Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Story of One Person's Fight for Housing Rights in Berkeley
On Friday, April 22nd, a judge in a federal court will decide about a motion from the city of Berkeley for summary judgement against Steve DeCaprio. Steve, in turn, has moved for a preliminary injunction against Berkeley, as well as summary judgement (the court would then judge based on what has been submitted, without any further proceedings). The hearing will take place in Courtroom 2 at 10am, in the Federal Courthouse in Oakland, which is located at 1301 Clay Street, 94612.
Steve DeCaprio moved into his house on March 13, 2004. He had been looking for a house of his own for at least 3 years. He found a house in the same neighborhood as many of his friends- it had not been occupied in some 15 years. Steve invoked "occupancy" under Acquisition of Property California Civil Codes Sections 1000-1006 and moved in. He has been embroiled in a fierce battle with the police, who allege that there is a relative of a previous owner but it appears that many of these documents have been forged. The facts would seem to suggest that Steve has every right to live in this house. He has been charged with 6 counts of "unlawful entry into a dwelling" under penal code section 602.5.
The house, which has been affectionately called "Banana House," is a formerly blighted 2 bedroom, 1 bath with a kitchen/dining area, a small
den with a fireplace, and a leaky basement. The house is in poor condition, but it would be good as transitional housing for people who currently don't have a place to stay, such as people who have recently been evicted from places such as the 40th Street Warehouse. Steve sees that he can also be part of popping the inflated housing market bubble. Steve has fixed the windows, installed incoming plumbing lines to make water come into the house, and pulled electrical permits. He had contacted a contractor, but before an estimate could be made, the police started harassing him and all work on the house stopped.
Berkeley police surrounded the house on May 1st and told Steve and his friends that they had to leave. There was no legal basis for this, but it was the first of many encounters between Steve and the police. On June 3rd, Steve was granted a temporary restraining order against the woman whom police claimed was the owner of the house (the fraudulent owner, according to Steve). On June 27th, and July 3rd, the police came again and spoke with Steve, and determined that it was a civil matter, not a criminal one. On July 14th, Steve's car was towed from in front of his home for no reason. On July 27th, while a temporary restraining order was in effect, the police came while Steve and friends were gardening. The police had come in response to a call for service by a neighbor alleging "breaking and entering" a charge that was soon disproved upon the cops' arrival. They held the
gardeners at gunpoint, searched the house, and cited Steve for unlawful entry even though he had keys to the house. The police took photos of the house,
including a book entitled the "Anarchist Cookbook," and items such as grocery lists. The photos were never used in court, likely because they were taken during an illegal search. Everything the police documented was submitted as evidence at the Police Review Comittee hearing and then in Federal court, but these photos were irrelevant to the charges against DeCaprio. They have been used by Steve to prove Fourth Amendment violation (they represent an unreasonable search and seizure).
After July 27th, Steve had realized that the police were not acting on behalf of the alleged owner, but rather, they were following some other agenda. It appeared to be that they were under pressure from the Alcatraz Avenue Neighbors' Association, which includes a handful of neighbors who are opposed to Steve's homestead. On August 13th, Steve was cited on film, and the Department of Public Works put boards up to block entry through the front door. On August 26th, Steve filed a federal lawsuit over civil rights violations committed by the city of Berkeley. Students from SF State who were making a documentary about housing rights went to Banana House on October 23rd, 2004, and the cops came and cited Steve, destroyed his lock, and locked the film equipment inside the house.
The temporary restraining order to keep the police away from Steve's house got a continuance, but the cops continued to deny him access. On January 24th, Steve was cited, and Steve's keys were taken by force by the police. On March 1st at 1am, the police dragged Steve out of the house and took him to jail at gunpoint. On March 2nd, Steve was issued a 100 yard stay-away order for "unlawful entry" of a noncommercial building or residence, as if he had invaded someone else's home. The restraining order has been maintained pending a trial.
