Gran Jurado del Condado de Alameda
2007-2008
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
That the DRC partners are advancing the project before securing total right of way control over all track from the Union City Intermodal station to the CalTrain station in San Mateo. Unless the rights of way are owned by the DRC project, there is a danger that UPRR, which presently has priority scheduling rights over much of the track, will continue to give freight traffic priority over passenger traffic.
F2:
Within the DRC project’s scope is the possibility of building the Niles freight bridge crossing Alameda Creek and Mission Boulevard, which proposal the grand jury understands is not a requirement of the DRC passenger train process. Since the Niles freight bridge still remains a proposal, it cannot at this time be deemed a public gift to the UPRR, but the grand jury hopes that the taxpayers receive quid pro quo if the project includes the bridge (e.g., transfer of ownership or significant usage of the track).
F3:
Connectivity to the Union City Intermodal station should be a priority to Alameda County as a whole as the purported purpose of DRC is to get commuter cars off of the surface streets and highways. Simply connecting the Newark Station to San Mateo would fall far short of achieving the goal of DRC, BART, Capital Corridor, ACE and connecting buses.
F4:
The grand jury believes that the funding projections for this project were significantly understated in the voter guide. The grand jury finds this highly worrisome. 39
F5:
In the course of its investigation, the grand jury learned that there is no single agency authorized to control or direct rail projects in the Bay Area, which currently has 27 agencies with varying levels of authority for this project. We recommend that subsequent grand juries monitor the progress of the DRC project at all stages of its development and build-out. Particular attention should be paid to the Union City Intermodal connectivity, resolution of right of way control, and, if applicable, the inclusion and cost to taxpayers of the Niles freight bridge. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 40 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS The grand jury investigated a mailing error by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and a reported shortage of ballots at polling places for the 2008 Presidential Primary. During the course of our investigation, we met with the registrar of voters. MAILING ERROR For the February 2008 primary election, the registrar of voters intended to send a mailing to all permanent absentee non-partisan voters explaining that if they wanted to vote in the 2008 Presidential Primary Election, they would be permitted to vote in either the American Independent or Democratic parties but only if they requested a ballot in advance for one of these parties. Approximately 60,000 voters in Alameda County fit into this category. The letter was prepared and mailed to all of the approximately 234,000 voters in Alameda County who are permanent absentee voters, not just the non-partisan voters. Many of these voters had registered with a party and were confused as to why the letter was sent to them. The registrar of voters sent out second corrective letters shortly thereafter acknowledging the mailing error. The grand jury learned the first mailing was sent to the wrong group of voters as a result of an employee error. The postage cost alone of each mailing was approximately $20,000. As a result of the error, the registrar implemented a new policy that requires that before any mailing is sent to a printer, it must be approved by at least two employees. 4 1 BALLOT SHORTAGE During the 2008 Presidential Primary it was reported there were ballot shortages in Alameda County. The grand jury learned there were eight polling places that were affected with a shortage totaling 15 ballots. No voters were turned away due to the shortage of ballots. Instead, sample and provisional ballots were used. Contrary to news reports, no court order was issued. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 4 2 DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE I-580 CARPOOL LANES INTRODUCTION A complaint was received concerning a proposed HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane on highway I-580 East from I-680 to Vasco Road in the Pleasanton/Livermore area. The complaint asserts that a temporary short-term solution of traffic congestion on the I-580 corridor is a wasteful use of Alameda County transportation funds and precludes Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Vasco Road in Livermore. INVESTIGATION The grand jury met with the executive director of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) who explained what is involved in planning, constructing and paying for regional transportation. ACCMA is the transportation policy and planning agency for Alameda County and oversees federal, state and regional transportation funding and sponsors key transportation improvements. ACCMA’s transportation policy establishes a long-range 25 year county-wide transportation program, updated every four years, of projects funded with discretionary state and federal funds; develops a short-range congestion management program which includes a five year capital improvement program, updated every two years, funded by state funds; and oversees special planning studies and projects such as the I-580 HOV lanes. The general approach to relief in the I-580 corridor in the short term includes the addition of east and west HOV lanes and the acquisition of right of way. ACCMA 4 3 has announced the intention of incorporating tolls for single-occupancy vehicles in the HOV lanes. The long-term plans include the construction of BART extensions to Livermore, subject to the availability of funding. Additionally, the route into Livermore has yet to be determined. The I-580 Corridor is the second most congested corridor in the Bay Area. Federal and state funding for HOV lanes is mandated to reduce air pollution and has the stipulation that construction start by December 2012. CONCLUSION The ACCMA has developed a short-term strategy for delivering some congestion relief in this corridor, and the grand fury finds this strategy reasonable. This is a viable option due to current funding availability. At this time, the BART route to Livermore has not been determined. BART expansion to Livermore and beyond is entirely subject to the availability of funding, and sufficient funding at this time has not been identified. