A long time coming--Oakland CEDA and the Grand Jury report

[Seamaiden]

I've mentioned what's been happening in Oakland a couple of times, but haven't been able to provide a whit of veracity. Now the Grand Jury's report is finally out and Chip Johnson of the Chronicle has finally, FINALLY taken it seriously. (My sister contacted him two years ago and he told her he didn't find her to be credible. High-fivin' motherfucker.)

I won't post the GJ report, it's 165 pages, but I am posting the all-too-brief article published in the Chronicle written by Mr. Johnson. Many of the findings were uncovered by my sister, including the interest-free 10-year no-interest loan. There is much that is not mentioned in this article, for instance, how many of the players are related, by business dealings, marriage or blood. The GJ report might, but I haven't read it in full yet, just the scathing introduction.

Obviously, no officials from the City of Oakland were available for comment. I pray that my sister and brother-in-law can now move forward, that the liens on their home in west Oakland are relieved and that, finally, the people who've been trying to make homes and lives there be relieved of the burden of the true and sheer greed displayed by those in positions of power.

Grand jury appalled at Oakland building inspectors

Chip Johnson
Tuesday, June 28, 2011

If the annual report of the Alameda County grand jury is an accurate account of the operations inside the city of Oakland's Building Services Division, the logical next step must be a criminal investigation.

The division of Oakland's Community and Economic Development Agency is responsible for reviewing plans for new construction and renovation, inspecting the city's housing stock and enforcing the city's blight and nuisance laws.

When a property owner ignores cleanup orders, Building Services can hire a contractor to do the work and place a lien on the property for the cost.

But the grand jury report released Monday outlined a pattern of arbitrary and excessive fees, fines and abusive actions by building supervisors and inspectors that so "appalled" the panel, it recommended the city revoke the agency's law enforcement authority.

In one case, city inspectors tagged an Oakland property with a blight order for what turned out to be children's toys in the yard. The city moved forward with the cleanup, demolished a garage legally converted to a recreation area two decades earlier, and charged the owner $18,000, the report said.

The city's appeals process, if you could actually call it that, operated more like a scam than a legitimate administrative function where property owners' claims were heard by objective parties. Property owners reported being denied on first appeal, often with the code enforcement officer who issued the citation acting as the hearing officer.

The appeals often surpassed the cost of the fine, effectively discouraging many property owners from pursuing an otherwise legitimate claim, the report said.

Even when residents didn't appeal and did agree to sign a compliance plan to correct the problems, the agency added a 14.75 percent fee for records management and technology enhancement. Yet, when the grand jury issued a subpoena for records, the city could not locate all of them, the report said.

One of the more troubling findings was confirmation of a 10-year interest-only loan made by a debris removal contractor to a Building Services manager. The same contractor was awarded "a disproportionately large number of contracts" for debris removal and abatement work, the report said.

The loan was reported to the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is required by law, two years later. The city's Building Services manager "at one time listed her address at a property owned by the contractor," the report said.

Inside the city's Building Services offices, the contractor had free rein, and on more than one occasion submitted the low bid for a contract and then issued a change-order to increase its value. "These change orders inflated the price of the contracts, increasing the cost of the lowest-winning bid," the report concluded.

Another egregious practice, identified previously in a 1999 grand jury report, was still in use until recently.

In its review of property records from 2007 to 2010, the grand jury found "prospective liens" city officials used to issue "warnings" to property owners.

Not only did the practice encumber a property and make it more difficult for an owner to secure funds to comply with city orders, the fines appeared arbitrary and punitive. The report found no correlation between fine amounts and cleanup costs.
Oakland city officials could not be reached for comment.

"There is a perception by property owners that the fees are simply a way for the city to generate funds for the city without regard for the residents' due process," the report said.

And there were no residents more outraged than Michelle Cassens and her husband, Gwillym Martin, West Oakland residents whose home was condemned by city building inspectors in 2009.

In August 2010, Cassens sent letters to 2,000 people she'd identified who found themselves in similar predicaments with the Oakland city agency. She included a copy of an Alameda County grand jury complaint form and encouraged people to sound off.
"Apparently they did, in droves," Cassens said in a phone interview Monday. "I feel like this is a beginning for the victims."

