Descripción
Abandoned development site owned by Oakbrook LLC has become a growing homeless encampment with multiple illegal trailer camping, garbage, tires, daily dump site and a blight on the community.
también preguntó...
Q. Where is the homeless encampment in relation to the address given? EX:Behind the building, up the embankment, etc.
A. on the lot
A. on the lot
Q. How many individuals are living in the encampment?
A. 1-20?
A. 1-20?
Q. How many vehicles/RVs/tents/structures are at the encampment?
A. at least 9 RVs/trucks/cars/tents/trailers.
A. at least 9 RVs/trucks/cars/tents/trailers.
Q. If RV, is the RV leaking (black water) or is body waste present?
A. Yes
A. Yes
Q. Is there evidence of open fires?
A. Yes
A. Yes
Q. What other City departments have been notified? EX: OPD, OFD, DOT, Oak311, Public Works, etc.
A. oak311
A. oak311
Q. What is the report/complaint, as it relates to homelessness? EX:Parking violations, traffic violations, etc.
A. Parking violations, blight, hazardous waste, magnet for illegal dumping.
A. Parking violations, blight, hazardous waste, magnet for illegal dumping.
35 Comentars
Reconocido City of Oakland (Oficial verificado)
Shopdiva1 (Usuario registrado)
Anonymous (Usuario registrado)
Eyeshadow (Usuario registrado)
D (Usuario registrado)
Robinson (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Blight is often related to lack of economic freedom.
If, for instance, whoever owns the property in the photo was legally able to use and make money from it as an RV park, farm, dance space, food truck court, site for tiny homes, etc., without having to first get a bunch of money and make it through a bunch of hurdles to pay for permits, undergo hearings, etc., it would likely look a lot nicer than it does now, and be in productive use offering some kind of community service.
Somebody wanting to organize one of those entrepreneurial efforts, or something else, would likely get hold of the owner and they would make a deal to put all or part of the space to a new use, to their mutual benefit.
On the other hand, it sounds like there may be productive use going on at the location, just not of a variety that looks pretty or is pleasing to some neighbors. Allegations of "blight" are also often related to classism – poor people tend to have fewer resources (e.g. extra garage space for vehicles) to make everything look pristine.
Anonymous (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
"Zip code discrimination" should be addressed by demanding equal public resources for all areas, not by further discrimination against the poor and the homeless. Nobody in any neighborhood should be allowed to impose their own aesthetic preferences on their neighbors.
As for zoning, it is increasingly being recognized as one of the main factors responsible for the housing shortage and rampant homelessness we are now seeing.
This and other government land use policies have long catered to NIMBYs, and been used by them to limit development so that they can maintain their views, open space, "neighborhood character", property values, and so on, at the expense of others who have fewer resources and just need an affordable place to live.
Do you think that person sleeping in a tent or a vehicle is worried about living in a "blighted neighborhood"? They'd probably be glad to have a real home to call their own in any neighborhood. "Blight" is a classic "First World Problem", a preoccupation of the well-to-do.
Demanding that public resources taken from the taxpayers, including the poor, be used to make everything aesthetically pleasing to the community's wealthier residents when so many lack basic shelter, is morally indefensible.
Robinson (Usuario registrado)
-
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Zoning laws are not there for "all of society". They are designed to benefit certain people and interests at the expense of others.
People need to stop trying to control their neighbors lives, stop trying to micromanage how others use their own property.
The law is not always neutral, admirable, or beneficial to the community. Slavery was the law. And while chattel slavery is gone, vestiges of that same authoritarian, controlling mentality remain baked into today's laws – jury duty, the draft, compulsory education, taxation.
At their best, laws are a defense mechanism for society against people who would commit aggression and violate the life, liberty, or property of others. But when they go beyond this, and are used to commit aggression against people, to control and limit people's choices even when those choices are not harming anyone else, respect for the law declines, and the laws end up doing more harm than good.
