Lawfirm Gets Waiver, In Oakland VS OHA Lawsuit

Potential Conflict of Interest, In Oakland VS Oakland Housing Authority Lawsuit

by Lynda Carson April 17, 2007

Oakland -- The following Resolution (see below) dated April 17, 2007, describes how the Oakland City Council granted a waiver to Goldfarb & Lipman, in the case known as Oakland v. Oakland Housing Authority ("City v. OHA"); Alameda County Superior Court No. RG 07311262.

On February 15, 2007, the City of Oakland filed suit against the Oakland Housing Authority, and accused the authority of being a slumlord, and alleged that drug dealing, prostitution and pimping is taking place at many of Oakland's public housing properties.

In the lawsuit, theres 254 properties mentioned, including 1,615 rental units that are caught up into the lawsuit, and accused of being blighted properties or being involved in criminal activities, according to City Attorney John Russo.

During a recent interview with a number of public housing tenants at 610 E. 18th., St., the tenants expressed outrage and anger at the allegations being made by Oakland City Officials that implied they were criminals.

The tenants stated that theres no prostitution or drug dealing going on where they reside. "That is not who we are, the tenants said repeatedly, and it's not fair that Oakland's public housing tenants are being painted as drug dealers and prostitutes, for political reasons," the tenants said.

"People can't stand to see poor people get a good deal for their housing, and we believe that this is a bogus lawsuit meant to take our housing from us," a tenant said.

This same location is on the list of scattered sites listed in the lawsuit, as being blighted or having criminal activities occurring on the property. It was well lit, very clean, and was much nicer looking than the surrounding buildings in the area.

One tenant invited me into her home, because she wanted to show me that it was clean, and well maintained, and not at all like what was being described in the news accounts about Oakland's public housing properties.

On March 22, the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) released a second press release regarding the lawsuit filed on February 15, that involves 254 of their properties.

The OHA states that over the past decade they have faced a shortfall of $8.1 million in operating funds, and as much as $66.6 million in capital improvement funding due to federal cutbacks, causing delays in repairs and major rehabilitations of their buildings in Oakland.

The lack of funding is no fault of the Oakland Housing Authority, and is the result of the Bush Administrations attempts to kill the nations public housing programs.

In defense of it's renters, the OHA fired back at City Attorney John Russo in it's latest press release, and states that there is no evidence suggesting that criminal activity is any different for OHA properties, than at other properties in Oakland.

Regarding the potential conflict of interest, Goldfarb & Lipman has represented both the City of Oakland, and the Oakland Housing Authority in a number of legal cases through the years, and due to the potential conflict of interest, Goldfarb & Lipman sought a waiver which was granted by a vote of the full Oakland City Council in recent days.

Lynda Carson may be reached at, tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com

See the resolution below giving a waiver to Goldfarb & Lipman to represent the OHA...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CITY OF OAKLAND
ONE FRANK H. OGAWA P L A Z A • 6TH FLOOR • OAKLAND, C A L I F O R N I A 94612
Office of the City Attorney (510) 238-3601
John Russo FAX: (510) 238-6500
City Attorney April 17,2007 TTY/TDD: (510) 238-3601

HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Oakland, California

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF ANY
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT THE LAW FIRM
OF GOLDFARB & LIPMAN MAY HAVE AS A RESULT OF
REPRESENTING THE OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY IN
CITY V. OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY AND
REPRESENTING THE CITY OF OAKLAND IN OTHER
MATTERS

President De La Fuente and Members of the City Council:
The law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman has requested consent from the City of Oakland to
allow the firm to represent the Oakland Housing Authority in City v. Oakland Housing
Authority ("City v. OHA"). Alameda County Superior Court No. RG 07311262.

Goldfarb & Lipman has represented the City as special counsel in various eminent domain actions, the recent Fox Theater syndication, and is often asked to provide advice to the City on other issues, primarily related to redevelopment. It wishes to continue to provide legal advice to the Oakland Housing Authority as its general and special counsel and in the above-referenced case brought by the City against OHA.
Because the waiver concerned pending litigation, the City Council discussed the question in its closed session meeting on April 4, 2006. The City Council approved the waiver and consented to the representation.

The attached resolution memorializes that action.
Respectfully submitted

^ City Attorney
Attorney Assigned:

Mark T. Morodomi
Item:

April 17, 2007

401879 1

Approved as to Form^antfTeqality
Oakland flat/Attorney's Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
Resolution No. C.M.S.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT THE LAW FIRM OF GOLDFARB & LIPMAN MAY HAVE AS A RESULT OF REPRESENTING THE OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY IN CITY V. OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY AND REPRESENTING THE CITY OF OAKLAND IN OTHER MATTERS

WHEREAS, the law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman ("Firm") has requested consent from the City of Oakland to allow the firm to represent the Oakland Housing Authority in City v. Oakland Housing Authority ("Cityv. OHA"). Alameda County Superior Court No. RG 07311262.

WHEREAS, Goldfarb & Lipman has represented the City as special counsel in various
eminent domain actions, the recent Fox Theater syndication, and is often asked to provide advice to the City on other issues, primarily related to redevelopment.

WHEREAS, Goldfarb & Lipman wishes to continue to provide legal advice to the
Oakland Housing Authority as its general and special counsel and in the above-referenced case brought by the City against OHA.

Therefore be it RESOLVED: That the City waives the Firm's potential conflict of interest regarding City v. OHA and consents to their representation of OHA in the matter.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES - BROOKS, BRUNNER, CHANG, KERNIGHAN, NADEL, QUAN, REID, AND PRESIDENT
DE LA FUENTE
NOESABSENT
-
ABSTENTION -
ATTEST:
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Oakland, California
401874-1