Grand jury report
To see the Alameda County grand jury report that includes findings on the city of Oakland's alleged building-inspection abuses, go to links.sfgate.com/ZLAF

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/28/BAQ91K3C69.DTL

You can read up on the history and see much more detail, as well as the information upon which the GJ based much of their report and investigation at http://www.auditoaklandceda.com

This is the city that wanted to permit cannabis factories, that requires anyone who has a HOME OFFICE to acquire a permit, and is planning on arbitrarily creating a permitting process for people to grow FOOD on their own property. You know, like lettuce, fruit trees, peppers, tomatoes and the like? Yep, Jean Quan thinks it would be great if they can collect more money by illegally forcing residents to acquire a permit for that which has been more than a right for all Americans since inception of the country and before. Way to go, Jean, et alia! Ya high-fivers. I can hardly wait til the feds get a hold of you ALL!!!!!!

 

[Chronic Monster]

I love when crooks get ousted :)

 

[paperplane]

Thats great! But honestly this will get swept under the rug. They will get a slap on the wrist. They have been trying to take away our right to grow our own for awhile now. I think SB510 comes to mind. Also Dracula AKA John McCain is trying to outlaw all Vitamins and supplements. They are methodically making us sicker and weaker.

 

[Seamaiden]

I can't say which federal agency has also been investigating, but they *are* being investigated and there was already one arrest several months ago, RICO charges on a real estate broker, IIRC.

 

[Blaze]

What a scam. Sort of scary they want to permit people to grow their own veggies. Welcome to 1984.....

 

[Seamaiden]

Apparently Oak Park, MI hates veggies as well. Julie Strass is going to court to fight over whether or not she should be allowed to grow vegetables in her front yard. Look up Oak Park Hates Veggies for more ridiculousness. This woman is being threatened with jail time for not planting a fucking lawn.

This bump is for dextr0 and others. My sister has now interviewed with Chip Johnson for an incredibly toothless article, and has been speaking with people from the Oakland Tribune and other papers I now forget (maybe more for the Chron?), and two days ago did an inet radio show.

 

[SLO Grown]

What a shame.........

 

[Seamaiden]

The podcast of the... podcast show.
http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/audio/USO-07-07-11.mp3

 

[Seamaiden]

Another article has come out, this time it's on the front page of the Oakland Tribune. Now, when you read the City's response and what Jean Quan has to say about this entire situation, I need for everyone to understand that Jean Quan is LYING through her teeth when she says, in essence, that this is news to her. She's lying through her teeth when she implies that she wants to eliminate corruption--SHE IS PART OF THE CORRUPTION, if by no other mechanism than complicity.

Oakland Building Services department subject of scathing Alameda grand jury report

By Cecily Burt
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 07/14/2011 12:00:00 AM PDT


The Alameda County grand jury has published a scathing review of Oakland's Building Services division, and its conclusions likely will spark a thorough overhaul of the department responsible for handling inspections and code violations for blight and illegal construction.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said the grand jury's findings are a top priority and one of the first things that incoming City Administrator Deanna Santana will take up.

The panel concluded that significant improvement is needed in several areas, including the abatement process; policies, procedures and training; information, communication and data management; due process (notices, liens, fees and fines); contracting; and appeals.

The civil grand jury elected to investigate Oakland's Building Services, which is a division of the Community and Economic Development Agency, after receiving numerous complaints from property owners about excessive and arbitrary fees and liens, and abusive and retaliatory treatment by inspectors, among other things.

Similar complaints were the catalyst for a grand jury investigation 11 years ago, but the recommendations from that panel -- that liens be used as a last resort and that inspectors focus on code violations to those that threaten life, health and safety -- were ignored, the 2011 grand jury noted. Conditions have grown worse since then, it said.

"The Grand Jury is appalled by the actions of the city of Oakland's Building Services Division and its impact on property owners of Oakland. "... The division's practices and its treatment of property owners appear to be a direct reflection of poor management, lack of leadership, and ambiguous policies and procedures," it wrote in its final report, released June 28.

The panel interviewed property owners and current and former city employees. It subpoenaed about 50 property files that had code violations and requested documents from property owners.

It also compared Oakland's laws and procedures regarding blight abatement and property code violations with those in San Jose and San Francisco. The panel found those cities' rules and procedures more neutral and fair to property owners.

The panel noted "an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation toward property owners" by Oakland inspectors and supervisors, and it suggested that the city re-evaluate the policy of giving inspectors law enforcement authority. The grand jury also criticized the speed with which inspectors declared properties blighted and slapped prospective liens on properties.

The final report included several examples in which liens were recorded before issuing an abatement notice and before the property owner had a chance to respond or appeal the blight abatement order. The liens ranged from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars and often had no relation to the actual costs of unpaid fines or abatement work.