The Berkeley police's claims that a woman who is a relative of a former owner is now the owner of the house are based on speculation, and, in Steve's view, unfounded. Documents requesting enforcement (ie, police visits to evict Steve) are forgeries and were not written by this relative of the former owners. Her attorney has claimed that the property, however, is part of the estate of Essie Thomas, to which she is a partial heir. The heir of the former owner, who lives in Sacramento, paid property taxes through 2003, but Steve paid them starting in April of 2004, and has paid the taxes for the first half of 2005. The police say that she is administrator of the estate, but that she is "in the process" of gaining title to the property. She would have to go to civil court to gain title through a lawsuit against Steve, but she is currently going through probate court. One interesting part of this story is that no interest in making her ownership of the property official was expressed until after the police began to arrest Steve for being on the property. If a person wants to reclaim a property, they have to do it within 5 years of not being in possession of it.
Probate proceedings cannot determine issues of real property when someone from outside the family is involved. He says that the case will end up in civil court. Her case hinges on her claim that she owns the house. This woman lives in Sacramento, so clearly she has no intention of living in the house. Steve says that her lawyer has said that she wants to sell. He has in the past offered her $35,000 for the house.
Some of the people in the neighborhood don't support what Steve is doing- this neighborhood on the edge of South Berkeley and North Oakland is, Steve says, "polarized." Neighbor Travis Eiden said, "I don't want you turning this into some kind of fight club house." One neighbor has made encouraging remarks along the lines of "Keep it up!" Numerous other neighbors have wished him good luck in the fight over his house. Travis Eiden claims to be the neighbor who has been calling the police, but Steve doubts this- there may be others. Steve tells
neighbors that what is happening is a violation of his Constitutional rights [4th, 5th, and 14th as per his Federal Lawsuit, then 1st due to political discrimination and freedom of the press (ie student film crew) and then 6th amendment subsequent to criminal
charges (ie 100 stay away order vs ability to access witnesses)]. He wants to be able to have witnesses.
Steve has attended 19 hearings- both court and commission hearings as part of his struggle to own his home. He filed a federal suit in August against the city of Berkeley. The fight for the house is being waged in federal, appellate, and criminal courts, as well as at police commission meetings. Steve has a friend who is making a documentary about the house. Steve is representing himself in court and in dealings with the police, with some advice from attorneys and paralegals.
With respect to the citations from October 23rd, January 12th, February 24th, and March 1st, statements were made that enforcement was under the direction of the City Attorney's office. The office in charge of defending the city is directing enforcement against a plaintiff in a case against the city, which would appear to be a conflict of interest. Steve has learned that the procedure for enforcing 13.52 (municipal trespassing) is flawed- the police actively encourage people to authorize enforcement without any evidence. This is used to facilitate harassment of the homeless in Berkeley.
Steve's fight for Banana House can be seen as an example of battles against gentrification in his area of the East Bay. He has learned that
the city's Code Enforcement Unit can go to houses based on tips of fire hazard. The Fire Department has eminent
domain bcause of questions of physical damage to buildings. In cases of Code Violation, it can go in with no notice, and people can be evicted without their removal being called "eviction." Steve has also learned that the head of the code enforcement unit, Gregory Daniels, has met with the police to work on "strategy." Mass evictions are taking place all over Berkeley and even in Oakland. Examples include Spaz North, which was an artists' warehouse; the BaatCave; the artists' loft in the Oakland Tribune building; and now Banana House.
On Friday, April 22nd, a judge in a federal court will decide about a motion from the city of Berkeley for summary judgement against Steve DeCaprio. Steve, in turn, has moved for a preliminary injunction against Berkeley, as well as summary judgement (the court would then judge based on what has been submitted, without any further proceedings). There is a possiblity that both summary judgements could be overruled, and the lawsuit against the City of Berkeley would proceed. The hearing will take place in Courtroom 2 at 10am, in the Federal Courthouse in Oakland, which is located at 1301 Clay Street, 94612. Judge Claudia Wilkins will be presiding. She is the judge who ruled against the City of Oakland and the FBI in the Judi Bari case.
The house, which has been affectionately called "Banana House," is a formerly blighted 2 bedroom, 1 bath with a kitchen/dining area, a small
den with a fireplace, and a leaky basement. The house is in poor condition, but it would be good as transitional housing for people who currently don't have a place to stay, such as people who have recently been evicted from places such as the 40th Street Warehouse. Steve sees that he can also be part of popping the inflated housing market bubble. Steve has fixed the windows, installed incoming plumbing lines to make water come into the house, and pulled electrical permits. He had contacted a contractor, but before an estimate could be made, the police started harassing him and all work on the house stopped.
