Open Letter To City Attorney/Erica Harrold: Oakland Slams Critics Of OHA Lawsuit

An Open Letter To Erica Harrold, Communications
Director Office of the City Attorney

From: Lynda Carson
510/763-1085


For Immediate Release:


Re: Incorrect story posted by Lynda Carson, from Erica Harrold.

February 21, 2007

Dear Ms. Harrold

This is in regards to the e-mail you sent out alleging that I have posted an incorrect story with Indy Media.


After hearing from you, I wish to make it clear to everyone that I fully stand by my story. It is also my belief that my story was effective enough to compell the City Attorney's office to be on the defensive in
regards to it's attack on public housing tenants who are being accussed by City Officials of being drug users, drug dealers, and pimping and pandering, at public housing locations across the City of Oakland.


(Click below for story being attacked by Erica Harrold, Oakland City Attorney's Office) ...

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/17/18364942.php


Ms. Harrold, in your attack against myself (see further below), you intentionally have misdirected everyone to look EVERYWHERE except at the lawsuit itself, that was filed against the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA), where it has the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. See below excerpt below from lawsuit against the OHA.

Excerpt from lawsuit:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
6
10. OHA has failed in its duty to track complaints from tenants and area residents regarding maintenance and crime problems at OHA properties such that blight and nuisance conditions persist and criminal activity continues unchecked and unabated.
11. OHA has failed to provide adequate security for the Properties such that criminal activity on the Properties is rampant and out of control. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the criminal activity is carried on by tenants of the Properties, their invitees and trespassers. Criminal activity on the properties includes, but is not limited to vandalism,
burglary, drug use, drug sales, possession of drugs for sale, pimping,
pandering and prostitution.

Ms. Harrold, the lawsuit clearly states; "Plaintiff is informed and believes that the criminal activity is carried on by tenants of the Properties, their invitees and trespassers. Criminal activity on the
properties includes, but is not limited to vandalism, burglary, drug use, drug sales, possession of drugs for sale, pimping, pandering and prostitution."

I hope this clears the matter at hand, and resolves any dispute being allaged in regards to what was posted in the Indy Media story being referred to.

Of course, Ms Harrold, you would'nt have wanted to point out the contents of the lawsuit while attacking me, because it it contradicts everything you are saying against me, as you push everyone to the mention of the City Attorney press release instead.

(See full copy of Lawsuit below)

Ms. Harrold, I wish to point out that in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If you or the City Attorney happens to have a list of public housing tenants that have been
convicted of the crimes being alleged in the lawsuit filed against the OHA below, and if these same people on the list still reside in Oakland's public housing, then I would be the first one to want to see such a
list.

If such a list does not exist, then I think you owe me an apology, and that you need to stop your frivolous attacks upon the critics of those that would dare to speak up on behalf of Oakland's public housing
tenants.

While I'm at it, I also wish to point out that the average public housing property has 6-8 rental units at most scattered sites in Oakland, and that under California State law, only residential units with 16 units or more are required to have a Resident Manager.


Demands in the lawsuit to have a manager at all of Oakland's public housing scattered sites is over burdensome, and not required under state or federal law.

To only demand this of OHA properties, and not of ALL landlords operating in the City of Oakland is discriminatory, is unfair and biased against Oakland's poor, because it takes extra funding needed for
housing people and maintaining OHA's properties.

The big federal push is on to privatize public housing properties all across the nation, and to force Public Housing Authorities to sell off their properties.

Cities across the nation, have an eye on public housing properties at this point in time, and want to grab them for their favorite developers.

I believe that your lawsuit (John Russo/City Attorney), which attacks Oakland's public housing tenants and the OHA, is an attempt to pressure the OHA into selling it's properties, and to accelerate the
privatization of Oakland's public housing.

I urge the City of Oakland to help out and fully fund Oakland's public housing properties for the sake of the families, and to stop wasteing precious tax dollars with this frivilous lawsuit that makes impossible demands on the OHA.

I ask the City Attorney to stop demonizing public housing tenants in the City of Oakland, and to go after the Police if he believes that they are not doing their job properly.

I also wish to point out that If there are convicted criminals who are residing in Oakland's public housing as may be alleged in the lawsuit against the OHA, that under HUD's rules, they can be arrested and accused of fraud for residing there.

Furthermore, it's my belief, that a lawsuit and wholesale allegations against Oakland's public housing tenants are not needed to go after REAL criminals, unless the original intent of the lawsuit was to
publicly demonize the poor who reside in Oakland's public housing properties, in an effort to shut these properties down and privatize them.

See copy of lawsuit against the OHA below...