The conclusions were no surprise to Michelle Cassens, a property inspector whose unhappy experience with the department started after she and her husband, Gwillym Martin, in March 2008 bought a West Oakland Victorian duplex built around 1888.
Cassens said she was cited for constructing an illegal second downstairs unit and ordered to remove it, despite records that show the unit has been part of the house for more than 100 years.

From May to September 2009, the couple tried to appeal the case, but each request was discarded or denied, Cassens said.

On Aug. 3, 2009, former Building Services Manager Antoinette Renwick issued a demolition order for their house and gave them two weeks to get out. A $50,000 lien was placed on their property.

Since then, Cassens has made it her mission to expose fraud and abuse by Oakland's building inspection department. She created the AuditOaklandCEDA blog and sent letters to 2,000 property owners she identified through public records as having had a prospective lien placed on their property. She urged them to file a written complaint with the grand jury.

Cassens also discovered that Renwick had taken out a $50,000 loan from a contractor who landed the majority of hauling and demolition business from the city's inspectors. The contractor, it turns out, is Renwick's relative. Cassens reported it to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Renwick resigned Oct. 15. The panel concurred that the department's contracting policies were flawed and the access granted the contractor contributed to an "appearance of impropriety."

Cassens said she feels vindicated by the grand jury's report, but her nightmare is not over. She's had to hire an attorney; the nest egg she and Martin hoped to spend on their home is gone.

Andrew Vincent also was embroiled in a battle with Building Services over a fence he didn't build and a concrete basement that does not exist in his North Oakland fourplex. Vincent, an electrical contractor, said he was victimized by an overzealous building inspector after he complained that flooding in his yard was caused by a neighbor's unpermitted construction.

Vincent said he tried to appeal his case through normal channels but was denied that opportunity. He was forced to sue the city to have $48,000 worth of liens removed. That effort, he said, has cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars that he will never get back.

Vincent said the biggest problem is the lack of due process afforded Oakland property owners. It's nearly impossible to file an appeal, and the few that are scheduled are a "kangaroo court," he said.

"The Oakland Municipal Code is quite clear, that your appeal is to be heard by someone who is not employed by the city," he said. "Appeals are filed, but denied by someone in the department."

In a statement, the city concurred with much of the grand jury's analysis, especially as it involves the city's code enforcement for blight.

Quan said the department is understaffed, undertrained and in need of a computer system that can track every action, citation, appeal and correspondence with property owners.

"That's one of the things (new City Administrator) Deanna (Santana) and I need to take on as soon as she starts," she said. "They need consistency. I don't think it's corrupt at this point; at least not at this point. "... I haven't had a chance to look at it."

Quan said the department has begun to limit liens and make a better effort to notify property owners. However, she does think that liens, if used judiciously, can be effective for getting rid of truly nuisance properties, such as the Hillcrest Motel.

"We have to make sure they are reviewed, and there is no possibility of corruption," she said.

Grand jury recommendations Ensure that the true property owners are notified of violations through every stage of the abatement process.
Provide the property owner a clear written description in simple-to-understand language on the notice of violation, and do no just refer the property owner to a city code section.
Implement a training program that emphasizes working with -- not against -- property owners.
Eliminate the use of prospective liens.
Revise fees and base them on actual reasonable costs incurred by the city.
Establish deadlines for inspectors to respond to property owners.
Develop an operations manual to ensure that inspectors operate in a consistent manner in applying code enforcement.
Develop a centralized case management system that is easily accessible to all inspectors and property owners.
Establish a clear, simple, effective appeals process that is easily understood by property owners and provides clear instructions for use.
Immediately establish an ombudsman function (not an Oakland Building Services manager or inspector) to review all appeals and to assist the property owner.

grand jury REPORT
To read the 2010-2011 grand jury report, go to www.acgov.org/grandjury/final2010-2011.pdf.
To read the city's response, go to www.acgov.org/grandjury/2011rpt_response.htm.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Quan wants to ensure no possibility of corruption, then she has to give up the INCOME from building services. But, she doesn't want to do that.

Dextr0, you and I have conversed a bit about what's been happening to my sister. I've been waiting years right along with her and her husband to see some vindication and to see this come to light. You wanted to know what could be done, well, here it is.

Don't forget to check out auditoaklandceda.com (she was hacked soon after the first article was published and her news on a specific employee, Walter Cohen, was removed. And only that news. I don't know if she's had a chance to put it back up.