Berkeley police surrounded the house on May 1st and told Steve and his friends that they had to leave. There was no legal basis for this, but it was the first of many encounters between Steve and the police. On June 3rd, Steve was granted a temporary restraining order against the woman whom police claimed was the owner of the house (the fraudulent owner, according to Steve). On June 27th, and July 3rd, the police came again and spoke with Steve, and determined that it was a civil matter, not a criminal one. On July 14th, Steve's car was towed from in front of his home for no reason. On July 27th, while a temporary restraining order was in effect, the police came while Steve and friends were gardening. The police had come in response to a call for service by a neighbor alleging "breaking and entering" a charge that was soon disproved upon the cops' arrival. They held the
gardeners at gunpoint, searched the house, and cited Steve for unlawful entry even though he had keys to the house. The police took photos of the house,
including a book entitled the "Anarchist Cookbook," and items such as grocery lists. The photos were never used in court, likely because they were taken during an illegal search. Everything the police documented was submitted as evidence at the Police Review Comittee hearing and then in Federal court, but these photos were irrelevant to the charges against DeCaprio. They have been used by Steve to prove Fourth Amendment violation (they represent an unreasonable search and seizure).
After July 27th, Steve had realized that the police were not acting on behalf of the alleged owner, but rather, they were following some other agenda. It appeared to be that they were under pressure from the Alcatraz Avenue Neighbors' Association, which includes a handful of neighbors who are opposed to Steve's homestead. On August 13th, Steve was cited on film, and the Department of Public Works put boards up to block entry through the front door. On August 26th, Steve filed a federal lawsuit over civil rights violations committed by the city of Berkeley. Students from SF State who were making a documentary about housing rights went to Banana House on October 23rd, 2004, and the cops came and cited Steve, destroyed his lock, and locked the film equipment inside the house.
The temporary restraining order to keep the police away from Steve's house got a continuance, but the cops continued to deny him access. On January 24th, Steve was cited, and Steve's keys were taken by force by the police. On March 1st at 1am, the police dragged Steve out of the house and took him to jail at gunpoint. On March 2nd, Steve was issued a 100 yard stay-away order for "unlawful entry" of a noncommercial building or residence, as if he had invaded someone else's home. The restraining order has been maintained pending a trial.
The Berkeley police's claims that a woman who is a relative of a former owner is now the owner of the house are based on speculation, and, in Steve's view, unfounded. Documents requesting enforcement (ie, police visits to evict Steve) are forgeries and were not written by this relative of the former owners. Her attorney has claimed that the property, however, is part of the estate of Essie Thomas, to which she is a partial heir. The heir of the former owner, who lives in Sacramento, paid property taxes through 2003, but Steve paid them starting in April of 2004, and has paid the taxes for the first half of 2005. The police say that she is administrator of the estate, but that she is "in the process" of gaining title to the property. She would have to go to civil court to gain title through a lawsuit against Steve, but she is currently going through probate court. One interesting part of this story is that no interest in making her ownership of the property official was expressed until after the police began to arrest Steve for being on the property. If a person wants to reclaim a property, they have to do it within 5 years of not being in possession of it.
Probate proceedings cannot determine issues of real property when someone from outside the family is involved. He says that the case will end up in civil court. Her case hinges on her claim that she owns the house. This woman lives in Sacramento, so clearly she has no intention of living in the house. Steve says that her lawyer has said that she wants to sell. He has in the past offered her $35,000 for the house.
Some of the people in the neighborhood don't support what Steve is doing- this neighborhood on the edge of South Berkeley and North Oakland is, Steve says, "polarized." Neighbor Travis Eiden said, "I don't want you turning this into some kind of fight club house." One neighbor has made encouraging remarks along the lines of "Keep it up!" Numerous other neighbors have wished him good luck in the fight over his house. Travis Eiden claims to be the neighbor who has been calling the police, but Steve doubts this- there may be others. Steve tells
neighbors that what is happening is a violation of his Constitutional rights [4th, 5th, and 14th as per his Federal Lawsuit, then 1st due to political discrimination and freedom of the press (ie student film crew) and then 6th amendment subsequent to criminal
charges (ie 100 stay away order vs ability to access witnesses)]. He wants to be able to have witnesses.
