling the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services agency to ask that Urojas' funding be cut off. (The county helps fund Urojas' programs.)
The Express was unable to reach Kim for comment, but a temporary restraining order was granted by the court on February 15 preventing him from physically evicting tenants from his building.
The restraining order was later dismissed, on March 6, after Corley and Kim both failed to show up to a court hearing.
Cook said that Oakland City Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney had intervened in the dispute between Kim and Urojas to try to reach a deal. But Cook said that McElhaney was trying to resolve the situation by having Urojas vacate the building, and working with Kim to possibly secure it as an affordable-housing site.
Gibson McElhaney did not return a call or email seeking comment.
Oakland City Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney and her staff toured the building in February, according to a building inspector's report. McElhaney was reportedly working with Dignity Housing West, Inc. to take over part of the building for an affordable housing center, a move that would have displaced Urojas.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives is on its way to conduct an investigation of the fire alongside the Oakland Fire Department.
So far, one person has been confirmed dead, and several seriously injured. Other bodies could be hidden in the three-story building.
The Alameda County Sheriff's office is flying a drone equipped with a thermal camera over the building to locate hot spots and search for survivors or victims.
The fire comes almost four months after the deadly Ghost Ship fire that killed 36.
Other city and court records show that the building's substandard condition was known to the landlord, Urojas, and other authorities.
In May of 2016 a city building inspector found that a smoke alarm was missing in one of the units leased by Urojas from Kim.
A lawsuit filed in August of last year by a woman who used to live in the building alleges that the complex had no locks on the doors, no heat, defective plumbing, inadequate wiring, and other serious defects, including "hazardous fluids and materials" on the premises.
The woman filed a complaint with the city and felt the landlord and property manager had been given adequate time to fix the building's defects. Instead, the woman was sexually assaulted in August 2015, according to the lawsuit, due to the fact that her unit had no locks on the door.
In 2013 Oakland building inspector Timothy Low cited the building's owner for "hazardous and injurious" conditions and hit Kim with $3,239 in fees.
In 2005 city inspectors were called to the building to investigate a complaint that women and young children were living in overcrowded rooms infested with mold and leaky plumbing. "Babies are getting asthma and very sick," reads a building inspector's comments.
In 1996 another building inspector found that the fire escape was "tied up so tenants cannot get away in case of a fire."
Keith Kim bought the building in 1991 through a company called Mead Avenue Housing Associates, according to county records.
165 City of Oakland Travelors Hotel - Haber and Gutmon accused of ripping out the interior of the bldg without permits,and removing services to disabled tenants
Oakland SRO Tenants Sue Tech Housing Investors for Harassment
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/07/11/oakland-sro-tenants-sue-tech-housing-investors-for-harassment
Residents of the Hotel Travelers allege that their new landlord, Danny Haber, is trying to push them out of their homes. Last Friday, some of the building's residents filed suit against Haber to stop what they characterize as a pattern and practice of harassment.
The Hotel Travelers is one of Oakland's dwindling number of SRO hotels. According to city staff, SROs are "naturally occurring" affordable housing that should be preserved, but recently, investors like Haber have purchased SRO buildings with the intent of remodeling them into boutique hotels or apartments for more affluent renters or tourists.
Unlike San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other cities, Oakland has no laws to preserve existing SRO housing.
According to the tenants' lawsuit, since purchasing the Hotel Travelers, Haber has reduced maid services, causing trash to pile up in the hallways, removed mailboxes and the 24-hour front desk service,making the building less secure, removed the building's wifi, and allowed the elevator to go unfixed for weeks, forcing elderly and disabled residents to walk up narrow flights of stairs.
See also: Last Days at Downtown Oakland's Hotel Travelers?
Residents say that Haber has already convinced all but two residents to vacate the 5th and 6th floors of the building, and that contractors have gutted the interiors of these floors to the studs and ripped giant holes in the ceilings.
On Twitter, Joshua Daniels, who lives on the 5th floor, accused Haber of ripping the building's interior out without valid building permits.
The lawsuit alleges that when residents of the 5th and 6th floors asked if they would be able to return to their units once the construction is completed, Haber told them only if they could pay $2,000 per month in rent. Most of the building's residents currently pay under $1,000 per month in rent. Haber also allegedly told the tenants that he planned to open a "beer garden" on the rooftop.
Named alongside Haber in the lawsuit as co-defendants are Dion Ross and Alon Gutman.
