| by Lynda Carson  Oakland CA--In a move that is certain to pleasebankers, realtors, landlords and developers, on March
 16, Oakland's City Council moved another step closer
 to ensure that the notorious Nuisance Eviction
 Ordinance (NEO), may soon be used to weaken long
 established eviction protections for all of Oakland's
 renters.
 The Nuisance Eviction Ordinance (NEO), requireslandlords to evict anyone that is targeted and deemed
 to be a nuisance by the City of Oakland. Renters need
 not be arrested, cited or convicted of anything to
 face eviction under the NEO.
 Despite the loud boisterous objections of a wellorganized crowd of opponents to the NEO, landlords and
 City Officials took pains to create the impression
 that Oakland's renters may be a bunch of pimps,
 prostitutes, and violent drug dealers before the 6 to
 1 vote in favor of the tweaked version of the NEO took
 place before an outraged citizenry. The new NEO
 version comes back on April 6 before the City Council
 for a final vote and passage into law.
 As the heated rhetoric over the NEO recently explodedinto a public debate, Deputy City Attorney Richard
 Illgen became the front man to promote the NEO by
 exclaiming that Oakland's renters have illegal
 activities going on all around them and needed
 protection. Renters and their supporters opposed to
 the NEO responded and challenged City Officials to
 address the real needs of society and to stop
 pandering to special interests that may profit by
 those that demonize the poor.
 According to Vivian Lee and Sitara Nieves of CriticalResistance, "The NEO, as it's currently written,
 permits eviction without conviction -- and without an
 appeals process. With little due process, evictions
 could be initiated by a disgruntled neighbor or, in
 the case of landlords, for financial gain. Property
 rights advocates should be concerned that landlords
 would be forced to evict their tenants based on mere
 hearsay from the police or other neighbors," said Lee
 and Nieves.
 Tuesday's City Hall meeting was packed with a loudenergetic crowd that repeatedly chanted, "No On
 N-E-O," before the NEO vote took place, and
 Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente on several
 occaisions threatened to chase everyone out of the
 chamber if they continued their chants. Some were
 removed from the council chamber by the Police as the
 evening wore on.
 At least 35 speakers were signed up to voice theirsupport or opposition to the NEO, and many represented
 progressive organizations on behalf of the renters,
 while others represented landlords or different
 factions of the Neighborhood Crime Prevention
 Council's known as the NCPC's. By far, the majority of
 the speakers were opposed to the NEO.
 Landlord Sylvester Grisbey, addressed the council tosay, "I support the NEO because it will save me money,
 and help clean up the community. It cost me $2,000 to
 evict a drug dealer from my property, and the NEO
 gives landlords the opportunity to have the power."
 Indeed, under the NEO, Oakland subsidizes the evictionof renters for the landlords. The designated case
 manager and the City Attorney's Office will
 administratively collect the evidence used against the
 renters. They will create files on renters from a
 source of snitches and information provided by the
 Police or public agencies and may freely offer the
 files to the landlords evicting their renters.
 The NEO gives landlords the power to get around wellestablished renter's protections and subsidizes
 evictions in the process.
 Oakland's version of the NEO is much more draconianthan the version used in Los Angeles (LA), and records
 show that most renters that were served eviction
 notices under the NEO in LA, never bothered to fight
 the eviction and left after receipt of 3 Day, 30 Day,
 or 60 Day Notices.
 The Nuisance Eviction Ordinance is Oakland's latestscheme by City Officials to scapegoat Oakland's
 renters as a bunch of criminals, and no evidence was
 presented at the council meeting to back up their
 assertions. The NEO does not apply to homeowners
 selling dope from their residence, and the children of
 homeowners do not have to fear from being evicted if
 their suspected of illegal drug related activity.
 It's the newest reason being used to weaken ordemolish a well established body of state and local
 renter's protections that have been agreed upon in the
 terms of a lease or month to month rental agreement
 for renters in commercial properties, condominiums and
 apartments.
 It is another part of the master plan to gentrifyOakland on behalf of the monied interests that have
 corrupted the balance of power in favor of the
 realtors, landlords, bankers and developers.
 Ever since Measure EE, Oakland's eviction protectionswent into effect on December 27, 2002, Oakland's City
 Council has moved as quickly as possible to weaken
 eviction protections and rent control for one reason
 or another.
 Underlying all the different reasons being used toattack renter's protections, a June 10, 2003 city
 staff report gets to the heart of the matter. The
 staff report covers the subject of properties that
 become exempt from renter's protections. The report
 concludes that properties may be sold at a higher
 premium when becoming exempt from renter's protections
 because it allows purchasers of property to qualify
 for higher loans based upon the increased cash flow at
 those properties, and will in turn increase the sale
 price of the properties.
 As stated in the NEO Summary signed by CouncilmanLarry Reid, in part it is being sold to the public as
 an economic reason to positively impact the value of
 Oakland neighborhoods by evicting renters that may be
 accused of illegal drug related activity.
