{"article":{"id":193922,"heading":"OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY SLAMS CRITICS OF LAWSUIT AGAINST OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY","author":"Lynda Carson","created":"2007-02-23 08:37:06","modified":"2013-11-11 00:47:15","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:47:15","article":"

OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY SLAMS CRITICS OF LAWSUIT AGAINST OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY

Posted on Indy Bay News Wire...

Reply to Erica Harrold\/Oakland City Attorney's Office:

John Russo is an elected official, in the City of Oakland.

On February 21, an e-mail was sent out by Erica Harrold, from Oakland's City Attorney's office, to attack and critize a recent article that was posted on the Indy Bay News Wire in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Erica Harrold claimed that Oakland officials did not disparage public housing tenants in Oakland, during a recent press conference.

A copy of the recently filed lawsuit against the Oakland Housing Authority which was featured at the press conference and a number of recent news articles, contradict the claims of Erica Harrold (Oakland City Attorney).

Click below for a full reply to Erica Harrold, plus a copy of the lawsuit filed against the Oakland Housing Authority, and several news items at the bottom with quotes in other media news stories that disparage Oakland's public housing tenants.

http:\/\/www.indybay.org\/newsitems\/2007\/02\/21\/18366866.php<\/a>

See reply below, to Erica Harrold and City Attorney's office in Oakland, CA.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

An Open Letter To Erica Harrold, Communications

Director Office of the City Attorney

From: Lynda Carson

510\/763-1085

For Immediate Release:

Re: Incorrect story posted by Lynda Carson, from Erica

Harrold.

February 21, 2007

Dear Ms. Harrold

This is in regards to the e-mail you sent out alleging

that I have posted an incorrect story with Indy Media.

After hearing from you, I wish to make it clear to

everyone that I fully stand by my story. It is also my

belief that my story was effective enough to compell

the City Attorney's office to be on the defensive in

regards to it's attack on public housing tenants who

are being accussed by City Officials of being drug

users, drug dealers, and pimping and pandering, at

public housing locations across the City of Oakland.



(Click below for story being attacked by Erica Harrold

(Oakland City Attorney's Office) ...

http:\/\/www.indybay<\/a>. org\/newsitems\/ 2007\/02\/17\/ 18364942. php

Ms. Harrold, in your attack against myself (see

further below), you intentionally have misdirected

everyone to look EVERYWHERE except at the lawsuit

itself, that was filed against the Oakland Housing

Authority (OHA), where it has the COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES FOR NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. See below

excerpt below from lawsuit against the OHA.

Excerpt from lawsuit:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

6

10. OHA has failed in its duty to track complaints

from tenants and area residents regarding maintenance and crime problems at OHA properties such that blight and nuisance conditions persist and criminal activity continues unchecked and unabated.

11. OHA has failed to provide adequate security for

the Properties such that criminal activity on the

Properties is rampant and out of control. Plaintiff is

informed and believes that the criminal activity is

carried on by tenants of the Properties, their

invitees and trespassers. Criminal activity on the

properties includes, but is not limited to vandalism,

burglary, drug use, drug sales, possession of drugs

for sale, pimping, pandering and prostitution.

Ms. Harrold, the lawsuit clearly states; \"Plaintiff is

informed and believes that the criminal activity is

carried on by tenants of the Properties, their

invitees and trespassers. Criminal activity on the

properties includes, but is not limited to vandalism,

burglary, drug use, drug sales, possession of drugs

for sale, pimping, pandering and prostitution. \"

I hope this clears the matter at hand, and resolves

any dispute being allaged in regards to what was

posted in the Indy media story being referred to.

Of course, Ms Harrold, you would'nt have wanted to

point out the contents of the lawsuit while attacking

me, because it it contradicts everything you are

saying against me, as you push everyone to the mention of the City Attorney press release instead.

(See full copy of Lawsuit below)

Ms. Harrold, I wish to point out that in this country,

people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of

law. If you or the City Attorney happens to have a

list of public housing tenants that have been

convicted of the crimes being alleged in the lawsuit

filed against the OHA below, and if these same people

on the list still reside in Oakland's public housing,

then I would be the first one to want to see such a

list.

If such a list does not exist, then I think you owe me

an apology, and that you need to stop your frivolous

attacks upon the critics of those that would dare to

speak up on behalf of Oakland's public housing

tenants.