Ross describes himself as a "Executive Analyst Product / Project Implementations / Resource Relations & Logistics" specialist. Ross is managing the Hotel Travelers on a day-to-day basis for Haber.
Reached by phone recently, Ross denied allegations made by the tenants in their lawsuit and said that all activities undertaken by Haber and himself have been legal, and tenants were provided with all proper notices.
Gutman is a co-investor and co-founder of The Negev, LLC, a company he runs with Haber that converts housing into tech co-ops. Gutman and Haber reportedly named their company after the Negev Desert of southern Israel, and the historic efforts of the Israeli government to build settlements there. They purchased the Hotel Travelers in April of this year.
Representing the tenants in their lawsuit is Robert Salinas of the Sundeen Salinas and Pyle law firm. Last month Salinas, along with Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker, filed a similar lawsuit against James Kilpatrick after Kilpatrick purchased an SRO building on 8th Street inhabited mostly by elderly Chinese.
Both lawsuits take advantage of Oakland's Tenant Protection Ordinance, a law Councilmember Dan Kalb wrote in 2014 in an effort to curb efforts by landlords to harass and displace lower-income tenants.
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/07/11/oakland-sro-tenants-sue-tech-housing-investors-for-harassment
Residents of the Hotel Travelers allege that their new landlord, Danny Haber, is trying to push them out of their homes. Last Friday, some of the building's residents filed suit against Haber to stop what they characterize as a pattern and practice of harassment.
The Hotel Travelers is one of Oakland's dwindling number of SRO hotels. According to city staff, SROs are "naturally occurring" affordable housing that should be preserved, but recently, investors like Haber have purchased SRO buildings with the intent of remodeling them into boutique hotels or apartments for more affluent renters or tourists.
Unlike San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other cities, Oakland has no laws to preserve existing SRO housing.
According to the tenants' lawsuit, since purchasing the Hotel Travelers, Haber has reduced maid services, causing trash to pile up in the hallways, removed mailboxes and the 24-hour front desk service,making the building less secure, removed the building's wifi, and allowed the elevator to go unfixed for weeks, forcing elderly and disabled residents to walk up narrow flights of stairs.
See also: Last Days at Downtown Oakland's Hotel Travelers?
Residents say that Haber has already convinced all but two residents to vacate the 5th and 6th floors of the building, and that contractors have gutted the interiors of these floors to the studs and ripped giant holes in the ceilings.
On Twitter, Joshua Daniels, who lives on the 5th floor, accused Haber of ripping the building's interior out without valid building permits.
The lawsuit alleges that when residents of the 5th and 6th floors asked if they would be able to return to their units once the construction is completed, Haber told them only if they could pay $2,000 per month in rent. Most of the building's residents currently pay under $1,000 per month in rent. Haber also allegedly told the tenants that he planned to open a "beer garden" on the rooftop.
Named alongside Haber in the lawsuit as co-defendants are Dion Ross and Alon Gutman.
Ross describes himself as a "Executive Analyst Product / Project Implementations / Resource Relations & Logistics" specialist. Ross is managing the Hotel Travelers on a day-to-day basis for Haber.
Reached by phone recently, Ross denied allegations made by the tenants in their lawsuit and said that all activities undertaken by Haber and himself have been legal, and tenants were provided with all proper notices.
Gutman is a co-investor and co-founder of The Negev, LLC, a company he runs with Haber that converts housing into tech co-ops. Gutman and Haber reportedly named their company after the Negev Desert of southern Israel, and the historic efforts of the Israeli government to build settlements there. They purchased the Hotel Travelers in April of this year.
Representing the tenants in their lawsuit is Robert Salinas of the Sundeen Salinas and Pyle law firm. Last month Salinas, along with Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker, filed a similar lawsuit against James Kilpatrick after Kilpatrick purchased an SRO building on 8th Street inhabited mostly by elderly Chinese.
Both lawsuits take advantage of Oakland's Tenant Protection Ordinance, a law Councilmember Dan Kalb wrote in 2014 in an effort to curb efforts by landlords to harass and displace lower-income tenants.