 A search of the records show that violent crime levelsin Oakland are down by 8% during the past year. Drug
 related arrests have consistantly dropped from a high
 of 11,405 arrests in 1990 to a low of under 4,000
 arrests during February of 2003 through February of
 2004. Since 1969, burglary and robbery have been at
 their lowest levels during 2000 through all of 2002,
 and theres no evidence or statistics showing that
 evicting renters is a deterrent to murder.
 Northern California ACLU staff attorney Julie Mosssaid,"The language of the ordinance is so vague that
 tenants will not know what they have to do to avoid
 having eviction proceedings brought against them. You
 don't actually have to be engaged in illegal drug
 activity, you only have to have activity that usually
 accompanies drug activity in order to say you have a
 drug related nuisance. So, people not involved in drug
 activity could get caught up by this ordinance."
 "People that are not creating a nuisance, but may bedealing with a drug addiction in the privacy of their
 own apartment are also included in this ordinance, and
 the ACLU urges the council to vote against the NEO,"
 said Moss.
 The NEO takes away well established renter'sprotections, and even goes as far as to offer cover
 for wrongful evictions because Section J says
 evictions are deemed to be done in good faith. The
 latest version of the NEO being trotted out, offers
 one new exception, and if the tenant being evicted can
 prove that the landlord withheld evidence showing
 their innocense, then the tenants may have the right
 to sue the landlord for a wrongful eviction.
 Adam Gold of Just Cause Oakland denounced the NEObefore the council vote took place and said, "We're
 tired of the council carting out these trojan horse
 ordinances that hurt the tenants. We can't put our
 faith in an ordinance that can be used to abuse the
 rights of Oakland's renters and we oppose the NEO."
 Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) memberGloria Jeffrey said, "I represent the Mac Arthur NCPC
 and we have a bunch of neighborhood commitees, groups,
 citizen bands, and NCPC's collecting evidence. Thats
 what we've been doing. We are on the streets, we're
 the ones that are filling up books and books and
 books, and are taking pictures of criminal activities
 happening out on the streets."
 Councilwoman Jean Quan is all for the NEO and insultedthe community by stating that people should have read
 the ordinance before speaking out against it. She then
 lamented that she knows people in the NCPC's that are
 being threatened for their activities (snitching on
 neighbors) in Oakland. She went on to mentioned a
 woman she knows in the NCPC that has people showing up
 on her portch to intimidate her family, and that
 someone else she knows in the NCPC had a daughter
 threatened while in the laundry room of their building
 by one of their neighbors.
 Rose Braz of Critical Resistance said, "We just heardfrom a woman talking about neighbors snitching out on
 each other. This ordinance relies on neighbors
 snitching out each other to be effective! It turns
 people in communities against one another.
 Homelessness does not build safer communities. Housing
 is not easy to find in Oakland, and you need to create
 more access to housing instead of creating more
 homelessness with the NEO."
 Councilwoman Nancy Nadel said this ordinance doesnothing to affect the problems of poverty that force
 people into criminal activity just to survive and that
 all it does is punish them.
 Steve Edrington of the Rental Housing Association ofNorthern Alameda County said, "I support the NEO, and
 if your causing trouble in Oakland, you gotta go! Not
 every one deserves the right to have protections in
 Oakland."
 Jonah Zern a school teacher that is with the EducationNot Incarceration (ENI) Coalition said, "Closing
 schools and kicking people out of their homes is the
 same issue. Listen to the message of the ENI. We're
 asking for social programs for our community. We're
 asking you to create an inclusive community, not a
 divisive community that kicks out the poor for the
 well being of the wealthy."
 At times, thunderous applause came from the packedchamber as one speaker after another got their point
 across to the councilmembers, and at times Councilman
 De La Fuente appeared to do his best to frustrate some
 of the speakers or use up their time to antagonize
 them.
 Judy Appel from the Drug Policy Alliance was cut shortby De La Fuente several times as she said, "This
 problem cannot be solved through a law that is fraught
 with constitutional and statuary pitfalls, and the
 Drug Policy Alliance opposes the NEO." The crowd
 yelled out in a roar several times by saying, let her
 speak when De La Fuente tried to stop her in mid
 stream.
 Olivia Prater of the Black Student Union at LaneyCollege said, "I feel that this is a conservative Jim
 Crow law, and I also feel that the school system is a
 conservative Jim Crow program. People need a good
 education and you should consider that, because now I
 see all of you with white sheets over your head."
 The Councilmembers appeared to be unmoved from theirposition as the majority of speakers denounced the NEO
 and rose to the occaision in opposition to this
 ordinance that appeared to be promoting homelessness
 as a means to solve Oaklands problems.
 As it turned out, Councilwoman Jane Brunner leapt fromabstaining on the NEO during the February 17 vote, and
 came around to supporting it this time around.
 Jorge Aguilar of the Eviction Defense Center said, "Itis unconscionable! It's unfair to tenants, overly
 broad, and likely to be unconstitutional."