While I'm at it, I also wish to point out that the

average public housing property has 6-8 rental units

at most scattered sites in Oakland, and that under

California State law, only residential units with 16

units or more are required to have a Resident Manager.

Demands in the lawsuit to have a manager at all of

Oakland's public housing scattered sites is over

burdensome, and not required under state or federal

law.

To only demand this of OHA properties, and not of ALL

landlords operating in the City of Oakland is

discriminatory, is unfair and biased against Oakland's

poor, because it takes extra funding needed for

housing people and maintaining OHA's properties.

The big federal push is on to privatize public housing

properties all across the nation, and to force Public

Housing Authorities to sell off their properties.

Cities across the nation, have an eye on public

housing properties at this point in time, and want to

grab them for their favorite developers.

I believe that your lawsuit (John Russo\/City Attorney), which attacks Oakland's public housing

tenants and the OHA, is an attempt to pressure the OHA

into selling it's properties, and to accelerate the

privatization of Oakland's public housing.

I urge the City of Oakland to help out and fully fund

Oakland's public housing properties for the sake of

the families, and to stop wasteing precious tax

dollars with this frivilous lawsuit that makes

impossible demands on the OHA.

I ask the City Attorney to stop demonizing public

housing tenants in the City of Oakland, and to go

after the Police if he believes that they are not

doing their job properly.

I also wish to point out that If there are convicted

criminals who are residing in Oakland's public housing

as may be alleged in the lawsuit against the OHA, that

under HUD's rules, they can be arrested and accused of fraud for residing there.

Furthermore, it's my belief, that a lawsuit and

wholesale allegations against Oakland's public housing tenants are not needed to go after REAL criminals, unless the original intent of the lawsuit was to publicly demonize the poor who reside in Oakland's

public housing properties, in an effort to shut these

properties down and privatize them.

See copy of lawsuit against the OHA below...

Sincerely,

Lynda Carson

829 E. 19th St. #2

Oakland, CA. 94606

510\/763-1085

--- \"Harrold, Erica\"

wrote:

> Dear Madam or Sir,

>

> You have posted a woefully incorrect story about the

> City of Oakland's

> lawsuit against Oakland Housing Authority by Lynda

> Carson. The lawsuit

> was filed ON BEHALF of the tenants in order that

> they may have humane

> living conditions. The very premise of the lawsuit

> emphasizes that

> everyone deserves a decent place to live. At no time

> did any elected

> official disparage the tenants as the writer falsely

> claims.

>

> Please see the original press release:

> http:\/\/www.oaklandc<\/a> ityattorney. org\/ and story by the

> Oakland Tribune:

>

http:\/\/www.insideba<\/a> yarea.com\/ oaklandtribune\/ ci_5233911

>

> If you have questions, please contact me at:

> 510-238-3148

>

> Erica Harrold

> Communications Director

> Office of the City Attorney

>

************ ****

---Read a copy of the Lawsuit---

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

JOHN A. RUSSO, City Attorney - State Bar #129729

RANDOLPH W. HALL, Assistant City Attorney - State Bar

#080142

JAMES F. HODGKINS, Supervising Trial Attorney - State

Bar #142561

One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 238-6135 Fax: (510) 238-6500

CE02978\/396636

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CITY OF OAKLAND

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal

corporation

Plaintiff,

vs.

OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY and

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR

PUBLIC NUISANCE AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, the City of Oakland, alleges against

Defendants, and each of them, as

follows:

1. Plaintiff, the City of Oakland, is a municipal

corporation and a chartered city

organized, and existing under the laws of the State of

California.

2. Defendant, Oakland Housing Authority, is a public

housing provider with its

principal offices located in Oakland, California. The

Oakland Housing Authority was

created pursuant to California Health & Safety Code

§34200, et seq. and §34500, et seq.

3. Defendants DOES 1 through 20 are sued as fictitious

names, their names

and capacities being unknown to plaintiff. When their

true names and capacities are

ascertained, plaintiff will amend this complaint.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

4. Whenever reference is made to an act performed by

defendant Oakland

Housing Authority, such allegations indicate

defendant, its agents, managers,

representatives, employees or DOES One through Twenty

inclusive, who performed or

authorized such acts while engaged in the operation,

management, direction or control of

the defendant’s affairs, acting within the scope of

their duties.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1

through 4 as though fully set

forth herein.

6. Plaintiff is exempted from filing a claim against

Defendants pursuant to

California Government Code §905.