164 City of Oakland puts up roadblocks to prevent warehouse owner from repairing fire damage. Building sold to Danny Haber and Seth Jacobsen
https://www.antievictionmap.com/danny-haber-and-alon-gutman/
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/former-ak-press-warehouse-sold-to-tech-co-op-developer-who-demolished-1919-market/Content?oid=5060621
671 24th Street and 674 23rd Street
AK Press and many other tenants were displaced in the fire that started in the building next door., where two people died in the blaze. Haber and his financiers - among them, Seth Jacobson - acquired both buildings and have plans to develop "Live Work" spaces at the site.sThe City of Oakland was said to have put up roadblocks as the previous owner attempted to repair the fire damage. Seth Jacobson was the owner of 1919 Market when the City forced tenants out due to the condition of the building.
Former AK Press Warehouse Sold to 'Tech Co-Op' Developer Who Demolished 1919 Market
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/former-ak-press-warehouse-sold-to-tech-co-op-developer-who-demolished-1919-market/Content
For more than two decades, the brick warehouse at 674 23rd Street in West Oakland was a hub of anti-capitalist praxis. Now, it's owned by a developer known for converting affordable housing into tech-worker dorms.
In September, the warehouse — which formerly housed the anarchist publishing collective AK Press — was quietly sold to a company controlled by the developer Danny Haber.
No stranger to controversy, Haber is currently being sued by the displaced tenants of another Oakland warehouse, 1919 Market Street, and also by residents of the Travelers Hotel, an SRO in Chinatown. They allege Haber engaged in a campaign of harassment to drive them out of their homes in order to redevelop the buildings and maximize rents.
Now, Haber has filed plans with the city to turn the AK Press location into a 24-unit live-work space. He's also in talks to purchase the adjoining warehouse, at 671 24th Street. Both warehouses were closed by the city in March 2015 after a fire.
Former residents of the two warehouses say their situation illustrates how, long before the Ghost Ship tragedy, the city was cracking down on counterculture spaces, and investors were exploiting fires and building-code problems to displace people from their homes.
"It doesn't work for us. It works for people who can come in, gobble up these buildings, and take advantage of this situation," said Jose Palafox, a past resident of the 23rd Street Warehouse.
alafox lived there for eight years. Early in the morning of March 21, 2015, a fire tore through an apartment in the adjoining building, 671 24th Street. Two people died: Davis Letona, 27, and Daniel "Moe" Thomas, 36.
After the blaze, city building inspectors closed both properties. All of the residents, as well as AK Press and the collective 1984 Printing, were forced out. Many of them had hopes of returning after their landlords made repairs.
Jonah Strauss, who lived in the 24th Street warehouse where the fire started, described how residents had to wake up one-another and rush to safety as flames leapt from windows.
After the fire, he and other tenants in his building accused their landlord, Kim Marienthal, of delaying and not making the necessary repairs so they could move back in.
"He still hasn't had any work done on the building," Strauss said in a recent interview.
One email sent to Oakland Deputy City Attorney Richard Illgen by a former resident of the 24th Street warehouse, and obtained through a Public Records Act request, called Marienthal an "exceedingly difficult landlord." The city redacted the renter’s name, but the sender accused Marienthal of attempting to use the fire to permanently evict his tenants.
"As is the story with too many buildings in Oakland these days, the owner is going to use this opportunity to do capital improvements and hike up rents," the email’s sender claimed.
Marienthal told the Express that his tenants were wrong about his intentions, and that the city’s extremely strict demands were to blame.
"I would much rather have been able to rebuild the building right away, the way it was, and continue renting to the tenants who were there," he said.
But the city rejected several rounds of plans, Marienthal claimed, which made it too expensive to rehab the units and keep rents affordable. "Finally, we came up with a plan the city found acceptable. But we basically had to redesign the building," he said.
Marienthal says, though, that the final plan’s price tag was more than double the insurance payout he received from the fire. As a result, he confirmed that he has been in talks with Haber about selling his building, although he’s yet to sign any deal. Marienthal added that Haber appears to have access to financing that gives him the ability to make the kinds of changes to warehouse spaces that the city is demanding.
Haber has previously sought investment opportunities in fire-damaged buildings with displaced tenants. For example, in 2014, he leased a San Francisco SRO damaged by a fire several years earlier, and turned it into a tech-worker dormitory. He was later sued by the tenants who lived there before the fire; they claimed that Haber violated San Francisco’s renter-protection laws by not offering them units when reconstruction was completed.
