North Oakland Gang Injunction=Racial Profiling?

Some suggest gang injunctions are simply a method to institutionalize and reinforce racial profiling by the Oakland Police. Some suggest the proliferation of gangs contribute to blight and disinvestment in Oakland. Some suggest the Oakland Police are too willing to kill young black men. Some suggest Oakland residents are too willing to ignore that most murders in Oakland are committed by people of color against people of color.

What is the reality? What are the perceptions? What are the solutions? What do you think?

Fact: Far too many people are being assaulted, robbed, and murdered in Oakland. Open the paper or turn on your computer and you can read that almost every other day someone in Oakland has been shot, robbed, or murdered.

Who commits these crimes and why do they commit these crimes? Oakland has one of the highest violent crime rates in the entire country. Until Oakland addresses crime in a comprehensive fashion, young men like Anthony Thompson will continue to be murdered on Oakland's streets. Until crime is addressed in a comprehensive fashion there will be blight and disinvestment in Oakland.

North Oakland Gang Injunction

Bringing in Spring

During the long, wet winter season our fight against blight slows down. Many of the repairs and improvements that are required to remedy blight are often difficult for property owners to undertake during the winter season. Consequently, we also go into hibernation. However, this winter much of our time has been taken up with a determined fight against the Nic Nak Liquor Store.

Our strategy for addressing blight in North Oakland and South Berkely has been to focus on a limited geographic area that is bounded roughly by Ashby Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, 51st Street and Sacramento/Market Street. However, at times we have pushed all the way west to Emeryville and south to the McArthur Freeway. Our core area encompasses both South Berkeley and North Oakland. Admittedly, we have focused much of our energy on North Oakland as the City of Berkely has been incredibly difficult to work with and unwilling to provide basic services to remedy blighted properties in South Berkeley. The challenge in Berkeley will be to push for a ballot measure to change the definitions of blight and the remedies for addressing blighted properties.

Our first step has been to focus on the removal of abandoned vehicles. We got over 100 vehicles removed from North Oakland. We then moved on to blighted properties. We have been in the process for the last year or so of identifying all blighted properties and reporting them to the City of Oakland. All the properties have been identified and reported to the City and are in various stages of remediation or further prodding of the City Code Enforcement to take further action. Currently we have 47 active properties with blight that are under investigation by the City of Oakland. Many properties have already been cleaned up. A total of 72 blighted properties have been reported and remediated. Some of the 47 outstanding properties have been intractable and need further work not just by We Fight Blight but by the North Oakland Community and the Crime Prevention Council.

Once We Fight Blight adequately addresses and resolves the remaining blighted properties, our next step is to focus on public infrastructure by cataloging all failed and deteriorated streets, sidewalks, benches, parks, bus stops, streetlights and any other public infrastructure and requesting the City repair and remediate the blight pursuant to their own Blight Ordinance. Understandably this may be challenging under the current budget crisis as this requires an investment in public infrastructure by the City itself and it will likely not have any money. Our final step will be a push for major street tree planting and median planting through a public private partnership, property owner investment and donations.

Despite the recent economic downturn, we have witnessed many positive changes in North Oakland and South Berkeley. Houses are being refurbished and remodeled, new restaurants and cafes are opening, the Ed Roberts Campus is almost done, homes are selling at a brisk pace, more families are moving into the community, and crime seems to be down. We like to think our efforts have helped in some small way to bring about some of these changes though we recognize many of these changes are subject to larger macro-economic forces and the cumulative decisions of many individuals. In the short-term we will continue the fight against liquor sales at the Nic Nak. Spring brings renewed hope in our community and marks an opportunity for positive changes in North Oakland and South Berkeley. We hope you join our efforts in making North Oakland and South Berkeley a better, safer place to live.

Nic Nak Liquors--A Case for Over-Concentration of Liquor Outlets in North Oakland/South Berkeley

Nic Nak Liquors at 6400 Shattuck Avenue is attempting to obtain a Major Conditional Use Permit and a Major Variance from the Oakland Planning Commission for liquor sales. Approval of this land use activity would create a major and significant precedent in the ability for liquor stores that have lost their Deemed Approved Status as a non-conforming legal use to re-open in Oakland.

Because the property is located 80 feet away from an existing liquor store, T and K Market, and continuous liquor sales at Nic Nak ceased for more than 90 days, the City of Oakland requires Nic Nak to obtain a Major Variance. A Major Variance relates to a unique or extraordinary physical or topographic constraint which Nic Nak does not have. There is nothing in the Administrative Record that currently supports approval of another liquor store in North Oakland. Not even if former Commissioner Anne E. Mudge and Commissioner Boxer fabricate out of thin air the notion that "historic relevance" is equivalent to a unique physical constraint does this mean the courts will validate their misapplication and misinterpretation of the City requirements for a Variance. We note this because if the City of Oakland approves this land use, contrary to its own adopted public policy and regulations, it will likely receive judicial scrutiny according to some neighbors.

North Oakland is already over saturated with liquor stores, many of which create significant nuisances for North Oakland neighborhoods. The City Staff Report, dated August 5, 2009, recommended denying Mr. Pannell's proposal to peddle liquor and stated that: This proposed location [Nic Nak] is within 80 feet of a market across the street selling beer and wine. A Variance has been requested to allow this Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activity closer than one thousand (1,000) feet to any other Alcoholic Beverage Sales Activity. This is an adverse precedent for other such uses. This store will not provide an unmet Alcoholic Beverage Sales need for a population in the immediate Oakland Community, since beer and wine can be purchased across Alcatraz Avenue and spirit liquors can be purchased at several locations within a 5-minute drive. The store will not serve as a catalyst for other desirable businesses in the area, such as retail or restaurant uses; rather, the store is planned to operate like liquor stores from 40 years ago.

The August 5, 2009 Staff Report also noted that: the Planning Code Section 17.09.040 defines: "Alcoholic beverage licenses over concentrated areas" as "a police beat with crime rates that exceed the City median by twenty percent or more or a census tract in which the per capita number of on-sale or off-sale retail Alcoholic Beverage Sales licenses exceeds the Alameda County median" The applicant's store is in Police Beat 11-X. In 2008, there were 1,030 crimes in 11-X. the City's "over-concentrated areas "threshold was 1,320. Beat 11-X is thus approximately 30% below this threshold and is thus not over-concentrated by that standard.