 

[Seamaiden]

And more! And Dave has a friend from high school who does a Libertarian radio talk show who wants to interview them.



Remember, this is the "dimebag, copywatch" sister. Finally, more vindication. If only she could get the building department to drop ALL of the illegal liens against their property (rather like Julie Bass of Oak Park, MI--aka Oak Park Hates Veggies).

Remember folks, persistence and determination are omnipotent.

Oakland Tribune editorial
© Copyright 2011, Bay Area News Group
Posted: 07/17/2011 04:00:00 PM PDT

ELEVEN YEARS ago, an Alameda County grand jury investigated the city of Oakland's Building Services division after receiving numerous complaints about inspection fines, faulty procedures and abusive inspectors.

The grand jury recommended that the division, which is responsible for approving permits for new construction and renovations, implement the following changes: 1) Publish clear instructions to let people know how to apply for permits for both new construction and renovations of existing properties. 2) Only pursue aggressive investigations of serious life, health and safety code violations. 3) Only use property liens as a last resort.

Not only did officials at the city's Community and Economic Development Agency, (CEDA) which overseas Building Services, not implement the grand jury recommendations. The state of affairs has gotten even worse.

A new Alameda County grand jury has released a scathing review of the division. The division also inspects buildings and grounds to make sure they are not safety hazards, do not contribute to blight and are not neighborhood nuisances.

The report said the panel "is appalled by the actions of the city of Oakland's Building Services Division and its impact on property owners of Oakland."

Building Services' supervisors and inspectors wield a lot of power. Anyone seeking to build or renovate an existing property must come through them. The division can issue fines that cost property owners tens of thousands of dollars and compel them to take costly corrective measures. It may also order a property demolished for noncompliance.

Building services has grossly abused this authority.

The panel found that inspectors were hostile and intimidating to property owners and often denied them due process.

There were several instances where liens were recorded within just a few days of the issuance of an abatement notice -- giving property owners no opportunity to make repairs. Liens ranged into the tens of thousands of dollars and bore no relation to the cost of unpaid fines or abatement work.

In one especially outrageous case, property owner Michelle Cassens and her husband were cited for constructing an illegal second unit and ordered to remove it -- despite records showing the dwelling had been part of the house for more than 100 years.

Between May and September 2009, they tried to appeal, but they say each time their request was dismissed or denied.

On Aug. 3, 2009, former building services manager Antoinette Renwick issued a demolition order for the house and gave the couple two weeks to vacate. Building services slapped a $50,000 lien on the home.

Cassens later discovered that Renwick had taken out a $50,000 loan from a contractor who got most of the hauling and demolition business from city inspectors -- a contractor who happened to be Renwick's own relative.

Renwick later resigned. [This is when the thick got sticky for my sister and the attempts to torch her truck began, later successful. OPD destroyed the truck.]

The panel documented another instance where one inspector told an owner that his property was in compliance. Yet a week later, another inspector told him he was in violation of code.

Mayor Jean Quan said that addressing the panel's concerns will be a top priority for new City Administrator Deanna Santana.

We sincerely hope that this time around, the city will take corrective action rather than allowing the grand jury report to gather dust.

Residents and commercial property owners have long complained that one of the greatest obstacles to economic development in the Oakland is the tyranny at CEDA.

If this latest report is any indication, it is high time for a thorough house cleaning at the agency.

And yet another blog is discussing this. Yay!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=93337

 

[Seamaiden]

Shit's coming down and may vengeance and vindication be theirs!

Omar El-Baroudi and Joe Russack each saw the American dream on Magnolia Street in West Oakland, where two empty, dilapidated homes stood side by side.

Russack purchased one of the fixer-uppers in July 2008, and the following month El-Baroudi bought the other - each intending to rebuild the houses with their own hands to make up for what they lacked in cash.

But before long, the city of Oakland notified the new homeowners that they were breaking the law. Their offense: owning blighted properties.

What happened over the next three years to El-Baroudi and Russack echoes the experiences of dozens of other Oakland property owners who have been penalized by the city with fines and liens for blight that many say are exorbitant and have prevented them from actually fixing their properties.

"The city wasn't very interested in what happens on the ground and fixing up the house," said El-Baroudi, who is still unable to move into his house. "They were just interested in collecting money and fines."

Complaints of unprofessional, retaliatory and intimidating treatment by building inspectors as well as excessive fines, fees and liens against property owners were investigated over the past year by the Alameda County civil grand jury, which called the city's actions "appalling." Tonight, the City Council will hold its first hearing on the issue.