7. Defendant Oakland Housing Authority (hereinafter

“OHA”) owns, operates

and\/or is responsible for maintaining low income and

government subsidized housing in

Oakland, California. OHA owns, operates and\/or is

responsible for maintaining the

following premises (“the Properties”) within the

geographical limits of the City of Oakland:

3330-72nd Avenue

3350-72nd Avenue

1449-73rd Avenue

1486-77th Avenue

2509-77th Avenue

4516 Fairfax Avenue

7107 Favor Street

7204 Holly Street

7209 Holly Street

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

3

7000 Lacey Avenue

7510-20 Ney Avenue

7636 Ney Avenue

7908 Ney Avenue

7950 Ney Avenue

8021 Plymouth Street

6238 Seminary Avenue

6919 Arthur Street

2468 Coolidge Avenue

1815-28th Avenue

1857-38th Avenue

3014 E. 16th Street

2170 E. 28th Street

905 E. 24th Street

2309-98th Avenue

2315-98th Avenue

2317-98th Avenue

644-14th Street

873-32nd Street

2933 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard

630 Apgar Street

3217 West Street

3027 West Street

725-39th Street

59 Pearl Street

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

4

2511-11th Avenue

610 E. 18th Street

1737 E. 15th Street

1919 E. 15th Street

2247 E. 19th Street

2272 E. 19th Street

2219 E. 22nd Street

1900 E. 24th Street

1951 E. 24th Street

2032 E. 26th Street

2155 E. 28th Street

1815 28th Avenue

2961 Georgia

2820-35th Avenue

2840-35th Avenue

4516 Fairfax Avenue

1756-82nd Avenue

2349-82nd Avenue

2323-82nd Avenue

7600 block of Bancroft

5944 Bromley

5945 Bromley

6121 Harmon Avenue

6229 Hayes Street

1459-65 Seminary Avenue

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

5

1424-50th Avenue

1445-50th Avenue

1617-50th Avenue

5726-30 Elizabeth Street

2500-08-76th Avenue

5480 Wadean Place

5467 Wadean Place

5426 Wentworth Avenue

5428 Wentworth Avenue

7101 Krause Avenue

1168-78th Avenue

1240-77th Avenue

8. OHA is one of Oakland’s largest landlords with over

3300 apartments provided

for low-income tenants. The Properties were built

between 1938 and 1984 and are now at

least thirty-five years old. Of the over 3300

apartment units under the control of OHA,

1615 of those are at 254 “scattered sites“ that do not

have on-site managers and were

built between 1968 and 1972.

9. OHA has failed to maintain the Properties free from

blighted conditions and

conditions detrimental to the health and safety of its

low-income tenants. These conditions

include, but are not limited to, housing code

violations, lack of safe and habitable living

spaces, and accumulation of garbage, dirt, debris,

rodents, vermin and insects. OHA’s

lack of effective on-site management, or any on-site

management, has compounded its

lack of maintenance.

\/ \/ \/

\/ \/ \/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

6

10. OHA has failed in its duty to track complaints

from tenants and area residents

regarding maintenance and crime problems at OHA

properties such that blight and

nuisance conditions persist and criminal activity

continues unchecked and unabated.

11. OHA has failed to provide adequate security for

the Properties such that

criminal activity on the Properties is rampant and out

of control. Plaintiff is informed and

believes that the criminal activity is carried on by

tenants of the Properties, their invitees

and trespassers. Criminal activity on the properties

includes, but is not limited to

vandalism, burglary, drug use, drug sales, possession

of drugs for sale, pimping,

pandering and prostitution.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Against OHA, and DOES 1 through 20

MAINTENANCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE

12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1

through 11 as though fully

set forth herein.

13. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to

California Code of Civil Procedure

§731 to abate a public nuisance. This action is also

brought under Oakland Municipal

Code Chapter 15.08.

14. Defendant’s maintenance of the Properties, or lack

thereof, constitutes a

continuing public nuisance. (CA. Civ. Code §§ 3479,

3480.) That is, defendant’s failure to

maintain and repair the Properties adversely affects

not only the City of Oakland, but also

the surrounding community. The continuous and unabated

criminal activity (including but

not limited to drug sales, drug possession, possession

of drugs for sale, pimping,

pandering and prostitution) , housing code violations,

lack of safe and habitable living

spaces, accumulation of garbage, dirt, debris,

rodents, vermin and insects is a blight on

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

7

the City of Oakland and the residences surrounding the

Properties and constitutes a public

nuisance. The condition of the Properties is injurious

to health, offensive to the senses,

and unlawfully undermines, degrades and obstructs the

free use of the Properties as well

as neighboring residences and streets.