In Census Tract 4005, in 2008 there were three alcoholic beverage licenses other than (exempt) full-service restaurants; the applicant's store would make 4, not exceeding the standard threshold of 6. Therefore, this site does not meet the definition of over-concentrated area defined in Section 17.09.040.

We submit that the definition of over-concentrated areas using a threshold that exceeds the median crime rate by 20% or more and/or a census tract is fundamentally defective in capturing the true blight and nuisance activities associated with liquor stores. Using crime rates that exceed the City median by 20% or more is a blunt metric that does not accurately target or identify the most specific crimes associated with liquor stores in a particular community such as North Oakland--loitering, littering, vandalism, public drunkenness, driving while under the influence, etc. It is blunt because it includes all crimes and then establishes that over-concentration is a threshold of 20% or more of the City median. The City of Oakland, by most accepted measures, has some of the highest crime rates in the entire United States. These high crime rates are driven by some of the most blighted, poverty-stricken, depressed, violent neighborhoods in the country. To use a threshold that is 20% or more of the median crime rate of one of the worst crime-plagued cities in the country as a metric for success results in the unbearable tolerance of an incredibly high number of nuisance crimes associated with liquor stores within a police beat as compared to the vast majority of cities of a comparable size in the United States. The fact that Beat 11-X is 30% below the threshold for crime in Oakland is actually a testament to the years of hard, dedicated and focused work of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, neighborhood associations, businesses and the Oakland Police. Crime that is 30% less than the Oakland median crime rate would not be tolerated in the vast majority of communities in the United States. To penalize this hard work with the addition of yet another liquor store is contrary to the public interest, the stated public policy of the City, and the health and welfare of the residents of North Oakland particularly when considering the body of research and evidence that establishes an incontrovertible link between the density of alcohol outlets, crime and adverse public health consequences.

The analysis by the Oakland Planning Staff in their report and findings for approval are troubling and highly deficient in that it did not consider or evaluate any liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley, except Nic Nak, for their cumulative contribution to crime, nuisance activities and detriments to quality of life and public health. No assessment was done to map out and show the location of such liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley. Hence no accurate baseline was defined as to the adverse effects liquor outlets are currently having in North Oakland. It is critical, since Nic Nak liquors is located less than 1/4 a mile away from South Berkeley, that liquor stores in South Berkeley also be considered. The absence of any reasonable assessment of the cumulative effects of existing liquor stores fails to properly place the approval of Nic Nak liquors in an appropriate context for decision makers and essentially encourages them to disregard the over-concentration of liquor outlets in their decision tree.

The use of a census tract, while a relatively standardized and efficient unit for comparing and measuring changes from one small geographic area to another, does not adequately assess the over-concentration of liquor stores and, in fact, underestimates the cumulative adverse effects these stores are having on geographically distinct neighborhoods that are larger than a census tract in North Oakland and South Berkeley. The use of a census tract as a geographic demarcation for the assessment of effects on a neighborhood or community is artificial and politically expedient with no real scientific basis or nexus to assess the true public health effects and increases in crime related to the availability of alcohol. In the case of North Oakland, census tract 4005 is also artificially constrained by city boundaries, effectively negating a true assessment of the cumulative effects and over-concentration of liquor stores in the vicinity of the proposed Nic Nak Liquor Store which spans the Oakland Berkeley City boundaries. This is true particularly in our highly mobile community where movement of people and alcohol is facilitated by an abundance of public transportation including AC Transit, BART, personal autos, bicycles and other conveyance methods. This allows the nuisance effects of alcohol outlets to be dispersed over a relatively wide area rather quickly such that the use of a census tract to assess over-concentration of alcohol outlets would fail to adequately capture the true societal costs of increased crime and public health issues. While liquor stores are the epicenter and causation of the problem, the problems and effects are dispersed throughout a community.

There is a wide and growing body of evidence nationally and internationally that shows an incontrovertible link between a concentration of liquor stores, crime and public health concerns. One study in Richmond California, Liquor Stores and Community Health, prepared by the Pacific Institute, notes that: A high density of liquor stores can contribute to a variety of health and safety problems. Studies show that neighborhoods with higher concentrations of liquor stores also have higher rates of alcohol-related hospitalizations, drunk driving accidents, and pedestrian injuries. A recent study across all California zip codes found that neighborhoods with a higher density of liquor stores had higher numbers of childhood accidents, assaults, and child abuse injuries. Liquor stores become places where social controls are weaker, increasing the likelihood of criminal and nuisance activities. A high density of liquor stores is linked to higher levels of crime and violence. A study conducted in Los Angeles found that each new liquor store in a neighborhood resulted in 3.4 more assaults per year. In New Jersey, researchers found that the number of liquor stores was the single most important environmental predictor of why some neighborhoods have higher crime rates than others—a stronger predictor than unemployment rate or median household income.

The Pacific Institutes Study also noted that: A high density of liquor stores also contributes to economic and social disintegration. Similar to power plants and refineries, alcohol outlets represent a form of locally unwanted land use that conflicts with desirable land uses such as schools, parks, and residences. The over-concentration of liquor stores increases the perceived lack of safety and limits walkability in the community. Moreover, concentrations of liquor stores in a neighborhood can constrain economic opportunities for current and new businesses and therefore are both a symptom and accelerator of economic decline.

Recognizing the importance of educating decision makers, the Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association has compiled a significant list of research on alcohol outlet densities at http://www.hbneighborhood.org/My%20Web/1%20HB%20CrimeNews%202004%202.htm.

These various national and international peer reviewed studies collated by the Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association conclude or provide significant evidence that: (1) alcohol availability is related to violent assaults at the local level; (2) alcohol outlet density was the single most important environmental factor explaining why violent crime rates are higher in certain parts of the city than in others; (3) neighborhoods with higher alcohol outlet density have higher rates of alcohol-related problems than a neighborhood's racial or ethnic makeup; (4) localities with more alcohol sales had more assaults per capita; (5) the more off-site alcohol outlets a neighborhood has, the more likely it is to have more homicides; (6) three northern California cities with a higher density of alcohol outlets had significantly higher levels of crime among Mexican American youth; (7) there was more youth violence in neighborhoods that had more off-site alcohol outlets than those that did not; (8) areas with more alcohol outlets experience more violent crime; and (9) blocks having more bars had higher crime rates.