They tear at the social fabric, make people lose respect for government and feel alienated from their communities, pit neighbor against neighbor as everyone struggles to control the government so that they can use its power and its laws to impose their vision on their neighbors.
john (Usuario registrado)
john (Usuario registrado)
john (Usuario registrado)
Enforcing the law consistently is a remarkable cost effective method to ensure community safety and quality of life.
Sadly our city officials ignore this tenet in letting lawlessness pervade unabated.
john (Usuario registrado)
Neighborstogether invites you all to join them on 10/17 (today) at 11am to attend a press conference and rally prior to Mayor Sheng Thao’s State of the City Address, which she is two weeks late on as required by Oakland’s charter with zero accountability from City Council.
They will be helping interested Neighbors fill out speaker cards for the 2pm council meeting, handing out signs and standing in solidarity with other community organizations, such as the Oakland NAACP, demanding a safe and livable city.
info@neighborstogetheroakland.org
john (Usuario registrado)
Jerry Owens (Usuario registrado)
City of Oakland (Oficial verificado)
OAK 311 has referred this issue to CODE ENFORCEMENT,. Please contact that department to follow-up (see "Other Helpful Links" at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/Connect/ReportaProblem/index.htm#Links).
Here are some important City of Oakland contact points:
* Abandoned Autos: 510-777-8622 (abandoned vehicles on public street after 3 days)
* Animal Control: 510-535-5602 (live animals) or 510-535-4888 (dead animals)
* Code Enforcement: 510-238-3381 (blighted private properties, deteriorated buildings, inoperable vehicles on private property)
* Drug Hotline: 510-238-3784 (tips) or 510-777-3211 (in progress)
* Parking Citations: 800-500-6484 (parking citation assistance center, pay or appeal a citation) or 510-238-3099 (enforcement)
* Prostitution Hotline: 510-238-2373 (tips) or 510-777-3211 (in progress)
Thank you.
Cerrado Starchild (Usuario registrado)
The less popular a law is, the less community consensus there is behind even wanting it to be a law at all, the likely it is to be consistently enforced.
Think about laws against jaywalking, loitering, driving a few miles an hour over the speed limit. Are they consistently enforced? Of course not. Neither are other laws (many of them of highly dubious constitutionality to begin with) against "blight", urban camping, unlicensed economic activity, minor parking violations, etc.
Many of these laws were never actually voted on by the public either, but are mere regulatory statutes imposed by some agency. If all this crap WAS enforced consistently, people would not stand for it. Courts and jails would be clogged, respect for "The Law™" would plummet, and the public would demand it stop.
In a system where so many harmless things are regulated, restricted, and criminalized, it is a pipe dream to imagine there could ever be "consistent enforcement" of all the provisions on the books. It's just not how the real world works.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Chauncey (Usuario registrado)
Reopened Chauncey (Usuario registrado)
Reconocido City of Oakland (Oficial verificado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Chauncey, don't get me wrong, I think the issues that fuel snltch culture deserve to be discussed. By selecting "close issue", I was simply voicing my support for closing this COMPLAINT against the property owner.
Whatever issues may or may not exist, criminalizing the property owner for the peaceful use of their own property is not the answer. Making it faster and easier for owners to bring new uses to their properties will more effectively reduce neglect, and do it without the costs, both fiscal and social, of non-consensual enforcement.
If someone dumps a body on or near your property because they think it looks neglected, it's obviously because the criminal(s) think they are less likely to be observed, or the body is less likely to be found, or both.
But whether they guess correctly about these things or not, is kind of irrelevant in the bigger picture. It doesn't change the nature of a homicide itself, and since there are no shortage of places in the world to dispose of bodies, trying to police the availability of places that someone might perceive as suitable locations to drop a body won't do anything to prevent murders, or make it any easier to catch murderers.
Eyeshadow (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Eyeshadow – As they say in medicine, "first do no harm". Most of my comments here are geared toward harm reduction. But if you read carefully, you will see I also often post ideas for solutions. On this page, for instance, I wrote:
"(If) whoever owns the property in the photo was legally able to use and make money from it as an RV park, farm, dance space, food truck court, site for tiny homes, etc., without having to first get a bunch of money and make it through a bunch of hurdles to pay for permits, undergo hearings, etc., it would likely look a lot nicer than it does now, and be in productive use offering some kind of community service."
john (Usuario registrado)
Cosmic Justice.