The city's Building Services Division investigates substandard buildings, construction work without permits, and the accumulation of trash, debris, graffiti and other blight on properties. In blight cases, the city can hire a crew to clean up a property at the homeowner's expense and without the homeowner's permission.

Among the problems found by the grand jury was that the city had awarded a disproportionate number of cleanup jobs to a contractor who had "inappropriate access to the private office of the former inspection manager," who at one time had lived at a property owned by the contractor. In many cases, the grand jury said, the contractor submitted the lowest bid, won the job and then later inflated the cost of the work by submitting change orders to the original bid.

Problems worsen

Building Services Division staff will respond to the allegations tonight, but critics of the division are doubtful the city will change. Some of the same problems raised in a grand jury report more than a decade ago not only remained uncorrected but grew worse, according to the latest grand jury findings.

"This is theater," said Russack, 42. "They've always known what the problem is."
In one of the most egregious cases of abuse of authority cited in the grand jury report, building inspectors entered a single-family home cited for blight and a substandard interior, and violated a search warrant by removing and disposing of everything in the house. The inspectors even had animal control take the homeowner's dog.

Forced from her home

Last week, 83-year-old Leola Matthis appeared before a council subcommittee and said she had been forced from her home. She said the city sent the warning letters to a wrong address.

At a time in her life when she is too frail to fight, the longtime civil service worker said in a barely audible voice that her house was everything to her: "I have to have something to hold on to, something to lean on."

In another case, the city charged a property owner $18,000 in fines and fees and forced the owner to demolish a garage that had been legally converted to a recreation room after citing the home for blight, according to the grand jury report. The blight turned out to be children's toys in the yard.

Changes ahead

City Administrator Deanna Santana, who was recently hired, said the city will make changes to respond to problems found by the grand jury. For one thing, the city will create, by 2012, an operations manual - which Building Services does not have. The city also has hired a consultant to help create a records management system.

Two weeks ago, in response to charges that property owners weren't being notified of problems, Building Services started posting signs on the actual properties deemed blighted, according to Deputy Director Ray Derania.

View All Images (10)

More News

• Oakland Mayor Jean Quan accused of home blight 09.23.11

The city's sluggish pace baffles Michelle Cassens, who has spent three years fighting Building Services after it condemned the West Oakland home she, her husband and son live in.

One of the biggest problems with Building Services is that appeals are not handled by an independent party but often are dealt with by the same Building Services Division that had issued the citation or fine to begin with, according to the grand jury report.

"The elephant in the room is that today there still are people whose lives (are) in crisis because of this," Cassens said. "All these responses, as far as I'm concerned, are designed to divert the unaffected public's attention. ... You're not supposed to need an attorney to own a home."

Use of liens

One of the most controversial policies cited by the grand jury report is the long-standing practice of placing liens on homes the city declares blighted. Liens as high as $827,000 were put on homes as a warning to fix properties.

But sometimes they made little sense. In one case, Building Services closed a case after the property owner cleaned it up. But days later, the city placed a $35,000 lien on the home anyway.

A decade ago, the grand jury asked the city to stop placing liens on blighted homes. Oakland uses liens at the start of the process, as a way to notify owners of a problem. San Francisco and San Jose use liens on the back end - only after all invoices have been sent to the owner and payment has not been received for 30 days.

Oakland has temporarily suspended its practice, but Santana says the city will continue to use liens in the future. Santana says it's a good way to warn prospective buyers of problems with a house.

A lien is viewed as an encumbrance on a property and can interfere with financial transactions related to the property, making it difficult if not impossible for the homeowner to take out a loan against the property.

Homeowners suffer

Russack and El-Baroudi, the men who bought run-down homes next door to each other, think that's ludicrous.

The fines and liens each homeowner faced made it even more difficult for them to fix up the homes, particularly under the deadlines set by the city that neither homeowner was able to meet.

Russack gave up trying to fix up his home himself and took out loans to pay for contractors. At the time, El-Baroudi couldn't afford to.

Now, three years later, Russack's house is fixed, but he is loaded with debt. El-Baroudi, 45, however, can't get loans to fix his property because of the city's liens and fines. His home is unfinished and boarded up.

The only difference between the two, said Russack, is that "I had more cash on hand and resources."

The problems with blighted homes are self-evident, they say. Russack's home didn't have a roof, and he had to gut it from the ground up to remove mold. El-Baroudi's home had squatters in it until he bought it and changed the locks.