None of this body of incontrovertible evidence was either reviewed, evaluated or consulted by the Planning Staff or the Planning Commission in preparing its findings to approve a Major Variance to allow yet another liquor store in North Oakland even though it is readily available on the internet. The approval for the Nic Nak is moving forward despite significant objections from the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association, and local business owners that an additional liquor store in an already over-concentrated North Oakland community will increase alcohol related crimes and public nuisances. In dismissing community concerns, one Commissioner, Sandra Galvez, even went so far as to characterize the predominantly white residents who were objecting to additional liquor stores as fostering" institutionalized racism." The body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence and the actual experience of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association and local business owners in North Oakland is diametrically opposed to the personal beliefs and political leanings of those Planning Commissioners who are loathe to deny the Nic Nak's application for a Major Variance for fear of opposing a black-owned business and looking very un PC, no matter how detrimental it is to the community.

Since former Commissioner Mudge and existing Commissioner Doug Boxer led the charge for approving another liquor store in North Oakland, and seem to think more liquor stores are a good and positive thing to maintain and retain historic associations including neighborhood, social and leadership activities , and because Commissioner Galvez believes the opposition to another liquor store in North Oakland somehow is the result of "institutionalized racism", we decided to show them and others just how many liquor stores and other off-sales alcohol outlets there are within an approximately 1 mile radius of the proposed Nic Nak Liquor Store. There are a total of 18 existing off-sale liquor outlets within an approximately 1 mile radius of Nic Nak . If Nic Nak is granted a Major Variance to peddle liquor it will make 19.

We chose an approximately 1 mile geographic limitation for our assessment as it takes only 15-20 minutes to walk one mile, 5-7 minutes to bicycle one mile and 1-2 minutes to drive one mile (not counting wait times at lights). A one mile geographic boundary gives a reasonably convenient radius for all modes of travel and provides a more comprehensive assessment of over-concentration than does a much smaller census tract.

This assessment does not include the many on-sales liquor outlets such as the Starry Plough, the White Horse Bar and Inn, Valparaiso, Dorsey's Lockers and Nick's Lounge where disturbances have included everything from people being drunk in public, to drunken bar fights, shootings, stabbings and even murders (Dorsey's Lounge and Nick's Lounge). This assesment also does not include the liquor stores that have already been shut down as public nuisances.

T and K Market
6342 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.04 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, drug sales, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members from nearby Oakland Housing Authority complex.

Alcatel

6363 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland

Approximately 0.30 miles from Nic Nak.

Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.

Documented problems include: None.

Aiban Market
701 60th Street, Oakland
Approximately 0.45 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loitering, drug dealing, and public drinking. Three confirmed sales to underage minors documented by ABC.

Stanford Market
3400 Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.47 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkeness, and littering. Frequented by south Berkeley gang members.

M and H Market and Liquor
Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.47 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkeness, littering, graffiti. Frequented by South Berkeley gang members.

Uptown Market and Liquors
5635 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.55 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkennes, drug dealing, boom cars, unauthorized hip hop promotion, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members.

Alcatraz Market
1601 Alcatraz Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.55 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkenness, drug dealing, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by South Berkeley gang members.

Williams Liquors
5830 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.57 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkenness, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members from nearby Oakland Housing Authority complex. Drive by shootings at corner of 58th and Telegraph.

Berkeley Bowl
6363 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.62 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Aggressive panhandling.

Black and White Liquors
3027 Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.72 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Averted declaration of public nuisance by City of Berkeley Zoning Board 5-4. Public drunkenness, public urination, defecation and vomitting on nearby residential streets, litter, and graffiti. Site of violent crimes including recent day-time pistol whipping and armed robbery of a woman. Currently under severe operational restrictions.

M and B Liquors and Groceries
6310 Market Street, Berkeley
Approximately 0.73 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, littering, graffiti, and public drunkeness.

ASA Liquor Store
5909 Market Street, Oakland
Approximately 0.74 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loitering, littering, graffiti, and public drunkenness.

Whole Foods
3000 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.79 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students, and aggressive panhandling.

Safeway
6310 College Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.80 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students, and aggressive panhandling.

King's Market
5442 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland
Approximately 1.00 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Graffiti, litter, and minor loitering.

Adeline Liquors and Market
5702 Adeline Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 1.04 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loiteiring, public drunkeness, littering, and graffiti.

East Bay Liquors
5350 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland
Approximately 1.06 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, cigarrettes, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the Cit of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Public drunkenness, loitering, drug sales, littering, and graffiti. Involved in several shootings including a killing by an Oakland Police Officer.

Andronicos
2655 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 1.18 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students.

Using Inmates to Fight Blight

This article showed up recently in Commercial Appeal regarding Memphis Tennessee. Memphis shares similar problems as Oakland with crime and blight. This program provides an opportunity to address issues of blight, while giving inmates an opportunity to contribute back to their community. With the large number of inmates and parolees that originate from Oakland, coupled with our massive budget deficit, large number of foreclosed properties and opportunities for economic stimulus money, this type of program is timely. In fact, this type of program seems to be just what Mayor Dellum's is all about.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jan/15/fighting-blight/

Fighting blight: Inmates help clean up near Booker T. Washington High SchoolProject was part of Freedom From Unnecessary Negatives
By Linda A. Moore / lmoore@commercialappeal.comThursday, January 15, 2009

Eight years ago Markenis Benton was a senior at Booker T. Washington High and a member of its state championship basketball team. On Wednesday, Benton was part of a work crew from the Shelby County Division of Corrections that cleaned the vacant lot in front of the school. Benton was embarrassed by his aggravated robbery conviction, but said clearing the property near his alma mater is work he's proud of.

Inmates from the Shelby County jail clean up an abandoned apartment complex and vacant lot adjacent to Booker T. Washington High School Wednesday morning as part of a community action project launched by Freedom From Unnecessary Negatives. And he hoped the school kids were watching. "I hope they'll stop all the violence, do the right thing, stay positive and don't do what I did." Benton said.

The cleanup at Mississippi and Lauderdale was organized by Freedom From Unnecessary Negatives as its inaugural Community Action Project. FFUN partnered with the Shelby County Division of Correction, and Memphis' Division of Community Enhancement.

The cleanup marks a departure from the stop-the-violence rallies typically organized by activist Stevie Moore, president and founder of FFUN, who said blight has a direct correlation to crime. Removing trash, overgrown brush and cleaning graffiti from a nearby overpass is a positive for the school children who travel the area to and from school and for the entire neighborhood, he said. Moore, who served time in the 1980s, believes using inmate labor helps convicts understand their obligation to the community. "They took from the community," he said, whether it was joining gangs or selling dope. The men, most in the early 20s, need to learn to have pride in the work they do, Moore said.

Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton was one of many officials attending the cleanup. "I've adopted a theory a long time ago that no public money should serve a single purpose," Wharton said. The same money that covered the inmates' daily expenses, he said, also paid to clear the lot and to teach a lesson to the young people.

About 20 inmates, all part of The 3R Project (Rehabilitate, Renew, Reconnect), volunteered for cleanup duty. "Our philosophy is you've got to give something back to the community. You're part of the community and that's what people do who are productive," said Andrew Taber, correction division director.

The 3R Project is a pilot program, funded by federal grants, that is aimed at reducing recidivism. Components include substance abuse rehabilitation, behavior management, vocational and educational training and parenting and life skills training. "Nobody sent out invitations. You did something to come here. We just don't want you to come back," Taber said. Cleanup participants were minimum- to medium-security inmates and, like Benton, who will be paroled in February, are near the end of their sentences.

Blight in Downtown Oakland

Blight is a significant problem in Oakland creating an impression of a run down community that is rife with crime. First impressions are everything. It is no wonder that Oakland loses out on so many opportunities when it comes to business investment, tourism and shopping. If the local government cannot get a handle on blight, a very basic issue, why would businesses want to invest in the community, why would tourists want to spend time in the community and why would anyone want to shop and recreate in the City?

While there have been many improvements in Downtown Oakland, due largely to the Brown Administration, significant blight issues remain to be addressed. Mayor Dellums has provided little to no leadership when it comes to revitalizing Downtown. Several basic actions by the local government could help to revitalize Downtown Oakland. These include:

1. Increasing the number of foot and bicycle patrols. Residents and visitors need to feel safe. Seeing police patrolling the area on foot and bicycle increases ones comfort level about being in Downtown Oakland especially at night. If people are more comfortable visiting the area they are more likely to support local businesses. More patrols in the Downtown area would also serve as a deterrent to those engaging in criminal and anti-social behavior;
   
2. Increasing graffiti control. The City should be more pro-active in eliminating graffiti as soon as it appears on public property or within the public right of way and charging private property owners for the cost of graffiti removal on private property if property owners do not immediately remove graffiti. While some may argue that graffiti is art and we need to allow people to express themselves, placing graffiti on public or private property without the property owners permission is called a crime--vandalism--and for the average person creates an uncomfortable and unsightly experience;
   
3. Conducting periodic code enforcement and blight sweeps in Downtown Oakland. The City needs to ensure that property owners are aware of the Blight Ordinance and are promptly notified to remedy the problems in a limited amount of time before fines kick in;
   
4. Increasing trash collection and trash pick-up. This is self-evident;
   
5. Instituting and enforcing a 10 pm curfew. A curfew for those under 18 would be helpful to prevent marauding teenagers from trashing the Downtown. If the City of Long Beach can do this why not Oakland; and
   
6. Planting more trees. Trees are needed to soften the harshness of the urban environment. Downtown is so void of trees it feels like an urban prison and contributes to the appearance of blight.

At a very basic level we need to make people feel safe and we need to make them feel like the streetscape is clean and inviting in order for them to visit Downtown and to spend money. Why can't our career politicians and career bureaucrats step up and create a simple Downtown revitalization program aimed at keeping the Downtown from looking like a blighted crime infested Skid Row?

Making Progress in North Oakland

The We Fight Blight Campaign is seeing the fruits of its labor in North Oakland. As we drive around the neighborhood, we can see abandoned and inoperable vehicles being towed and properties being cleaned up and repainted. The Vehicle Abatement Unit of Oakland has been nothing but stellar. We have provided them with many, many locations for abandoned and inoperable vehicles. They are steadily working through the list, tagging the vehicles and towing them. As well, the Oakland Public Works Call Center and the online reporting system has been working quite well. We had doubts about the online reporting system being a black hole. Although, we have rarely gotten a call back from the Building Inspectors, we have noticed that several of the problem properties that were reported by residents using the online reporting system are being cleaned up. In following up with the Call Center, residents have gotten updates indicating that the property owners have been notified and given a certain amount of time to remedy the blight problems. One problem house that has been a source of blight and crime for the neighborhood for years is finally being cleaned up. We credit this both to the recent good work of the Oakland City Staff and to the persistence of residents in making multiple calls and sending emails. Fighting blight must be a partnership with the local government.

Berkeley on the other hand has been a bit of a disappointment. As a test, we notified the Environmental Health Services of several abandoned and inoperable vehicles one month ago. In that time we have had no indication that the property owners have been notified, the vehicles tagged and certainly none of the vehicles have been towed. In a month, Oakland has removed at more than 30 abandoned and inoperable vehicles in North Oakland as a result of the We Fight Blight Campaign.

Apparently, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association also reported ten South Berkeley properties to the City Manager's Office for investigation earlier this summer and met with the City staff on July 11, 2008. That effort has gotten mixed results. The City apparently notified the property owners of the blight issues and some have already voluntarily remedied the problems by removing abandoned and inoperable vehicles. However, with other properties there seems to be little or no improvement. Part of this stems from the City's weak blight ordinance that exempts owner occupied, single family dwellings and part stems from the City's lack of organizational structure and well-defined roles and responsibilities to address blight. We will continue to monitor the efficacy of the Berkeley Blight Ordinance and the organizational structure of the City to deal with blight. It is clear that revisions to the Berkeley Blight Ordinance are necessary to address these failings. Such changes can come either through the introduction of proposed changes by a City Councilman or through a ballot initiative.

Oakland's Neighborhood Law Corps

Problem Liquor Store

We recently got a rather slick brochure from Oakland's Neighborhood Law Corps with City Attorney John Russo and Staff looking rather imposing on the front cover. The brochure was sent out to educate the community about the Neighborhood Law Corps which is intended to take on slumlords, shut down problem liquor stores and help make neighborhoods safer.

The Neighborhood Law Corps is an innovative program that bases lawyers and resources in our toughest communities to solve difficult neighborhood problems. Inspired by the Peace Corps, Oakland City Attorney John Russo created the Law Corps in 2002 to put lawyers out in the streets to work in collaboration with residents, neighborhood groups and merchant organizations to improve the quality of life in our community. This is the first program of its kind in the nation.