Steve has attended 19 hearings- both court and commission hearings as part of his struggle to own his home. He filed a federal suit in August against the city of Berkeley. The fight for the house is being waged in federal, appellate, and criminal courts, as well as at police commission meetings. Steve has a friend who is making a documentary about the house. Steve is representing himself in court and in dealings with the police, with some advice from attorneys and paralegals.
With respect to the citations from October 23rd, January 12th, February 24th, and March 1st, statements were made that enforcement was under the direction of the City Attorney's office. The office in charge of defending the city is directing enforcement against a plaintiff in a case against the city, which would appear to be a conflict of interest. Steve has learned that the procedure for enforcing 13.52 (municipal trespassing) is flawed- the police actively encourage people to authorize enforcement without any evidence. This is used to facilitate harassment of the homeless in Berkeley.
Steve's fight for Banana House can be seen as an example of battles against gentrification in his area of the East Bay. He has learned that
the city's Code Enforcement Unit can go to houses based on tips of fire hazard. The Fire Department has eminent
domain bcause of questions of physical damage to buildings. In cases of Code Violation, it can go in with no notice, and people can be evicted without their removal being called "eviction." Steve has also learned that the head of the code enforcement unit, Gregory Daniels, has met with the police to work on "strategy." Mass evictions are taking place all over Berkeley and even in Oakland. Examples include Spaz North, which was an artists' warehouse; the BaatCave; the artists' loft in the Oakland Tribune building; and now Banana House.
On Friday, April 22nd, a judge in a federal court will decide about a motion from the city of Berkeley for summary judgement against Steve DeCaprio. Steve, in turn, has moved for a preliminary injunction against Berkeley, as well as summary judgement (the court would then judge based on what has been submitted, without any further proceedings). There is a possiblity that both summary judgements could be overruled, and the lawsuit against the City of Berkeley would proceed. The hearing will take place in Courtroom 2 at 10am, in the Federal Courthouse in Oakland, which is located at 1301 Clay Street, 94612. Judge Claudia Wilkins will be presiding. She is the judge who ruled against the City of Oakland and the FBI in the Judi Bari case.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
the dude moved into someone's and wants to live there free? Nice. Wish I could live without paying rent.
no, he moved into a house that was unused for 15 years, fixed it up, and paid over a years worth of property taxes. nothing is free.
Nebulous case to me. Under Lockean property rights theory, unowned or abandoned land maybe claimed by mixing his labor with the land, which this guy has clearly done. The question is was the house truly abandoned. If someone holds a title to it then it wasn't abandoned, even if they haven't been using it.
brent
brent
It's my understanding that the owner died and didn't leave a will. Someone that is claiminig it is hers hasn't used it for any social purpose in the last 15 years, in the context of one of the worst affordable housing shortages in the country. It has just sat empty and rotted. It's a shame really.
Brent--
Locke's theory on claiming land as property had the two provisos, first that there must be enough to go around, and second and that it must go unused. (This is apart from the other difficulty in what you say, that this was only in the "state of nature," and that once government had been legitimately established by mutual consent, it was free to reassign and limit property rights as it wished -- I am ignoring this.)
Either of those two factors alone was enough to delegitimize a claim of land as personal property, and in this case, both of those are operative: Land is entirely enclosed without enough for those who would wish not to rent from someone else to claim as their own, and not only that, but this piece of property was sitting unused for 15 years. Under Lockean theory, someone else could claim it at this point, though he did not exactly say how land should be divided when there was not enough for everyone.... Nevertheless, he hated waste, especially with regard to the products of nature (i.e. land) that should be available for productive use to all of man.
In the time he wrote, there were vast unexplored frontiers in the Americas where essentially anyone could go and become self-sufficient on their own plot of land. His theory of "mixing" ones labor with land was precisely so that someone could control the fruits of their labor without interference from others. If anyone could claim the crops that you grew simply because they were mixed with the land (which you did not yourself create), it would interfere with something far more precious than physical property -- an individual's ability to support oneself and survive autonomously.