15. Defendant’s maintenance of the Properties in the

condition described in this

complaint is a continuing public nuisance as described

in Oakland Municipal Code

including but not limited to §§ 15.08.340B, C, and D

and 15.08.170 and California Civil

Code §§ 3479 and 3480 and is a nuisance per se.

16. Defendant was notified of the blighted and

nuisance condition of the

Properties numerous times by the City of Oakland and

the residents of the Properties.

Despite this knowledge, defendant has failed to abate

these hazardous and nuisance

conditions with the result being the public nuisance

that continues and exists today.

17. Unless stopped by this Court, OHA will continue to

maintain the Properties in

the above-described substandard and dangerous

condition and continue to cause

irreparable injury to the public’s health, safety and

welfare.

18. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

19. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant

will not correct these

violations or abate the nuisance within a reasonable

period of time. If it becomes

necessary for plaintiffs to correct the violations or

abate the nuisance, the City of Oakland

will incur substantial costs. As part of its prayer,

plaintiffs request recovery of their costs to

correct said violations or abate the nuisance and

establish a prior lien on the Properties for

the costs.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter

set forth.

\/ \/ \/

\/ \/ \/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

8

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Against OHA and DOES 1 through 20

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1

through 19 as though fully

set forth herein.

21. OHA’s wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined

by this court, has caused

and continues to cause irreparable harm and injury to

plaintiff and the residents of the

Properties in Oakland, CA. The continuous and unabated

criminal activity (including but

not limited to drug sales, drug possession and

prostitution) , housing code violations, lack

of safe and habitable living spaces, accumulation of

garbage, dirt, debris, rodents, and

insects is a blight on the City of Oakland and the

residences surrounding the Properties

and constitutes a public nuisance. OHA has refused and

continues to refuse to remedy the

blighted and nuisance conditions at the Properties.

22. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the

injuries suffered as a result of

the wrongful conduct of OHA and its failure to

maintain the Properties, which have become

a public nuisance in Oakland, CA. This court must

compel OHA to repair and maintain the

Properties in a safe and habitable condition, repair

existing and future violations of the

Oakland Housing Code, hire and retain managers for all

OHA sites, provide training to all

OHA managers on reporting and\/or repairing damage to

the Properties, fumigate pests,

vermin and rodents from the Properties such that they

are abated and do not return and to

abate all other conditions that constitute a public

nuisance at the Properties.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter

set forth.

\/ \/ \/ \/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and

permanent injunctions

compelling OHA and its agents:

a. To replace or comprehensively repair the Properties

such that the

Properties meet applicable Oakland Housing Code

standards and are

safe and habitable for tenants;

b. To hire and retain managers at all OHA sites;

c. To provide training to on-site managers in

reporting and\/or repairing

damage to the Properties;

d. To fumigate or otherwise abate pests, vermin and

rodents from the

Properties and maintain the properties free from

infestation from pests,

vermin and rodents;

e. To relocate tenants at the Properties while those

properties are repaired

with cost of the relocation to be borne exclusively by

OHA

f. To abate all conditions that constitute a public

nuisance at the properties;

g. To be permanently enjoined from maintaining a

public nuisance on their

Properties.

2. That the Properties be declared ongoing public

nuisances;

3. That OHA abate its public nuisance and repair the

Properties such that

blight, nuisance and criminal activity that are

detrimental to the public’s health,

safety and welfare ceases;

\/ \/ \/

\/ \/ \/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

10

4. That OHA reimburse the City of Oakland for any

repairs or other remedial

measures undertaken by the City of Oakland or its

agents and contractors to

eliminate the blighted conditions at OHA properties;

5. For the costs of suit herein;

6. For such other and further relief as the court

deems just and proper.

Dated: February 15, 2007

JOHN A. RUSSO, City Attorney

RANDOLPH W. HALL, Chief Assistant City Attorney

JAMES F. HODGKINS, Supervising Trial Attorney

By: ____________ _________ _________ _______

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CITY OF OAKLAND

<\/eharrold><\/p>\n","contact":"tenantsrule@yahoo.com","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Critics of the recent lawsuit filed against the Oakland Housing Authority by the City of Oakland, are under attack from the City Attorney's office! ","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2007\/02\/193922.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}