The Neighborhood Law Corps asks residents to identify and prioritize problems and concerns. Attorneys canvas neighborhoods, conduct town hall meetings, and attend living room gatherings. The program focuses on educating residents about their rights and how to navigate government bureaucracy.


Berkeley Police Making a Stop in Oakland

The Law Corps was created because too many Oakland neighborhoods face public safety, economic and residential social challenges. The overwhelming majority of residents in these neighborhoods are hardworking decent people trying to make a good life for themselves and their families under difficult circumstances. Often, residents who live in these challenged neighborhoods are unaware of their rights under the law. As a consequence, Oakland's more challenged neighborhoods suffer from dangerous and substandard housing, blight, dumping, toxic pollution, and other illegal conditions that provide a crucible for violent crime.



Blighted Commercial Property

The Neighborhood Law Corps improves the community by abating chronic problems such as crack houses, slum housing, problem alcohol outlets and other health and safety issues. If there is a problem with drug dealing, blight, or dangerous housing conditions in your neighborhood, please call John Russo, Oakland City Attorney, at 510-238-3601.

Still Investing in South Berkeley-North Oakland

Green Condo Development on 65th Street, Oakland.
Listed in the low $700,000 and all sold very quickly.
This regionally recognized development replaced a
dilapidated single family dwelling with three condo units.


While this blog focuses on eliminating blight in South Berkeley-North Oakland, we don't want to give people the idea that all is bad in our community. Far from it. Despite the poor economy and real estate slowdown, there is still significant investments occurring in South Berkeley-North Oakland. I credit this largely to our location. We are close to two Bart Stations, Ashby and MacArther, have easy access to Highways 24 and 80 leading into major employment centers and are close to some of the best shopping and entertainment districts the East Bay has to offer--Temescal, Rockridge, Piedmont, Elmwood, Downtown Berkeley and the Gourmet Ghetto. To the east, we have easy access to acres of hiking trails in the East Bay Regional Park District and to the west, the shores of the Bay and the Eastshore State Park. Not unlike Rockridge or Temescal, our historic neighborhoods, which grew around the streetcar trolleys at the turn of the century, are filled with beautiful California and Craftsman Bungalows and Colonial Revival Cottages. Given the reasonably priced housing stock and the proximity to highly desirable areas, our community is on the verge of a major transition, much the way Temescal experienced. For the savvy investor or those looking to purchase a home with upside potential in a down market, South Berkeley-North Oakland is certainly an option to consider. Do you ever wonder what used be located at the current site of the neighborhood defining NOMAD Cafe?

Here are but a few examples of positive investments in our community. Most of these are clustered around the Ashby BART Station. Not only are we seeing condo conversions in Oakland, but homeowners expanding their single family dwellings in Berkeley and Oakland to get more square footage. That is an important sign that residents like their community and are willing to invest in it.


Colonial Revival Cottage on Woolsey completely remodeled.
with an addition. The property was an eyesore with significant
deferred maintenance.



Colonial Revival Cottage on Tremont Street, Oakland.
This home has been completely remodeled and updated
with a first floor expansion.



Remodel of deteriorated home on Wheeler Street,
Berkeley, with new fenestration.


Condo conversion on Alcatraz Avenue, Oakland.
Beautifully remodeled and listing in the $500,000's
for each very large unit.

We Fight Blight--Geographic Scope and Focus

Several people interested in fighting blight have asked me to clarify the geographic scope and focus of the Fight Blight in South Berkeley-North Oakland effort. Understandably, the terms South Berkeley and North Oakland are a bit amorphous. To start, we have limited our geographic focus as follows: (1) Ashby to the north; (2) Telegraph to the east; (3) Sacramento/Market to the west; and (4) 52nd Street to the south. We picked this area for several reasons. The most important being that we live and travel within this area and became increasingly dissatisfied with the blighted conditions that were affecting the quality of life in our community and the apparent lack of community knowledge or interest in fighting blight. Because of our desire to create a safer community, we also wanted to address the connection between crime and blight, something that did not appear to be actively and comprehensively addressed by any of the existing community groups or neighborhood associations.



Within this geographic area of South Berkeley-North Oakland, we want to provide resources and tools for residents to address blight themselves. Essentially, by arming residents with information on the city processes and giving them an understanding of the laws governing blight, residents will be able to solve blight issues on a block by block basis. Importantly though, this requires an interested citizenry. In addition, we have several people who are actively identifying and reporting blight issues within this geographic area.



Our primary focus at the moment is to identify all the abandoned and inoperable vehicles within South Berkeley-North Oakland and have them removed by the owners or the Cities of Berkeley and Oakland. We are also identifying the most blighted single family dwellings and apartments. This mostly includes those residences with peeling paint, deteriorated siding, large amounts of debris/litter in their yards and on their porches, and overgrown weeds. Next, we will work on commercial properties with deteriorated facades. Of particular interest are the large number of liquor stores/markets that serve as a magnet for loitering, littering, public drunkenness and drugs. BAPAC, the Berkeley Alcohol Policy Advisory Coalition, has been working tirelessly to address the oversaturation of alcohol outlets in South and West Berkeley and to provide the City of Berkeley with the tools that will allow it to systematically and quickly address alcohol-related public nuisance problems before they get out of hand. Our efforts are not intended to supplant those of BAPAC, but to be complementary by actively monitoring and reporting code and blight violations. This will help BAPAC and others develop the evidence for shutting down nuisance alcohol outlets.



In our efforts, we are always trying to partner with neighborhood associations and crime prevention councils. Naturally, these organizations are a great way to help educate the community on the existing tools for fighting blight as well as the necessary policy reforms to assure fair, efficient, and effective reduction of blighted properties.

Asbhy BART Station to Undergo Possible Modernization

Bart Plaza Along Adeline Avenue


BART recently announced that it is holding a public meeting to address potential modernization of the Ashby BART Station. This is an exciting opportunity for the Community to step forward and identify positive ways to improve the Ashby BART Station. The meeting is to address: (1) security; (2) customer convenience; (3) cleanliness; (4) and other priorities.

The meeting will be held on Tuesday August 19th from 6-8 pm at the Philips Temple CME Church on 3332 Adeline Street, Berkeley. For more information you can contact June Garrett, BART Community Relations, 510-464-6257.


