|
1610 Oregon St.:
A Problem That Touches All of Us
By SHIRLEY DEAN, former Mayor of Berkeley
Monday, Nov. 28, 2005 was supposed to be the last day that the story of 1610 Oregon St. unfolded in small claims court. I’ve
heard every word spoken in all three of the court sessions held regarding this sad story, read all of the thousands of words
written in newspapers, letters and reports, and served as mayor during the time the city made an effort to solve the problem
through a coordinated multi-service approach. I think this qualifies me to write this.
Too many people make the mistake of thinking this is a story of a problem in some neighborhood that is far removed from their
own lives. The truth is that this kind of muddled thinking couldn’t be further from the truth. This story touches every
one of us because it reflects the very values on which any community is built.
Berkeley takes pride in our diversity and sometimes downright quirkiness. However we look at our community there should be
no question that we share the value that the rights of any individual must not impinge on the equal rights of another. So
how does a City tolerate the situation at 1610 Oregon Street for so many long years? Why is it that 15 courageous neighbors
have to put aside their fears for their personal safety and bear the hurt of public criticism to solve the problem by using
in their desperation the only tool available to them, the small claims court?
These questions deserve real answers. Over two years ago, in October 2003, I asked on the pages of the Daily Planet where
was the City Council on the issue of crime in South Berkeley. The only response I received was from a School Board member
who said how beneficial it was to raise children to be “street smart.” Then the council discussed crime in Berkeley
recently and spent a whole lot of time celebrating that violent crime is down and discussing ways to re-assure residents that
our high crime rate is only due to Part II—or so-called “quality of life” crimes like burglaries, vandalism,
drugs and auto thefts. Well, we all should and do greatly appreciate the fact that our murder rate is not high, but frankly
the rest of it is pretty worrisome. Let’s understand that “quality of life” crimes (but not forgetting the
shootings and killings that have occurred there) are what we are talking about for the most part impacting the Oregon, Russell,
California corner. My experience is that these kinds of crimes set the stage for, then define “blighted” neighborhoods,
and eventually greater violence.
The 1610 Oregon St. neighborhood is a model of diversity—racial, age, backgrounds and interests. People live here in
neat, modest single-family homes. Most work, pay their taxes and mortgages, and send their children to Berkeley’s public
schools. Neighborhoods like this one are the backbone of any community. What residents in this neighborhood want, exactly
like all of us, are things like being able to enjoy a peaceful night’s sleep, to sit comfortably on their porches, to
work or play safely in their yards, to interact peaceably with their neighbors, to sit by their windows in the security of
their homes, and to walk unafraid to the store, school or park. For more than 20 years the fulfillment of these basics of
every day life have been denied to them with many of the problems having a direct connection with one property in the 1600
block of Oregon.
At various times, some have claimed that: 1) this problem should be settled by everyone sitting down and having a friendly
chat; 2) the elderly woman who owns the house either doesn’t know what is going on there or is so busy caring for her
frail husband and big family, working at a part-time job, and doing good works that she can’t control what is happening;
3) the owner is doing everything she can to cure the problems but she is neither responsible for problems in and around her
home nor for what occurs in the neighborhood; 4) the real purpose of the neighbors is they just won’t accept that diversity
means different cultures doing different things; or 5) the small claims court process violates the owner’s constitutional
rights. Probably the most outrageous of all is that statement that complaining neighbors should simply move if they don’t
like what is happening!
It’s true that everything that goes on in the area can’t be attributed to that one address, but look at just some
of what is documented by the city and courts as being connected. Multiple police calls, raids, and arrests at that address
for drug related activities over many years right up to even just few weeks ago. A Berkeley police officer stated in recent
sworn testimony that drug activity in the area was operated and controlled from this address. A court ruling in 1992 awarded
some 30 neighbors $155,000 in compensation for the “nuisance” caused by drug dealing at the address, a judgment
that was appealed and upheld by a higher court. Payment was avoided by transferring title of the house and declaring bankruptcy.
The home of the lead plaintiff in that case was later firebombed by unknown persons. A resident of the house was shot and
killed around the corner of the home. Surrounding properties have used condoms, bullets and needles thrown into their yards
by persons who are coming and going from the house. Neighbors are disturbed late at night even when windows are tightly closed,
by noise that comes from the house. Five years ago there was so much of a problem with visible deterioration of the home and
so many cars, machinery, and trash on the property that the city did an inspection and found 22 code violations that were
so serious that not only were repairs ordered but the building had to be vacated while they were made. The repairs were made
but not without incident in which the contractor had his jaw broken in an altercation at the site. Charges were not pressed
when the contractor did not identify his assailant.
A pattern was established of things getting better for a while, but then reverting back to the same old, same old. The length
of time this problem has persisted, flying bullets and shouted threats ought to be enough proof that this is not just an annoying
neighborhood spat. To put it mildly, the claim that the owners of the property in question were unaware of the problems is
simply unbelievable what with shootings, police raids, the various legal actions and paying for the attorneys to represent
them in court and undertaking various property transactions.
The claim that the small claims court process is some violation of constitutional rights stretches the imagination. It’s
been on the books for many years and has been used many times in Berkeley mostly by renters against landlords who refuse to
deal with noisy, drug dealing tenants. Throughout the years, I’ve never heard a single word from any civil rights advocate,
community activist or newspaper about the process being in violation of anyone’s constitutional rights. It most recently
was used by neighbors fed up with the activities at the student co-op, Chateau.
Even the claim that filing restraining orders against the owner’s own family is proof that the owner is doing everything
possible to correct the situation is misleading because those restraining orders were not filed until after the current small
claims action was filed. When one of the people who was under such an order was found to be in violation, the police officer
noted in his written report that he was told by the owner that she didn’t want the order enforced! There is no question
that the owner, for whatever reason, cannot deal with the problem.