However, today the total enclosure of all land is far more of a barrier to an individual's ability to survive autonomously than weak property rights are. Sure, modern land ownership does protect a small minority of wealthy individuals' ability to survive, but for the vast majority of individuals, it inhibits it. It's not that individual rights are bad, or that individual control of land is wrong (I'm an individualist who takes a lot from Locke) -- but the wrong individuals have the rights now. For individualism to mean anything, individual rights have to be equally accessible to all, not concentrated in the hands of small minority; this is not individualism -- it is despotic authority of the few.
We don't need to abandon individual freedoms in favor of socialism, but what we do need is more rights of the individual for access to the Earth itself (or at very least rights to compensation by those landed individuals by whose property the landless are displaced). Right now there is far too much of a disparity between the rich and the poor in who gets how much access to land and natural resources -- things after all not created by human labor at all, but present long before any of us were here.
Locke's theory on claiming land as property had the two provisos, first that there must be enough to go around, and second and that it must go unused. (This is apart from the other difficulty in what you say, that this was only in the "state of nature," and that once government had been legitimately established by mutual consent, it was free to reassign and limit property rights as it wished -- I am ignoring this.)
Either of those two factors alone was enough to delegitimize a claim of land as personal property, and in this case, both of those are operative: Land is entirely enclosed without enough for those who would wish not to rent from someone else to claim as their own, and not only that, but this piece of property was sitting unused for 15 years. Under Lockean theory, someone else could claim it at this point, though he did not exactly say how land should be divided when there was not enough for everyone.... Nevertheless, he hated waste, especially with regard to the products of nature (i.e. land) that should be available for productive use to all of man.
In the time he wrote, there were vast unexplored frontiers in the Americas where essentially anyone could go and become self-sufficient on their own plot of land. His theory of "mixing" ones labor with land was precisely so that someone could control the fruits of their labor without interference from others. If anyone could claim the crops that you grew simply because they were mixed with the land (which you did not yourself create), it would interfere with something far more precious than physical property -- an individual's ability to support oneself and survive autonomously.
However, today the total enclosure of all land is far more of a barrier to an individual's ability to survive autonomously than weak property rights are. Sure, modern land ownership does protect a small minority of wealthy individuals' ability to survive, but for the vast majority of individuals, it inhibits it. It's not that individual rights are bad, or that individual control of land is wrong (I'm an individualist who takes a lot from Locke) -- but the wrong individuals have the rights now. For individualism to mean anything, individual rights have to be equally accessible to all, not concentrated in the hands of small minority; this is not individualism -- it is despotic authority of the few.
We don't need to abandon individual freedoms in favor of socialism, but what we do need is more rights of the individual for access to the Earth itself (or at very least rights to compensation by those landed individuals by whose property the landless are displaced). Right now there is far too much of a disparity between the rich and the poor in who gets how much access to land and natural resources -- things after all not created by human labor at all, but present long before any of us were here.
I was reading you story and just had to add some thing to say. I also wish it was some thing smart to say as well , but I just have this - Fuck the police -
Some day we-will stop giving the "cops" our power . So as alway's Keep the fight up I hope that you get to keep your house.
Some day we-will stop giving the "cops" our power . So as alway's Keep the fight up I hope that you get to keep your house.
I'm afraid that taking this soley to the courts will be a long, drawn-out and ultimately dissatisfying way to fight this. Almost anything can happen in the legal arena, but this is clearly a political problem, because the City of Berkeley has made clear decisions on how to handle this. It is completely unacceptable for things like this to happen with no political repercussions. If the City government thinks this house is a "problem" right now, we need to make an even bigger problem for them.
I really don't think people know things like this are happening in a city that prides itself for its liberalism. Over 1/3 of the constituents of the city government are public University students who clearly appreciate the problem with soaring housing costs. I don't see how things like this can happen there, given the makeup of the city. Anyone can speak publicly at City Council meetings, and they should until the city takes on some kind of resolution codifying the right to homestead unused properties and makes the enforcement of trespassing laws with regard to this type of situation an even lower priority than marijuana.