Dead Landscaping at West Parking Lot

Hopefully, this process to modernize the Ashby BART Station will not become derailed as was the Ashby BART Task Force that was investigating options for developing the west parking lot, including mixed uses. In addition to the current modernization effort, the east parking lot is being shut down starting August 18th for 18 months to allow for the development of the Ed Roberts Campus.



Planters Serving as Garbage Bins

Clearly, the Ashby BART Station, which was put into operation on January 29, 1973, has suffered from its location in an urban area in South Berkeley. Urban abuse along with significant deferred maintenance leaves us with a station that contributes to the problem of blight in South Berkeley and North Oakland. As with many stations, BART has struggled to keep up with maintenance as its highest priorities are focused on seismic safety and upgrades of the track infrastructure, particularly tunnels and the elevated structures, rather than on the aesthetics and comfort of the stations. The Ashby BART station is a pseudo-classic suburban station model with a sea of parking surrounding the station. The development of the Ed Roberts Campus will push the station towards a more appropriate transit oriented site with higher densities and intensive uses. Arguably, the more intensive uses of the station may counter some of the negative activities that often occur at the Ashby BART Station, such as vandalism, public drunkenness, homeless encampments and crime.

In a recent crime summit between the Oakland, Berkeley and BART Police and local community leaders, Captain Toribio of the Oakland Police Department referred to the Ashby BART Station as a target rich environment. BART Patrons leaving work or going to local music venues such as the Starry Plough and La Pena have been targeted by armed robbers in the past several years. The Crime Summit was intended to facilitate better coordination among the three police departments and local community groups to improve public safety in and around the Ashby BART Station.


Overgrown Weeds Along Tremont Street

As of yesterday, there were several BART Employees fixing the long defunct irrigation and assessing the overall conditions of the station in anticipation of the upcoming meeting.

Some of the improvements that we think should be considered as part of a modernization effort include:

• Bulb-outs at cross walks approaching the station to facilitate safer pedestrian access. The BART Station is surrounded by major arterials and crossing them is daunting for children and the elderly.
• Additional bicycle racks to facilitate non-vehicle access to the station. Casual observation indicates that the bicycle racks are heavily used on a day to day basis.
  
• Drought tolerant landscaping and replacement of the dead and dying landscaping. Much of the landscaping has died due to poor maintenance practices and damaged sprinkler systems.
• Installation of additional street trees along the sidewalks along Woolsey and Tremont. Some additional trees may be provided by the Ed Roberts Campus.
  
• Removal of chain link fences and replacement with wrought iron fences, particularly along Ashby Avenue. The chain link fences are damaged from people constantly climbing over them and aesthetically they contribute to an appearance of blight.
  
• Landscaping of the planters at the westernmost plaza along Adeline Avenue with Japanese Maples or other trees tolerant of being in planters. All of the planters have not been planted for years and simply serve as garbage repositories.
• Relocation of formal pathways to the location of informal pathways. Some of the landscaping has been destroyed because patrons take the shortest route to the street and do not use the existing sidewalks/pathways.
  
• Installation of JC Decaux Kiosks, similar to those in downtown Santa Cruz, at the westernmost plaza along Adeline. The Kiosks could be leased to small vendors, coffee shops, cafes etc. to bring additional life and eyes to the Plaza and Adeline Street. They simply need a water and power source, both of which are readily available at the station.
  
• More coordinated and aesthetically pleasing sign program that provides a sense of place to the station. Currently, the signs are outdated, ad hoc or filled with graffiti.
• Tighter parking controls along Tremont and Woolsey including limiting the parking to a 2 hour limit and eliminating overnight parking. This would minimize the overnight parking of large trucks, campers and those storing inoperable vehicles.
  
• A better maintenance program that includes trash, weed and graffiti removal to the curb. For some reason, BART does not provide maintenance outside of its fence line. Most cities, including Berkeley, require that property owners maintain the sidewalk to the curb face.
• Continued support and participation in the ongoing Crime Summit with Oakland and Berkeley Police.

Of course, there will be many other ideas from the community and there will be limitations on what BART is able to do based on the available funding. Combined with the Ed Roberts Campus, we see this as a great opportunity for South Berkeley and North Oakland. Hopefully, this opportunity will not be squandered like the Asbhy BART Task Force effort.

Fight Blight--Request a Free Tree From the City of Oakland

CITY OF OAKLAND FREE TREE PLANTINGS

If you would like to have a tree planted for free in front of your house or apartment building (in the "planter strip" portion of the sidewalk), fill out the City of Oakland Tree Planting form. Your property owner or apartment manager's signature is required.

The City will:

* Inspect your property for a qualified location
* Cut open the sidewalk and remove the concrete
* Backfill the tree well after cutting
* Select an appropriate tree species (you can help choose the species)
* Install a free 15 gallon tree
* Classify the tree as "Official" and provide the necessary future maintenance

You must commit to:

* Watering the tree for three years (when it does not rain often enough)
* Keeping the tree well free of weeds and litter
* Keeping wood chips or mulch on the soil around the tree

See the City of Oakland Tree Planting Program below for more information and a Tree Planting Form.

http://www.oaklandpw.com/Page555.aspx

Urban Litter Forum Examines Links to Crime and Economic Development

By Jennifer DeLong

---

"Litter and illegally dumped materials attract crime and repel economic development in urban areas" concluded a group of more than 80 attendees at an Urban Litter Forum. They agreed that blighted areas in the nation's cities are more impacted by crime and economic decline.

The Urban Litter Forum, which convened in Hollywood, Florida, January 11-12, was sponsored by the recently established Urban Litter Partnership between The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) and Keep America Beautiful (KAB). Commissioners, solid waste directors, enforcement officials, educators, and KAB staff, representing more than 20 cities, came together to address the impacts of urban blight and share solutions. This forum, the second of two conducted by the partnership, was designed to exchange information about urban blight and develop best practices for urban litter prevention programs.

On the first day of the forum, attendees participated in two roundtable discussions to explore the impacts of litter and illegal dumping in urban areas. Participants identified several impacts they had observed in their cities, including the following economic and crime-related problems:

* Litter repels economic development, investment, and location of businesses

* Litter decreases property values and increases urban decay

* Decreased tourism in certain communities due to litter and urban blight

* Decline in revenue for littered business districts

* Increasing costs for cleanup programs requires additional financial resources taken from revenues received by businesses, local governments, taxpayers, and property owners

* Related crime activities are more likely to occur in blighted areas (drug deals, prostitution, gang violence, loitering, vandalism, etc.)