If we could create the universe from scratch, we’d all make sure that no one ever suffered misfortunes or disadvantages. The problem is that we don’t get to create the universe from scratch. Thomas Sowell argues that the quest for cosmic justice is ultimately at odds with the administration of true justice.
Eyeshadow (Usuario registrado)
City of Oakland (Oficial verificado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Eyeshadow – "Hurdles ensure you are not harming the community at large" is a good description of how the regulatory State is supposed to work *in theory*. In practice however, the "hurdles" themselves tend to do more harm to the community at large than the real or perceived ills they are intended to prevent.
Threatening businesses with fines if they do not post signs requiring employees to wash their hands in a long list of different scenarios doesn't ensure this will actually happen, nor does threatening fines for "blighted" property ensure that properties will actually be well-maintained. But writing, maintaining, advertising, and enforcing these and many, many other regulations does come with real, if mostly hidden, costs.
These administrative and compliance costs leave both government and voluntary sector organizations and individuals with less time and fewer resources to address whatever actual problems may exist. They create an adversarial or fear-based system that has unhealthy psychological effects on participants, and detracts from trust, harmony, and good-neighborly feelings in the community.
"Being an eyesore to your neighbors" does not constitute real harm, any more than does someone dressing unattractively, being morbidly obese, etc. We do not have the right to demand that other people make themselves or their property physically/aesthetically attractive to us.
As for the vague "inviting illegal activity", what REALLY invites illegal activity is having too many laws, that cannot and will not be well understood or consistently enforced.
Proposing that we get rid of many of these laws, and stop enabling a snltching culture, is just as much a real proposed solution as insisting that we keep these laws, and continue encouraging residents to snltch on each other by government officials enacting on anonymous complaints lodged by individuals with "no skin in the game" who face no consequences for false or malicious reporting or harassment of their targets.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
P.S. to Eyeshadow – I am working to "improv(e) the process to make it easier to obtain a license to operate your business under the law". One of the ways I do this is by posting here and in other forums, in order to raise public awareness of the harms caused by things like licensing requirements.
Here is a link to one of the many articles and resources that document and detail some of these harms:
https://www.ocregister.com/2012/09/05/walter-williams-regulations-bar-upward-mobility/
Robinson (Usuario registrado)
Blight is an economic crime that causes municipalities to lose considerable property tax revenue as a result of lower assessed property values throughout blighted neighborhoods, costing American taxpayers billions of dollars per year. Property taxes therefore have to be increased on owners who maintain their properties to make up for the lost revenue. Property owners near blighted buildings also have to pay higher fire insurance premiums, as well as higher municipal taxes to cover the increased costs for police and fire protection, as blighted buildings are a frequent target for arsonists and criminal activity.
This address has had several different fires which had to be contained by OFD.
This is not a safe environment for the community.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Robinson – Lots of things can impact property values and property tax revenues, including the "wrong kind" of people moving into a neighborhood.
In the past, this "problem" was often addressed by including racial covenants in property titles, prohibiting houses from being sold to blacks and others. Obviously this was wrong – property owners don't have any "right" to high property values, nor do municipalities have any "right" to high taxes.
But while objecting to neighbors based on their ethnicity is now illegal, another technique has largely taken its place – namely, complaining about "blight".
Poor people are less likely to have either the resources or the desire to keep their property looking aesthetically pleasing to the standards that wealthier people tend to prefer – they typically have other more pressing concerns like getting their basic needs met – and are also more likely to be minorities.
Meanwhile, people who are better off tend to have lower risk tolerance, and also to be more demanding that the things around them conform to certain aesthetic standards, because they aren't as focused on getting their basic needs met.
In short, demanding levels of safety and aesthetics that conform to the wishes of the rich rather than the poor is a form of classist (anti-poverty) discrimination that ends up being a form of de facto racist discrimination as well.