Sincerely,

Lynda Carson

829 E. 19th St. #2
Oakland, CA. 94606
510/763-1085

--- "Harrold, Erica"
<EHarrold [at] oaklandcityattorney.org> wrote:

> Dear Madam or Sir,
>
> You have posted a woefully incorrect story about the
> City of Oakland's
> lawsuit against Oakland Housing Authority by Lynda
> Carson. The lawsuit
> was filed ON BEHALF of the tenants in order that
> they may have humane
> living conditions. The very premise of the lawsuit
> emphasizes that
> everyone deserves a decent place to live. At no time
> did any elected
> official disparage the tenants as the writer falsely
> claims.
>
> Please see the original press release:
> http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/ and story by the
> Oakland Tribune:
>
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_5233911
>
> If you have questions, please contact me at:
> 510-238-3148
>
> Erica Harrold
> Communications Director
> Office of the City Attorney
>

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

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1
JOHN A. RUSSO, City Attorney - State Bar #129729
RANDOLPH W. HALL, Assistant City Attorney - State Bar
#080142
JAMES F. HODGKINS, Supervising Trial Attorney - State
Bar #142561
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 238-6135 Fax: (510) 238-6500
CE02978/396636
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF OAKLAND
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal
corporation
Plaintiff,
vs.
OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff, the City of Oakland, alleges against
Defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
1. Plaintiff, the City of Oakland, is a municipal
corporation and a chartered city
organized, and existing under the laws of the State of
California.
2. Defendant, Oakland Housing Authority, is a public
housing provider with its
principal offices located in Oakland, California. The
Oakland Housing Authority was
created pursuant to California Health & Safety Code
§34200, et seq. and §34500, et seq.
3. Defendants DOES 1 through 20 are sued as fictitious
names, their names
and capacities being unknown to plaintiff. When their
true names and capacities are
ascertained, plaintiff will amend this complaint.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
2
4. Whenever reference is made to an act performed by
defendant Oakland
Housing Authority, such allegations indicate
defendant, its agents, managers,
representatives, employees or DOES One through Twenty
inclusive, who performed or
authorized such acts while engaged in the operation,
management, direction or control of
the defendant’s affairs, acting within the scope of
their duties.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1
through 4 as though fully set
forth herein.
6. Plaintiff is exempted from filing a claim against
Defendants pursuant to
California Government Code §905.
7. Defendant Oakland Housing Authority (hereinafter
“OHA”) owns, operates
and/or is responsible for maintaining low income and
government subsidized housing in
Oakland, California. OHA owns, operates and/or is
responsible for maintaining the
following premises (“the Properties”) within the
geographical limits of the City of Oakland:
3330-72nd Avenue
3350-72nd Avenue
1449-73rd Avenue
1486-77th Avenue
2509-77th Avenue
4516 Fairfax Avenue
7107 Favor Street
7204 Holly Street
7209 Holly Street
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
3
7000 Lacey Avenue
7510-20 Ney Avenue
7636 Ney Avenue
7908 Ney Avenue
7950 Ney Avenue
8021 Plymouth Street
6238 Seminary Avenue
6919 Arthur Street
2468 Coolidge Avenue
1815-28th Avenue
1857-38th Avenue
3014 E. 16th Street
2170 E. 28th Street
905 E. 24th Street
2309-98th Avenue
2315-98th Avenue
2317-98th Avenue
644-14th Street
873-32nd Street
2933 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
630 Apgar Street
3217 West Street
3027 West Street
725-39th Street
59 Pearl Street
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4
2511-11th Avenue
610 E. 18th Street
1737 E. 15th Street
1919 E. 15th Street
2247 E. 19th Street
2272 E. 19th Street
2219 E. 22nd Street
1900 E. 24th Street
1951 E. 24th Street
2032 E. 26th Street
2155 E. 28th Street
1815 28th Avenue
2961 Georgia
2820-35th Avenue
2840-35th Avenue
4516 Fairfax Avenue
1756-82nd Avenue
2349-82nd Avenue
2323-82nd Avenue
7600 block of Bancroft
5944 Bromley
5945 Bromley
6121 Harmon Avenue
6229 Hayes Street
1459-65 Seminary Avenue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
5
1424-50th Avenue
1445-50th Avenue
1617-50th Avenue
5726-30 Elizabeth Street
2500-08-76th Avenue
5480 Wadean Place
5467 Wadean Place
5426 Wentworth Avenue
5428 Wentworth Avenue
7101 Krause Avenue
1168-78th Avenue
1240-77th Avenue
8. OHA is one of Oakland’s largest landlords with over
3300 apartments provided
for low-income tenants. The Properties were built
between 1938 and 1984 and are now at
least thirty-five years old. Of the over 3300
apartment units under the control of OHA,
1615 of those are at 254 “scattered sites“ that do not
have on-site managers and were
built between 1968 and 1972.
9. OHA has failed to maintain the Properties free from
blighted conditions and
conditions detrimental to the health and safety of its
low-income tenants. These conditions
include, but are not limited to, housing code
violations, lack of safe and habitable living
spaces, and accumulation of garbage, dirt, debris,
rodents, vermin and insects. OHA’s
lack of effective on-site management, or any on-site
management, has compounded its
lack of maintenance.
/ / /
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
6
10. OHA has failed in its duty to track complaints
from tenants and area residents
regarding maintenance and crime problems at OHA
properties such that blight and
nuisance conditions persist and criminal activity
continues unchecked and unabated.
11. OHA has failed to provide adequate security for
the Properties such that
criminal activity on the Properties is rampant and out
of control. Plaintiff is informed and
believes that the criminal activity is carried on by
tenants of the Properties, their invitees
and trespassers. Criminal activity on the properties
includes, but is not limited to
vandalism, burglary, drug use, drug sales, possession
of drugs for sale, pimping,
pandering and prostitution.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Against OHA, and DOES 1 through 20
MAINTENANCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE
12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1
through 11 as though fully
set forth herein.
13. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure
§731 to abate a public nuisance. This action is also
brought under Oakland Municipal
Code Chapter 15.08.
14. Defendant’s maintenance of the Properties, or lack
thereof, constitutes a
continuing public nuisance. (CA. Civ. Code §§ 3479,
3480.) That is, defendant’s failure to
maintain and repair the Properties adversely affects
not only the City of Oakland, but also
the surrounding community. The continuous and unabated
criminal activity (including but
not limited to drug sales, drug possession, possession
of drugs for sale, pimping,
pandering and prostitution), housing code violations,
lack of safe and habitable living
spaces, accumulation of garbage, dirt, debris,
rodents, vermin and insects is a blight on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
7
the City of Oakland and the residences surrounding the
Properties and constitutes a public
nuisance. The condition of the Properties is injurious
to health, offensive to the senses,
and unlawfully undermines, degrades and obstructs the
free use of the Properties as well
as neighboring residences and streets.
15. Defendant’s maintenance of the Properties in the
condition described in this
complaint is a continuing public nuisance as described
in Oakland Municipal Code
including but not limited to §§ 15.08.340B, C, and D
and 15.08.170 and California Civil
Code §§ 3479 and 3480 and is a nuisance per se.
16. Defendant was notified of the blighted and
nuisance condition of the
Properties numerous times by the City of Oakland and
the residents of the Properties.
Despite this knowledge, defendant has failed to abate
these hazardous and nuisance
conditions with the result being the public nuisance
that continues and exists today.
17. Unless stopped by this Court, OHA will continue to
maintain the Properties in
the above-described substandard and dangerous
condition and continue to cause
irreparable injury to the public’s health, safety and
welfare.
18. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
19. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant
will not correct these
violations or abate the nuisance within a reasonable
period of time. If it becomes
necessary for plaintiffs to correct the violations or
abate the nuisance, the City of Oakland
will incur substantial costs. As part of its prayer,
plaintiffs request recovery of their costs to
correct said violations or abate the nuisance and
establish a prior lien on the Properties for
the costs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter
set forth.
/ / /
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
8
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Against OHA and DOES 1 through 20
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1
through 19 as though fully
set forth herein.
21. OHA’s wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined
by this court, has caused
and continues to cause irreparable harm and injury to
plaintiff and the residents of the
Properties in Oakland, CA. The continuous and unabated
criminal activity (including but
not limited to drug sales, drug possession and
prostitution), housing code violations, lack
of safe and habitable living spaces, accumulation of
garbage, dirt, debris, rodents, and
insects is a blight on the City of Oakland and the
residences surrounding the Properties
and constitutes a public nuisance. OHA has refused and
continues to refuse to remedy the
blighted and nuisance conditions at the Properties.
22. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the
injuries suffered as a result of
the wrongful conduct of OHA and its failure to
maintain the Properties, which have become
a public nuisance in Oakland, CA. This court must
compel OHA to repair and maintain the
Properties in a safe and habitable condition, repair
existing and future violations of the
Oakland Housing Code, hire and retain managers for all
OHA sites, provide training to all
OHA managers on reporting and/or repairing damage to
the Properties, fumigate pests,
vermin and rodents from the Properties such that they
are abated and do not return and to
abate all other conditions that constitute a public
nuisance at the Properties.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter
set forth.
/ / / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
9
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
1. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and
permanent injunctions
compelling OHA and its agents:
a. To replace or comprehensively repair the Properties
such that the
Properties meet applicable Oakland Housing Code
standards and are
safe and habitable for tenants;
b. To hire and retain managers at all OHA sites;
c. To provide training to on-site managers in
reporting and/or repairing
damage to the Properties;
d. To fumigate or otherwise abate pests, vermin and
rodents from the
Properties and maintain the properties free from
infestation from pests,
vermin and rodents;
e. To relocate tenants at the Properties while those
properties are repaired
with cost of the relocation to be borne exclusively by
OHA
f. To abate all conditions that constitute a public
nuisance at the properties;
g. To be permanently enjoined from maintaining a
public nuisance on their
Properties.
2. That the Properties be declared ongoing public
nuisances;
3. That OHA abate its public nuisance and repair the
Properties such that
blight, nuisance and criminal activity that are
detrimental to the public’s health,
safety and welfare ceases;
/ / /
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
10
4. That OHA reimburse the City of Oakland for any
repairs or other remedial
measures undertaken by the City of Oakland or its
agents and contractors to
eliminate the blighted conditions at OHA properties;
5. For the costs of suit herein;
6. For such other and further relief as the court
deems just and proper.
Dated: February 15, 2007
JOHN A. RUSSO, City Attorney
RANDOLPH W. HALL, Chief Assistant City Attorney
JAMES F. HODGKINS, Supervising Trial Attorney
By: _____________________________________
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF OAKLAND