* Litter & illegal dumping are often committed by those wanted for more serious crimes

* Littered areas indicate lack of concern and loss of local pride in obeying the law

Participants discussed the need for additional research to measure both the impacts of urban blight and the improvements that are made through prevention and cleanup programs. John Schert, Executive Director of the Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida, discussed their research program to analyze the economic impacts of blight to businesses and municipalities. He emphasized that both social and economic indicators will be assessed carefully for accurate measurement of the impacts to urban areas. Once the real costs of urban blight and benefits of cleanup are measured, additional resources could be allocated to provide effective solutions for it.

During the two-day discussions, attendees identified components to help prevent litter and illegal dumping and establish cleaner, more livable cities. Participants emphasized that clear lines of responsibility must be established for identification, response, and clean up of litter and illegal dumps. Cooperation among city agencies, the private sector, and residents is helpful in developing a coordinated approach for prevention of urban blight.

Participants pointed out that separate approaches should be developed for litter and illegal dumping, claiming that litter is primarily driven by behavior, while illegal dumping is driven by economic costs of disposal. Education and media campaigns help prevent littering, while strong enforcement programs help decrease the occurrence of illegal dumping in urban areas.

Attendees agreed that a combination of factors contribute to successful urban litter prevention programs. These factors include establishing partnerships, setting up coordinated local sanitation services, garnering stronger enforcement of local ordinances against litter and illegal dumping, educating residents about local programs, providing rewards and incentives, and measuring the effectiveness of programs.

Philadelphia Deputy Commissioner Clarena Tolson, Keep Houston Beautiful Executive Director Robin Blut, and West Palm Beach Commissioner Jeff Koons introduced local programs to address urban blight and shared their successes in enhancing livability in their communities.

The Urban Litter Partnership includes supporting partners from the American Plastics Council, Anheuser-Busch Companies, EIA Foundation, Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Grocery Manufacturers of America, ITW Hi-Cone, McDonalds' Corporation, National Soft Drink Association, Philip Morris U.S.A., Polystyrene Packaging Council, Procter & Gamble, and Tenneco Packaging. The Urban Litter Partnership plans to unveil its Best Practices Guide to mayors at a National Summit scheduled for late October of this year.

Can City Governments Be a Source of Blight?

Two fundamental purposes of blight ordinances are to ensure that property owners are maintaining their properties in a manner that avoids or eliminates a public health and/or safety issue and to ensure that property values and the tax base are maintained. As such, blight ordinances adopted by local governments require property owners to meet certain fundamental standards set by the community. Interestingly, while local governments are the enforcers of blight ordinances, they themselves can be the source of blight in a community.

Take for example the maintenance of local roadways which is the responsibility of local governments paid for by your tax dollars including property taxes, income taxes and federal gas taxes. The portion of Shattuck Avenue in North Oakland/South Berkeley between Ashby Avenue and Alcatraz Avenue is major thoroughfare/arterial and gateway to downtown Berkeley. It is heavily traveled by those either coming to downtown Berkeley/UC Berkeley to shop, attend the University or for employment. It is also used by residents of Berkeley/Oakland to access Highway 24 and downtown Oakland. Yet, this section of roadway has severely deteriorated to the point where it represents a public safety problem and detracts from the community, creating an appearance of neglect and blight. This section of the road is filled with so many ruts and potholes, that it is a significant public safety concern for bicyclists and motorists. In fact, it presents a significant liability for the Cities of Oakland and Berkeley to maintain an unsafe roadway and it costs taxpayers in the form of additional maintenance on their motor vehicles/bicycles. Clearly, the failed pavement is a result of the heavy use of the roadway as well as the pavement cuts made by utility companies over time to repair underground utilities in the right of way.

This issue was recently brought to the attention of the Berkeley Public Works Director, Claudette Ford, and Berkeley City Councilman, Max Anderson, by the Chair of a Neighborhood Association.

Ms. Ford stated in an email reply to the Chair, "The Public Works Department has received your email over the past few weeks [and] has been investigating what could be done to address your request. We are in total agreement that the section of Shattuck that you refer in your email is in bad shape, but given the other pressing needs it was not on our scheduled repair list at this time...we feel fairly confident that we will be able to do something to improve the overall condition of the street. As we get closer to the actual work date, you and others on the street will be getting notification from the city/contractor".

Apparently, Councilman Anderson also noted to the Chair at a Neighborhood Watch Meeting that the Public Works Department found the funding to repave the Berkeley portion of Shattuck from Ashby to the Oakland border. Councilman Anderson was instrumental in working with the City Manager and the Public Works Director to find a solution. Concerned residents are still working with Oakland City Councilwoman, Jane Brunner, and the Oakland City staff on repairs to the Oakland portion of Shattuck.

While we are happy to see that the City of Berkeley has plans to repair the failed pavement, it begs the question: do local governments have a fundamental responsibility to maintain their property? We think so. Both the City of Oakland and Berkeley get an F when it comes to maintaining its infrastructure, particularly local roads, and they are on our blight watch list. Rather than having to wait until members of the community complain, local governments should be pro-actively assessing their properties and infrastructure and budgeting appropriately for their repair and maintenance. This is what is expected of private property owners. Why shouldn't local governments be required to meet the same standards? Budget priorities are the responsibility of our locally elected officials.

We will keep you updated on the repair work...

Why are litter and illegal dumps problems?

This is from the National Center for Environmental Decision Making Research in the United Kingdom. http://sunsite.utk.edu/ncedr/guides/litter/introduction.htm

Litter and illegally dumped solid wastes pose risks to human health and the environment. Litter is transported into drains and commonly ends up in area rivers or bodies of water. Illegally dumped wastes attract flies and may leach into the soil and groundwater.

Litter and illegal dumping signal a lack of pride in the neighborhood. Illegal dumps are often symptomatic of a community's larger problems, such as overcrowding or illegal housing. Litter and illegal dumping behaviors pose challenges to decisionmakers tasked with controlling or reducing these intermittent, persistent problems. A nationwide 1996 survey reports that over the last three years, average local litter reductions have decreased and litter is increasing. The annual Photometric Index, which measures the distribution of litter at sites within a community. Keep America Beautiful found that overall 1996 litter reductions were less than 1995 reductions and significantly less than 1994 reductions. Most alarming is that this study was conducted in areas with active litter prevention programs, leading one to question whether nationwide litter is significantly increasing.