Ultimately, they say, the city is perpetuating the very blight problem it wants to remedy.

"Unfortunately, the way (Building Services) has treated people explained what never made sense: Why do you have houses that nobody buys or fixes up?" Russack said. "How could you have property that's 15 minutes from downtown San Francisco and close to public transportation be vacant? It's not fear of the ghetto. They make these places impossible to buy."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/19/MNCC1L3V1M.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1YnD9KCSG
​

You may have noticed the link I left in there, too, about Jean Quan. She's the mayor now of O-town, and she's claiming that she knew nothing of all these wrongdoings. She's lying through her teeth. (Apparently she's also a bit of a drinker, as evidenced by post-council meeting behavior caught on tape.) She knew, Ray Derania knew and enjoyed his line of work. De La Fuente knew, Nancy Nadel was the first to be informed by my sister, but then it turned out that Nadel has actually used building services to her own nefarious ends.

Jean Quan spent a good part of the day yesterday putting herself in a really bad position.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan acknowledged Thursday that she had failed to clear her hills property of overgrown ivy and brush, days after a resident showed up at a City Council meeting with photos of her home and called her the "Queen of Residential Blight."

The comments by the resident, Ken Pratt, came during a hearing Tuesday of the Oakland City Council on the issue of city building inspectors' alleged mistreatment of property owners for blight citations with excessive fines and liens.

Pratt showed eight photos of Quan's property and complained that the mayor was receiving special treatment because her property was allowed to remain blighted while other property owners were being cited. Pratt showed pictures of overgrown bushes and trees outside her home and damaged railings on her deck.

On Wednesday night, a day after the meeting, KTVU news showed footage of a gardener trimming the vegetation at Quan's home. The gardener told KTVU he was trimming at the urgent request of the mayor's daughter.

Quan, speaking at her weekly news briefing on Thursday, denied that the conditions on her property constituted blight or that she had received special treatment.

"If we're out of compliance - if there's a side emergency stairwell that we never use, I never go down and it's broken - we'll get it fixed. The mayor of the city has to be in compliance like everyone else," Quan said.

"I think a lot of people like to take hits at me," she said, adding however, "I would say that my garden may not be the most beautiful garden."

Quan said that she is rarely home and agreed that she had let her Algerian ivy grow unabated. "I know now what plants survive after two years of campaigning and being ignored," she said.

Quan said she recognized the importance of maintaining a buffer zone around her home by removing vegetation, citing the deadly 1991 Oakland hills fire and the annual fire season. "I don't want my house to burn down either," she said.

The mayor stressed that none of her immediate neighbors had made complaints about her home, or else "the inspector would have been out and I would have fixed it."

She said, 'The reality is, I never ask people to do anything I wouldn't do myself. I'm absolutely willing to do everything any other citizen does and more."

On Thursday, Quan's home was obscured from view from the street because of large trees and a fence. A neighbor, Lillian Stewart, said, "They're good neighbors. We've never had any problems with them. They're nice people."

Pratt said the city retaliated against him by towing two of his cars Thursday. City officials denied any wrongdoing, saying they acted on a compliant filed weeks ago from one of his neighbors and that the city has towed other cars of his over the years.
Quan said of Pratt, "I don't know who he is."

Quan said some of the ivy was under the deck of her home, which is on a hillside, and that overgrown shrubbery constituted a fire inspection issue.

But overgrown plantings, trees and shrubs are under the purview of the city's building services division, and gardeners who had been cited for overgrown plantings were among those who complained Tuesday that building inspectors were overzealous in citing them.

Deputy Chief James Williams of the Oakland Fire Department said Thursday that Quan's home has been in compliance during each annual inspection by firefighters. Quan said several years ago, firefighters asked her to "get rid of certain hedges and certain trees, and we did that."

She said, "I got inspected like everybody else."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/22/BAFT1L8AO0.DTL#ixzz1YnEEPWs7
​

No, honey, not at all like everybody else. Not at all.

This fellow, Pratt? The cars that were removed from his property were registered, functioning vehicles, too. He wasn't noticed that they were to be removed, either. A single complaint can engender towing of your vehicles in O-town, UNLESS you know the right people. He was targeted yesterday and it was specifically because of what he did the night of the meeting at city hall.

Not to mention that no one else, unless they know the right people, could have gotten away with letting their property become so overgrown as Jean Quan had allowed hers to.