People can also call the Mayor and City Council members, and ultimately they can take the streets in protest. Another interesting tactic would be bypassing the legislative process entirely and fielding a ballot initiative setting guidelines for city policy and requiring that the city comply with state law -- perhaps with some severe liability for city officials who do not do so.
This kind of thing really makes me angry. I would be inclined to organize something against it if I weren't so busy with various personal problems of my own right now.
I really don't think people know things like this are happening in a city that prides itself for its liberalism. Over 1/3 of the constituents of the city government are public University students who clearly appreciate the problem with soaring housing costs. I don't see how things like this can happen there, given the makeup of the city. Anyone can speak publicly at City Council meetings, and they should until the city takes on some kind of resolution codifying the right to homestead unused properties and makes the enforcement of trespassing laws with regard to this type of situation an even lower priority than marijuana.
People can also call the Mayor and City Council members, and ultimately they can take the streets in protest. Another interesting tactic would be bypassing the legislative process entirely and fielding a ballot initiative setting guidelines for city policy and requiring that the city comply with state law -- perhaps with some severe liability for city officials who do not do so.
This kind of thing really makes me angry. I would be inclined to organize something against it if I weren't so busy with various personal problems of my own right now.
Why is theft of property by middle-class activists considered a media-worthy progressive cause? This will hardly reverse any social injustice as, presumably, the fee titled-owner was not wealthy like some business oligarch. If the home warrants re-use due to health and safety, it should be appropriated by the government through eminant domain and the proceeds of sale or the re-use of the property should be allocated for the broad public benefit, not the benefit of one individual.
It's called adverse possession, and is entirely legal. If a house is abandoned and someone moves in and pays taxes, they are actively possessing the house. (Ever heard that possession is 9/10 of the law?) Anyone else has abandoned it.
In this case, the woman showed no desire to actually do anything with the house. No one else has lived there for 15 years. She even stopped paying taxes on the house. Not until someone else wanted it did she express any desire to take the house. And even then, the house has never even actually been in her name for her to possess it. She waited around for years and years with no desire to move it to her name. So the estate still owns the house. She has never even truly owned it yet.
It is ABANDONED. You can't just abandon something and expect it to wait around for you.
My hubby and I are working on adverse possession of a multi-million-dollar property right now and have consulted with attorneys. This man is doing the same as us.
Move into a property, maintain it as yours, pay the taxes. Live in it openly (meaning no hiding or making it secret), hostily, and against the better interests of any other owners (such as not paying them rent-they get nothing for you being there). After a period of five years, you can take it to court and file to "quiet title," which would put the property in your name and you can now legally sell it, tear it down, whatever you want.
Reasoning behind this now: When a property owner stops paying taxes and someone else pays them, who do you think the government wants to own it, the person not paying taxes or the "non-owner" who is? It's in the government's best interest to let possession and ownershiop be by who will give them money.
In this case, the woman showed no desire to actually do anything with the house. No one else has lived there for 15 years. She even stopped paying taxes on the house. Not until someone else wanted it did she express any desire to take the house. And even then, the house has never even actually been in her name for her to possess it. She waited around for years and years with no desire to move it to her name. So the estate still owns the house. She has never even truly owned it yet.
It is ABANDONED. You can't just abandon something and expect it to wait around for you.
My hubby and I are working on adverse possession of a multi-million-dollar property right now and have consulted with attorneys. This man is doing the same as us.
Move into a property, maintain it as yours, pay the taxes. Live in it openly (meaning no hiding or making it secret), hostily, and against the better interests of any other owners (such as not paying them rent-they get nothing for you being there). After a period of five years, you can take it to court and file to "quiet title," which would put the property in your name and you can now legally sell it, tear it down, whatever you want.
Reasoning behind this now: When a property owner stops paying taxes and someone else pays them, who do you think the government wants to own it, the person not paying taxes or the "non-owner" who is? It's in the government's best interest to let possession and ownershiop be by who will give them money.
Instead of occupying the house, why doesn't he pass it over to people who are REALLY NEEDY, who could really use it, such as displaced folks from a REZ!
!!COLONIZERS!! Shame on you!!
!!COLONIZERS!! Shame on you!!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network