Residents of the AK Press warehouse had a different experience than tenants in the neighboring 24th Street building. Relations with their landlord, Jux Beck, remained amicable after the fire, and they hoped to be able to return. According to city records and interviews, Beck worked for almost a year with officials to try to bring the property up to code and make repairs.
"Jux was extremely responsible with everything," said Jason Willer, a musician and resident of the 23rd Street warehouse who helped renovate the interior in the early 2000s when Beck first purchased it. "He was the opposite of a slumlord. He installed smoke detectors and made the whole place very safe."
According to Willer, when the fire broke out in the 24th Street building and spread into the old AK Press warehouse, alarms went off. Lives were saved and damage was minimized thanks to Beck's safety precautions.
The Express was unable to contact Beck, but several of his former tenants said that the city made it too expensive and difficult for him to comply with current building and fire codes.
Charles Weigl of AK Press, which has since re-located to Chico, described Beck as "an old-school punk" who was "very concerned about helping sustain political and artistic communities in Oakland."
Weigl said Beck did his best, but ultimately ran out of funds, forcing him to sell the property. But, even then, he “tried to find a buyer who would agree to retain aspects of the building’s former use and spirit, including a space for AK [Press] if we wanted it.”
"It would have cost millions to bring it up to 2015 code," said Willer. He complained that city officials initially responded to the fire and displacement with sympathy, but that, when media attention died down, the city’s building department threw up expensive and time-consuming roadblocks.
Beck gave up in December of last year. "We are under contract to sell the property," he explained in a letter to Oakland building officials.
He sold the warehouse to two people with ties to the East Bay punk community, Shammy Saenz and Zephyr Buechler. But then, on September 1 of this year, Saenz and Buechler sold the building to 674 23rd Street LLC, a company controlled by Haber. It's unclear why they offloaded the property, and the Express was unable to reach both Saenz and Buechler.
Haber confirmed that he purchased the old AK Press warehouse. He said that Beuchler and Saenz "ran into problems" and were unable to finance the building’s rehab, so they sold it through the brokerage CBRE.
"Nobody was living there for two years. We’ll add 24 units to the housing stock," Haber said.
According to county records, Haber bought the building with a $2.25 million loan from Red Tower Capital, a private-equity firm in San Francisco. Also in on the deal was Seth Jacobson, whose signature appears in loan documents. Jacobson was the owner of 1919 Market Street, and Madison Park Financial was the property manager for that warehouse during most of this time. That company was owned by John Protopappas, a close friend of Mayor Libby Schaaf. Protopappas also was the chair of Schaaf's mayoral campaign.
The warehouse's numerous fire and building-code violations were known to the city for years, but it was allowed to operate as a live-work space. However, when the city suddenly red-tagged 1919 Market this past January, dozens of renters were displaced. Many still haven’t found permanent homes. Some have been forced to leave Oakland.
According to public records, Jacobson sold 1919 Market to a company controlled by Haber in June. Haber later filed plans with the city to build a 63-unit live-work project on the site. Several former tenants are suing Haber, Jacobson, and Protopappas over the 1919 Market warehouse shutdown.
Jacobson didn't respond to emails from the Express, and Haber declined to talk about Jacobson’s role in buying the 23rd Street building.
Haber said that none of the former tenants of the 23rd Street building have expressed interest in returning to their former units, but he said he'd be willing to make space for them — if the city would subsidize his project.
He said that a staff member in a city council member’s office recently told him he may be eligible to use some of the affordable-housing infrastructure bond money that voters approved in November. He declined to name the council member.
"We'd use the affordable housing bond to cover the subsidy so people come back. This way we can take these projects that have fire damage, bring them back to what they were in a safe, nice way," Haber said.
However, Haber has no track record of developing affordable housing. In fact, at the Hotel Travelers, he demolished most of the 78 SRO units and is converting them into market-rate rentals, according to city records.
On Tuesday the Oakland City Council passed a 45-day moratorium on SRO conversions, partly in response to Haber's elimination of affordable housing at Hotel Travelers.
Orlando Chavez, one of the hotel's residents who is suing Haber over harassment, said tenants should be skeptical of his promises. "Based on my experience and what I know about him, he'll do anything to get control of the building and then do what he wants. He’s motivated by profit," Chavez said.
As for the previous tenants of the 23rd Street Warehouse, many of them have given up on Oakland because it is no longer affordable.
As Weigl of AK Press put it: "The obvious outcome was that political and community ideals didn’t survive the process."