Neighbors have three choices: they can move away, sit back and try and ignore it or come together to reclaim their neighborhood.
These neighbors, none of whom are new to the area, of different ages and backgrounds, chose the brave course of trying to
reclaim their neighborhood and “brave” is what they have had to be. They’ve been called names, photographed
when leaving the courthouse after testifying in court, endured glares, comments, threats and people sitting on their front
stairs. One even had his employer asked to review his activity as a plaintiff in the case!
My heart went out to them as I sat in court and heard their statements given under oath about what they had endured. Powerful
statements were made by parents who told of how the innocence of their young children had been stolen by what was happening
on their street. One asked in anguished tones what kind of father am I that I can’t protect my child in her own yard.
An older woman told of how her once peaceful and pleasant neighborhood had been shattered by the drug trade. A mother who
had helped her daughter buy her house told how she now feared just sitting at a table near a window that looked out on the
street. People told about how they cannot even walk down the sidewalk or how they could not even invite people to their homes.
Well, we didn’t get the court’s answer on Nov. 28, so that won’t be the end of the story. The question remains
for the rest of us: If we want Berkeley to remain a city of diversity, how can we ensure that every neighborhood is one where
people can live in comfort and safety? The question is as simple as that. We read about stronger answers coming from other
cities, but hear only silence from ours. It is time that we asked our city to step up to dealing with these problems and to
do it now. When one neighborhood goes down, we all lose something because our City is no stronger than all of its neighborhood
parts. We once maintained that Berkeley was a city of neighborhoods, yet everyday we hear of those neighborhoods being under
attack. It is time to put our money and our policies into preserving and protecting our valuable and basic assets, our neighborhoods.
|
 |
|
An Open Letter to My Friends in Berkeley Citizens Action
By PAUL RAUBER
|
|
|
|
|
Why the hell is Berkeley Citizens Action siding with the drug dealers in my South Berkeley neighborhood? Speaking on behalf
of the BCA Steering Committee, Linda Olivenbaum (Commentary, Nov. 11) endorses the charges of racism leveled against me and
13 of my neighbors who are suing a local drug house in small claims court and chastises us for pursing “narrow, short-sighted
solutions.” Our problem, BCA suggests, is that “when newer, often white and more affluent residents moved in as
gentrification has proceeded” they neglected to notice “what’s going on around them and to acknowledge the
dynamics and strengths of the existing community.”
I love it when self-styled “progressives” who don’t live next to crack houses talk about drug-dealing and
the attendant violence as though it were just part of African-American culture—like Juneteenth, maybe, except that it
goes on all year. Here’s a heads up to BCA: No one here in South Berkeley not involved in the drug trade is ready to
acknowledge drug-dealing as part of the “dynamics and strengths” of our community. The drug culture has torn this
neighborhood apart for decades, ruining the lives of countless kids. The notion that drugs are “just life in the ’hood”
is a large part of the reason why those lives continue to be ruined.
A vivid example of this attitude was on exhibit last Tuesday, when pwog scold Bill Hamilton wouldn’t even grant that
it would be a good thing if our suit succeeded in curtailing the dealing in our neighborhood. Why? Because then “the
many relatives and friends of Lenora Moore would have even fewer resources to work with.” So here’s the progressive
solution to our dilemma: We’re supposed to allow drugs to be openly dealt in front of our homes and teach our kids to
step around the dirty needles and used condoms and crack baggies, just so as to provide gainful employment for drug dealers.
If there are further difficulties, Hamilton suggests we “form a network of informal social connections with each other
to monitor and modify personal behavior and direct resources to problems.” Only in a very special sort of fantasy land
does this pass for a practical solution to dealing with drug dealers with semi-automatic pistols. No thanks, I’ll just
take my chances in court.
I want to say something about that court case that a lot of people who know better are pretending not to understand. We are
asking for monetary damages for the fear and suffering that persistent drug dealing at 1610 Oregon Street has caused us. We
don’t know if we will win. We have presented our evidence, the defendant has presented hers, and Commissioner John Rantzman
will decide. If he decides for us, the defendant can appeal to Superior Court. There is no coercion involved, let alone the
“force or violence” suggested by Hamilton. We are taking this approach because we have tried everything else.
We will succeed or fail based on the law, not (thank God) on what our patronizing Berkeley betters have to say about it.
It doesn’t have to be this way, you know. On Oct. 24, Oakland announced the conclusion to a very similar situation:
“Oakland City Attorney John Russo and City Council President Igancio De La Fuente said today that a family of drug dealers
has agreed to sell a house that they say has terrorized a Fruitvale District neighborhood for 20 years. . . .Russo and De
La Fuente said Ruby Harris, whom they described as the matriarch of a drug-dealing family, agreed in a settlement filed in
Alameda County Superior Court today to sell her home in the 3000 block of School Street and move out by Dec. 20.
“In its lawsuit, the city attorney's office alleged that Harris ‘allowed her home to be a drug nuisance, permitting
the unlawful use, sale, storage and manufacturing of controlled substances since at least 1987.’
“Russo and De La Fuente said the city has tried for years to get Harris to control the behavior of her children and
grandchildren through signed settlements, but Harris’ family members have violated the agreements. . .[N]ow the Harris
Family, in order to stave off hundreds of thousands of dollars in public nuisance fines from the city, will have to move out
and the residents will be able to take back control of their street.”
Why can’t we do that? Berkeley citizens might well ask. And for a good start, my many friends in Berkeley Citizens Action
might well ask their leadership why it is participating in smearing good people who are only trying to rid their neighborhood
of a notorious source of drugs and violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