Although these problems occur nationwide, there is not a universally applicable, federal law that prohibits private individuals from littering or illegally dumping. The collection and disposal of solid waste is traditionally a function of state and local governments. The state laws each prohibit litter and illegal dumping, but the means taken by each state varies greatly.

Data on the volume of litter and illegally dumped waste is not uniformly documented. However, state budgets typically include funds for litter pick-up on state highways. Florida and Texas spend approximately $3 million each year, Kentucky spends $4.0 million each year, and the state and parish governments of Louisiana expend nearly $10 million each year on litter removal and illegal dump clean-up.

Local governments, the primary implementers and enforcers of both the state and local laws, are directly burdened by and must respond to litter and illegal dump sites. The local public works departments typically budget funds for litter pick-up and illegal dump clean-up. The City of Los Angeles spends over $4 million annually to clean up approximately 121,000 tons of trash at illegal dump sites. The District of Columbia's Department of Public Works spends nearly $1 million each year cleaning up illegal dump sites. The City of Berkeley, California cleans up approximately 160 tons of illegally dumped items each year at a cost to the city's taxpayers of over $100,000. A City of Philadelphia study determined that illegal dumping activities cost the city $5 million dollars annually.

Nationwide taxpayers are unnecessarily spending over $200 million dollars each year to pick up litter and illegally dumped solid waste, which could be properly disposed of and managed in the solid waste management system.

Why do people litter and illegally dump?

Keep America Beautiful, a national litter education and prevention organization has found that people litter for three reasons:

* they lack a sense of ownership,
* they believe that someone picks up their litter, or
* the area is already littered.

Rapid growth, increasing mobility, and improper disposal habits cause the existence, proliferation and accumulation of litter.

Seven typical sources of litter include:

* household trash collection and placement for curbside collection,
* commercial waste dumpsters,
* loading docks,
* building construction and demolition activities,
* vehicles traveling with uncovered loads,
* pedestrians, and
* people in motor vehicles.

Twenty percent of litter is generated by people in motor vehicles and pedestrians. Contrary to what one might think, only about twenty percent of litter is attributable to rural and urban areas.

Illegal dumping is due to the lack of convenient solid waste management services and disposal facilities, the price to use those services and facilities, whether local governments are authorized to require residents to pay for and to use the services and facilities. Multiple factors create variations in illegal dumping incidents. A community or private hauler without a permitted municipal solid waste landfill will gain access to a vacant property and dump on it. In other cases, a private property owner seeks to profit by opening his land for dumping construction debris, old appliances, or tires for a lower fee than the municipal landfill. Private landowners may also seek wastes to be dumped as fill on the property.

Research indicates that socioeconomic factors are not an adequate predictor of illegal dumping. Some individuals will chose to engage in illegal dumping despite the convenience or efficiency of the collection and disposal services. A study of the costs and benefits to illegal dumpers found that, the cost of legal disposal must be decreased and the cost of illegal dumping penalties must be increased to reduce the volume of illegal dumping. Some possible socio-economic conditions that may influence illegal dumping are: type of community; demographics; population density; and the amount of spare, abandoned, or undeveloped space.

Grand Jury Report on Drug Houses in Berkeley

See page 45 regarding the Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Drug Houses in Berkeley. This has implications for blight issues in South Berkeley. Not only does this specifically address more aggressively pursuing drug houses, but the same rationale and logic can be applied to owner occupied, single family dwellings and issues of blight. It is time that the City of Berkeley get serious about blight by amending and reforming the blight ordinance to provide City staff with the tools it needs to assist neighbors and residents fed up with problem houses.

http://www.acgov.org/grandjury/final2007-2008.pdf

A Tale of Two Cities

This tale of woe was recently recounted to me by a frustrated resident that lives along the Berkeley Oakland border. In trying to address blight issues in his neighborhood related to dilapidated houses, a concerned citizen checked the City of Berkeley web page to find out the process for reporting blight and what the City does to investigate and resolve blight issues. Unfortunately, the City web page was a bit confusing. There was no apparent link for blight. There were links for reporting communicable diseases, for West Nile Virus, tobacco prevention, and tuberculosis control, among others. But no blight.

Digging a little deeper, our concerned citizen clicked on the A-Z index and up popped a myriad of links. Checking under B he found birth and death certificates, birth control, and block party permits, but no blight. Apparently, Berkeley has a blight ordinance, but no blight. Digging yet a littler deeper, our concerned citizen found the online request for service form. While the online request form is normally used to report roof rats, Norway rats, mice, trash/debris/garbage, overgrowth, sewage spills, abandoned vehicles, noise violations, and smoking violations, it unfortunately was not available and so directed our concerned citizen to call the Environmental Health Division. By the way who can tell the difference between a roof rat and a Norway rat?

Upon reaching a staff person in the Environmental Health Division, our concerned citizen was promptly told that he really needed Housing Code Enforcement. Upon explaining the issues to Housing Code Enforcement, he was promptly told he needed Code Enforcement for blight issues and was transferred yet again to the Supervising Code Enforcement Officer. From there, things went downhill fast, with the Supervising Code Enforcement Officer eventually telling our concerned citizen that the he was irritating. Can you believe that? A concerned citizen wants to report blight in his community only to be told by a manager in Berkeley City Government that he is irritating. Needless to say, our concerned citizen, himself a veteran of local and state government bureaucracies elevated the matter to the Deputy City Manager and the City Manager to resolve the personnel matter, but more importantly to address the blight issues. Apparently, the Deputy City Manager has assigned another City staff person to work with our concerned citizen to investigate and hopefully resolve the blight issues.

Nevertheless, this begs the question: why does the City of Berkeley make it so difficult to report and resolve blight issues? While some elements of its web page make it seem as if the City really cares about blight and wants to partner with the police and residents to address this critical issue, the practical reality is that there are really very few staffers willing to take ownership of blight issues, pursue all legal avenues, and push hard to get results. We know that Code Enforcement Officers have a tough job. Not unlike police, they see the worst of the worst day in and day out. But their workload is complaint driven and the customer is the public. We can only hope that those who are burned out, disgruntled or otherwise unhappy working on blight issues move on.

Surprisingly, Oakland has almost a one stop shop through the Oakland Public Works call center where you can report any number of blight issues through a central call number or report in on the web. It appears to me that Oakland is serious about blight, Berkeley not so much...