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/former-ak-press-warehouse-sold-to-tech-co-op-developer-who-demolished-1919-market/Content?oid=5060621
671 24th Street and 674 23rd Street
AK Press and many other tenants were displaced in the fire that started in the building next door., where two people died in the blaze. Haber and his financiers - among them, Seth Jacobson - acquired both buildings and have plans to develop "Live Work" spaces at the site.sThe City of Oakland was said to have put up roadblocks as the previous owner attempted to repair the fire damage. Seth Jacobson was the owner of 1919 Market when the City forced tenants out due to the condition of the building.
Former AK Press Warehouse Sold to 'Tech Co-Op' Developer Who Demolished 1919 Market
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/former-ak-press-warehouse-sold-to-tech-co-op-developer-who-demolished-1919-market/Content
For more than two decades, the brick warehouse at 674 23rd Street in West Oakland was a hub of anti-capitalist praxis. Now, it's owned by a developer known for converting affordable housing into tech-worker dorms.
In September, the warehouse — which formerly housed the anarchist publishing collective AK Press — was quietly sold to a company controlled by the developer Danny Haber.
No stranger to controversy, Haber is currently being sued by the displaced tenants of another Oakland warehouse, 1919 Market Street, and also by residents of the Travelers Hotel, an SRO in Chinatown. They allege Haber engaged in a campaign of harassment to drive them out of their homes in order to redevelop the buildings and maximize rents.
Now, Haber has filed plans with the city to turn the AK Press location into a 24-unit live-work space. He's also in talks to purchase the adjoining warehouse, at 671 24th Street. Both warehouses were closed by the city in March 2015 after a fire.
Former residents of the two warehouses say their situation illustrates how, long before the Ghost Ship tragedy, the city was cracking down on counterculture spaces, and investors were exploiting fires and building-code problems to displace people from their homes.
"It doesn't work for us. It works for people who can come in, gobble up these buildings, and take advantage of this situation," said Jose Palafox, a past resident of the 23rd Street Warehouse.
alafox lived there for eight years. Early in the morning of March 21, 2015, a fire tore through an apartment in the adjoining building, 671 24th Street. Two people died: Davis Letona, 27, and Daniel "Moe" Thomas, 36.
After the blaze, city building inspectors closed both properties. All of the residents, as well as AK Press and the collective 1984 Printing, were forced out. Many of them had hopes of returning after their landlords made repairs.
Jonah Strauss, who lived in the 24th Street warehouse where the fire started, described how residents had to wake up one-another and rush to safety as flames leapt from windows.
After the fire, he and other tenants in his building accused their landlord, Kim Marienthal, of delaying and not making the necessary repairs so they could move back in.
"He still hasn't had any work done on the building," Strauss said in a recent interview.
One email sent to Oakland Deputy City Attorney Richard Illgen by a former resident of the 24th Street warehouse, and obtained through a Public Records Act request, called Marienthal an "exceedingly difficult landlord." The city redacted the renter’s name, but the sender accused Marienthal of attempting to use the fire to permanently evict his tenants.
"As is the story with too many buildings in Oakland these days, the owner is going to use this opportunity to do capital improvements and hike up rents," the email’s sender claimed.
Marienthal told the Express that his tenants were wrong about his intentions, and that the city’s extremely strict demands were to blame.
"I would much rather have been able to rebuild the building right away, the way it was, and continue renting to the tenants who were there," he said.
But the city rejected several rounds of plans, Marienthal claimed, which made it too expensive to rehab the units and keep rents affordable. "Finally, we came up with a plan the city found acceptable. But we basically had to redesign the building," he said.
Marienthal says, though, that the final plan’s price tag was more than double the insurance payout he received from the fire. As a result, he confirmed that he has been in talks with Haber about selling his building, although he’s yet to sign any deal. Marienthal added that Haber appears to have access to financing that gives him the ability to make the kinds of changes to warehouse spaces that the city is demanding.
Haber has previously sought investment opportunities in fire-damaged buildings with displaced tenants. For example, in 2014, he leased a San Francisco SRO damaged by a fire several years earlier, and turned it into a tech-worker dormitory. He was later sued by the tenants who lived there before the fire; they claimed that Haber violated San Francisco’s renter-protection laws by not offering them units when reconstruction was completed.
