Chronic Nuisance Ordinance and Opposition Letters from Vista Marina

Representatives

Note: The proposed Chronic Nuisance Ordinance is going before The Vallejo City Council tonight.

By Kelly Staples

3/9/10

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

Please enter this correspondence into public records for hearings on the Chronic Nuisance

Ordinance. And please vote YES on this ordinance Tuesday night!

As a resident of the Vallejo Heritage District and former board member of the Central Core Restoration Corporation (CCRC), I can assure you this ordinance is not directed specifically at the Vista Marina Apartments. While the Vistas have in fact been the subject of ongoing concern for the downtown, chronic tenant nuisance is a serious problem in many parts of Vallejo, including the Heritage District where rental properties (low income, Section-8, AND those at market value) are a menace to the safety and well-being of residents.

In fact, a Heritage neighborhood group spearheading crime awareness is strongly in favor of this ordinance and has supported Councilwoman Hannigan’s proposal for more than a year now. Many of us have been victimized by dangerous chronic nuisance tenants on our blocks.

For example, a house on my corner is a known repeat offender of drug trafficking, destruction of neighbor’s property, excessive noise and criminal disturbances in the intersection, and constant gathering of people (many are minors) conducting aggressive,loud and territorial behavior in front of the house. This property is neither Section-8 nor low income.

The property owner, an investor from Napa, received countless complaints from all surrounding neighbors on multiple issues and has even received warning letters from VPD citing excessive call logs. When I e-mailed the owner in May 2009 inquiring about eviction, he forwarded my email to the tenant whose family subsequently trespassed on my front porch angrily threatening me until I called the police. The tenants have since been allowed to run amuck at will and the landlord’s response has remained that “it’s our problem.”

Yes, excessive affordable housing in Vallejo is a commonly known problem but it is NOT the issue!

The issue is that Vallejo’s economic status invites crime and absentee landlords to acquire multiple rental properties at prices conducive to low-income rentals. Many are respectable families doing their best and many are not.

The Heritage District has been severely compromised by the City’s prior efforts to increase density in supporting multi-family “improvements” to formerly single family homes and you have promoted this city as an affordable housing market. Since then you have eliminated most of our police and fire services. It is your duty to the citizens of Vallejo to provide us now with alternative vehicles in which to protect our quality of life against these tenants with no investment in this community who have no regard for other’s property or environment.

The ordinance before you is straight forward, addresses due process and right to appeal.

Again, I urge you to vote YES to the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance this Tuesday night

Kelly Staples

York Street, Vallejo

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Hmmm...   |March.11.2010 I think we should give a lot of credit to Erin Hannigan who has been pushing for this ordinance rather than continuing to ridicule her. I think she has stepped up and may have read the entire thing before the council meeting. Is Mardi the next "I don't have enough information" member?

Some Thoughts   |March.11.2010 Bad Thoughts, I take it that you were trying to not come off as being snarky but helpful. If so thank you. It was a concerned member of the public that raised the issue and I was commenting on the fact that it appeared that the ordinance and the intent is not clear. I was listening to the comments from some of the people who spoke and I understood the attorney to say that "the reference to "medical calls" was some of the old wording and that they must have forgotten to take it out". That seemed to indicate that it had been missed and that they would then make note to remove it. Maybe since you have read it, you can help shed some light on the ammendments that were given to Council that were not included in the original staff report. Were the changes substantial?

bad thoughts   |March.10.2010 Some bad thoughts...read the ordinance and you will find EMS calls were not included as violations in the proposed draft. I guess it would be too much for you to read it before commenting on the proposal.

Some Thoughts   |March.10.2010 My feeling is that the general concept of this type of ordinance has the potential of being a great tool for the community and long is overdue. It needs to be clearly worded so that the community understands the purpose and should not contain the level of subjective wording that was brought out last night. After listening to the discussion last night, it appeared that the Council was given several pages at the last minute and the Council had not even read through them. In addition, we learned that some of the wording that was supposed to be removed, was still there. Had Council followed Hannigan's wishes and voted on the ordinance as is, someone who had "several" calls for medical assistance could be labeled as a chronic nuisance and subject to a fine. Is that the intent? Apparently the City Attorney had not been very thorough with her work product and that should be cause for trepidation. In a world that is filled with litigation, one misplaced word could cost the city millions. We certainly need this type of ordinance so that we can have the necessary tools to deal with absentee slumlords and nuisance property owners, but we should also feel confident that our representatives understand what they are voting on. It was a relief to hear Mrs. Brown ask for it to be continued and hopefully the extra time will result in well thought out, and reviewed, ordinance. Shame on the City Attorney for presenting a flawed work product that had careless errors to be voted on. Shame on Erin for pushing for the vote without even reading it through.

Abominous   |March.10.2010 That should be the opposition letters that is..

Abominous   |March.10.2010 A better title for this Primal Scream would be "Slumlord Speaks"

KellyS   |March.09.2010 'Not as Anonymous as you think' - I don't drink coolaide... just telling it like it is.

Anonymous   |March.09.2010 Kelly I agree with you 100%! There are property owners on my street--some who I now know (too bad for them) that allow things to happen at their property that they would never allow in their neighborhoods! You are also not the first person who has been "outed" by their landlord. Honestly, I would like to see a mob go to these A-holes houses in Napa, Benicia, Petaluma (and some fancier 'hoods in Vallejo!), etc and OUT THEM as the slumlords that they are. Its time that Vallejo says ENOUGH! Problem is, many of these A-holes are connected to good ol boys, the Chamber of Horrors, slimy RE agents, Prop Mgrs and eviction lawyers (Osby?...).

?   |March.09.2010 And I thought it was Kelli with an "i".

Anonymous   |March.09.2010 "Since then you have eliminated most of our police and fire services." Tsk, tsk, Kelly, a bit of an exaggeration. First the Triad coolaide, now drinking the PSU coolaide?

Accountable   |March.09.2010 I think everyone on Vallejo City Council should be made to live at 201 Maine Street for 30 days straight - 1 month, just so they all have first-hand knowledge of the situation. What a scene that would be.

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.23

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."