 "I think this is awful public policy, said SitaraNieves. Nieves who has a Bachelors Degree in
 Comparative Religions, is one of the organizers from
 Critical Resistance that helped to fill up the council
 chambers with people in opposition to the NEO. "This
 will make Oakland less safe and it's not a solution to
 Oakland's drug wars," said Nieves.
 In contrast to many others, Michael Collins said, "Theresidents of the Oaks Hotel are all prostitutes, pimps
 and drug addicts, and everyone should drive over to
 15th and Jefferson Streets to see all the action
 happening over there."
 Like a pit bull ready for a fight, macho LaylaMontarch marched up to the podium and she said, "I
 represent alot of neighborhoods and I do alot of work
 in this area of drug abatement. Evidence is coming
 from my neighbor people who are out there with log
 sheets and cameras to record the activities. We're not
 going to have drug dealers anymore in Oakland," she
 said, as she swaggered away from the podium like an
 angry Drill Sergeant with a bad hangover.
 Local figure Hugh Bassett, said, "I must be gettingold because I used to be on the same side as all the
 people here that are in opposition to the NEO. I'm a
 homeowner now, and I support the NEO."
 "I live in a neighborhood with drugs and criminalactivity," said Demetria McCain-Higgins.
 McCain-Higgins exclaimed that she has relatives that
 have fallen into the hands of those dealing drugs and
 have had friends that have been improperly arrested,
 tried and convicted, and she opposes the NEO. "I'm
 against the NEO because I understand from reading it
 that it's fraught with problems. Your the government
 and you only get one bite, and you don't get two
 bites. Let the criminal justice system take it's
 course. If the tenant gets arrested they have a fifth
 amendment right, but you want them to defend
 themselves in an administrative setting. This is only
 going to throw people on the streets, and not solve
 any safety issues." Vote no on the NEO," she said.
 Periodically, Councilman De La Fuente would startcalling out names again to get speakers lined up to
 speak their piece, and then he would go back to
 interrupting them as the clock was quickly ticking by,
 and the crowd would start up again with another chant
 saying, No On N-E-O, No On N-E-O, NO On N-E-O, No On
 N-E-O.
 Dorcey Nunn had his turn and said, "I oppose the NEObecause theres not any real evidence and it's based on
 allegations and not convictions. Your getting ready to
 deny people housing in Oakland without having a
 conviction! This is outrageous behavior, and will push
 people of color out of Oakland."
 Elder Freeman says, "We need to deal with the sourceof the drugs coming into the community, not to go
 after it once it's been spread throughout the city.
 Talk to Bush and his daddy, their dope dealers."
 Linda Evans from the All Of Us Or None Organizatiion,said, "We are an organization of people coming out of
 prison. We know we have to fight for our rights
 because on every front we are being subjected to
 terrible discrimination. I think that the NEO is just
 one more example of that kind of discrimination. It
 allows people to be evicted because of an arrest,
 because of hearsay, and it is unacceptable for people
 trying to integrate themselves back into their
 communities and families. I think you should seriously
 consider opposing this ordinance."
 The council members have been trying to sell the NEOas a tool needed to protect the renters from criminals
 in their midst, but not even one tenant showed up to
 speak up in support of the NEO.
 John Murcko of the Eviction Defense Center was a firecracker when he spoke and he stirred up the crowd by
 saying,"This law is a sham! The source of the problem
 most tenants live with is not crime. It's the
 condition they live under. I've represented thousands
 of tenants, and their exposed to rats and roaches,
 leaky roofs and sewers backing up into their homes,
 and no heat in the winters. We should be passing laws
 against the landlords for allowing these conditions to
 affect the community."
 Doris Stancil a former member of the Rainbow PushCoalition said, "If any of you really think that the
 solution to Oakland's problems is to toss our
 grandchildren out into the streets when they get into
 trouble and expect the system to take care of them,
 then your a damn liar!"
 James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union believeseitherway, that if it's not a conspiracy, it's a
 deliberate plan to take away the rights of the tenants
 and their eviction protections. At the podium Vann
 said, "This is bad law. This is terrible law. It
 tramples on civil rights. It tramples on human rights.
 It tramples on everything we're supposed to believe
 in."
 When all was done and said, Councilman Larry Reidrefused to allow any amendments being pressed by
 Councilwoman Nancy Nadel that were meant to make the
 NEO a bit more compassionate. All the other
 councilmembers stepped in line to pass the NEO, except
 for Councilwoman Desley Brooks who failed to appear at
 Tuesday's meeting.
 Once again, the NEO is coming up for another vote forit's final passage on April 6 at Oakland City Hall.
 Activists are urging people to keep hope alive and to
 keep on fighting this ordinance until hell freezes
 over.
 My apologies to all the others that have not beenquoted for in this story, but have made the selfless
 effort to oppose the NEO.
 Best wishes to Father Donald Weeks and his HousingProgram for his strength and compassion in standing up
 against the bully that threatened 30 people with an
 eviction, just to get at one of them.
 Critical Resistance may be reached at 444-0484  |