Residents of the AK Press warehouse had a different experience than tenants in the neighboring 24th Street building. Relations with their landlord, Jux Beck, remained amicable after the fire, and they hoped to be able to return. According to city records and interviews, Beck worked for almost a year with officials to try to bring the property up to code and make repairs.
"Jux was extremely responsible with everything," said Jason Willer, a musician and resident of the 23rd Street warehouse who helped renovate the interior in the early 2000s when Beck first purchased it. "He was the opposite of a slumlord. He installed smoke detectors and made the whole place very safe."
According to Willer, when the fire broke out in the 24th Street building and spread into the old AK Press warehouse, alarms went off. Lives were saved and damage was minimized thanks to Beck's safety precautions.
The Express was unable to contact Beck, but several of his former tenants said that the city made it too expensive and difficult for him to comply with current building and fire codes.
Charles Weigl of AK Press, which has since re-located to Chico, described Beck as "an old-school punk" who was "very concerned about helping sustain political and artistic communities in Oakland."
Weigl said Beck did his best, but ultimately ran out of funds, forcing him to sell the property. But, even then, he “tried to find a buyer who would agree to retain aspects of the building’s former use and spirit, including a space for AK [Press] if we wanted it.”
"It would have cost millions to bring it up to 2015 code," said Willer. He complained that city officials initially responded to the fire and displacement with sympathy, but that, when media attention died down, the city’s building department threw up expensive and time-consuming roadblocks.
Beck gave up in December of last year. "We are under contract to sell the property," he explained in a letter to Oakland building officials.
He sold the warehouse to two people with ties to the East Bay punk community, Shammy Saenz and Zephyr Buechler. But then, on September 1 of this year, Saenz and Buechler sold the building to 674 23rd Street LLC, a company controlled by Haber. It's unclear why they offloaded the property, and the Express was unable to reach both Saenz and Buechler.
Haber confirmed that he purchased the old AK Press warehouse. He said that Beuchler and Saenz "ran into problems" and were unable to finance the building’s rehab, so they sold it through the brokerage CBRE.
"Nobody was living there for two years. We’ll add 24 units to the housing stock," Haber said.
According to county records, Haber bought the building with a $2.25 million loan from Red Tower Capital, a private-equity firm in San Francisco. Also in on the deal was Seth Jacobson, whose signature appears in loan documents. Jacobson was the owner of 1919 Market Street, and Madison Park Financial was the property manager for that warehouse during most of this time. That company was owned by John Protopappas, a close friend of Mayor Libby Schaaf. Protopappas also was the chair of Schaaf's mayoral campaign.
The warehouse's numerous fire and building-code violations were known to the city for years, but it was allowed to operate as a live-work space. However, when the city suddenly red-tagged 1919 Market this past January, dozens of renters were displaced. Many still haven’t found permanent homes. Some have been forced to leave Oakland.
According to public records, Jacobson sold 1919 Market to a company controlled by Haber in June. Haber later filed plans with the city to build a 63-unit live-work project on the site. Several former tenants are suing Haber, Jacobson, and Protopappas over the 1919 Market warehouse shutdown.
Jacobson didn't respond to emails from the Express, and Haber declined to talk about Jacobson’s role in buying the 23rd Street building.
Haber said that none of the former tenants of the 23rd Street building have expressed interest in returning to their former units, but he said he'd be willing to make space for them — if the city would subsidize his project.
He said that a staff member in a city council member’s office recently told him he may be eligible to use some of the affordable-housing infrastructure bond money that voters approved in November. He declined to name the council member.
"We'd use the affordable housing bond to cover the subsidy so people come back. This way we can take these projects that have fire damage, bring them back to what they were in a safe, nice way," Haber said.
However, Haber has no track record of developing affordable housing. In fact, at the Hotel Travelers, he demolished most of the 78 SRO units and is converting them into market-rate rentals, according to city records.
On Tuesday the Oakland City Council passed a 45-day moratorium on SRO conversions, partly in response to Haber's elimination of affordable housing at Hotel Travelers.
Orlando Chavez, one of the hotel's residents who is suing Haber over harassment, said tenants should be skeptical of his promises. "Based on my experience and what I know about him, he'll do anything to get control of the building and then do what he wants. He’s motivated by profit," Chavez said.
As for the previous tenants of the 23rd Street Warehouse, many of them have given up on Oakland because it is no longer affordable.
As Weigl of AK Press put it: "The obvious outcome was that political and community ideals didn’t survive the process."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)