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 4 4 CITY OF BERKELEY DRUG HOUSES INTRODUCTION The grand jury investigated a complaint regarding drug houses in the city of Berkeley. A drug house is a private residence where illegal drug activity takes place. The complaint alleged that the city has been derelict in its duty to safeguard public safety and has shown willful intent to not enforce local and state laws pertaining to abating public nuisance drug houses. The grand jury requested information from the city with regard to what action had been taken with respect to drug houses in Berkeley. HISTORY Since 1990, neighbors in Berkeley have participated in ongoing meetings with city staff and police regarding one particular neighborhood drug house. Between 1992 and 2006, these neighbors won two judgments in small claims court against the specific property owner who was alleged to have a drug house. In the lawsuit, the neighbors testified how their quality of life was negatively affected. For example, bullet casings, drug paraphernalia and used condoms were frequently found in the neighbors’ yards and on the street. In a court proceeding in April 2006, the owner of the drug house stipulated that the house was a legal nuisance. INVESTIGATION The grand jury learned that the city of Berkeley has a multi-faceted approach to addressing the problem of illegal drug use: 4 5 Drug House Ordinance Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) chapter 13.56 allows the city manager to order a property owner to take corrective actions whenever it has been determined that “the unlawful sale, storage, manufacturing or selling or giving away of a controlled substance, precursor or analog has occurred in or about the premises of any privately owned property.” (BMC section 13.56.020) Such corrective action “may include, but is not limited to, the hiring of a resident manager or security guard; the installing of secure doors at the front and rear of the buildings; the posting of ‘no trespassing’ signs in and on the property; the development of property rules which regulates [sic] the entrance to and egress from the property of nonresidents; and the institution of actions to remove any resident or others engaging in such illegal conduct on or about the premises.” (BMC section 13.56.020.A) If an owner fails to comply with the city manager’s directive, the owner may be fined $100 per day. (BMC section 13.56.030.B) Nuisance Abatement Law In 1999 the city revised its zoning ordinance, adopting chapter 23B.64, which permits the abatement of nuisances and expedites the processing of these cases. The city of Berkeley has the authority to use progressively stronger measures to abate illegal activities in drug houses. The city has been reluctant to apply the most severe measures to owner-occupied properties. In application of these measures the city does take into consideration the possibility of retaliation against neighbors. The city has been monitoring this problem property for many years. The grand jury learned that the city of Berkeley believes that under the law it must have a high benchmark for seizure of private property, particularly a home. 4 6 CONCLUSION In 2006, the city of Berkeley failed to take action on the owner occupied drug house when the court concluded and the property owner stipulated that the property was indeed a nuisance. The court noted that the owner “need[ed] to either actively manage the property so as to eliminate the nuisance or sell it.” The court further noted that there has been a 30-year history of drug problems with this property. The city failed to follow through with all possible measures to eliminate this drug house problem. The property remains a chronic nuisance to the neighborhood.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
08-14:
That the city of Berkeley apply the same standards regarding abatement of owner-occupied drug houses as it does for tenant-occupied and commercial properties.
08-15:
The city of Berkeley review its municipal codes and state legislation to ensure appropriate tools are in place to abate owner-occupied drug houses. If current laws are insufficient, adopt or modify city ordinances to abate drug house problems. 4 7 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Recomendaciones adicionales
13
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
08-01:
The city of Oakland prohibit the use of city funds (by credit card charges or reimbursement) for working lunches, holiday parties and decorations, and for the purchase of holiday greeting cards.
08-02:
The city of Oakland restrict the use of credit cards for the purchase of electronics or furniture to situations where inventory control measures are in place, ensuring that items purchased are identified and tracked.
08-03:
The city of Oakland create a single document stating all policies on credit card usage.
08-04:
The city of Oakland revise its description of permissible work-related expenditures and authorized expenditures for credit cards, providing specific guidance to credit card users as to the categories of permissible usage; required approvals; and the dollar limits applicable to any such category, including the categories of hospitality for ceremonial gifts, employee recognition ceremonies, events pertaining to employee appreciation, and the purchase of flowers. 30 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
08-05:
The city of Oakland require that credit card users provide on their monthly statements specific, complete descriptions of the business purpose of the charge and detailed documentation to support credit card charges setting forth each item purchased, including detailed food and restaurant receipts listing items ordered.
08-06:
The city of Oakland require that the documentation for any business meal charged on a city credit card provide information as to who attended the meal and the specific business reason for the meal.
08-07:
The city of Oakland require a detailed statement of charges from cardholders who lose their receipts, listing each individual item purchased, including written validation of the cardholders “good faith” attempt to produce the receipt.
08-08:
The city of Oakland create a policy that provides that any cardholder who repeatedly violates the credit card policy forfeit the credit card.
08-09:
The city of Oakland impose sanctions on employees who review and approve credit card charges in violation of policy.
08-10:
The city of Oakland provide annual training for all credit card holders on all existing and new policies.
08-11:
The city of Oakland provide annual training for all employees who review or approve credit card expenses on all existing and new policies. 3 1 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
08-12:
The city of Oakland require that the city auditor review and approve the monthly credit card usage statements (with supporting documentation) of elected officials and the city administrator.
08-13:
The city of Oakland require the city auditor or an outside auditor annually audit the city’s credit card usage.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
19% County Medical Services Program (CMSP)
F2:
5% Private Insurance
F3:
10% from other sources
F4:
The grand jury believes that the funding projections for this project were significantly understated in the voter guide. The grand jury finds this highly worrisome. 39
F5:
In the course of its investigation, the grand jury learned that there is no single agency authorized to control or direct rail projects in the Bay Area, which currently has 27 agencies with varying levels of authority for this project. We recommend that subsequent grand juries monitor the progress of the DRC project at all stages of its development and build-out. Particular attention should be paid to the Union City Intermodal connectivity, resolution of right of way control, and, if applicable, the inclusion and cost to taxpayers of the Niles freight bridge. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 40 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS The grand jury investigated a mailing error by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and a reported shortage of ballots at polling places for the 2008 Presidential Primary. During the course of our investigation, we met with the registrar of voters. MAILING ERROR For the February 2008 primary election, the registrar of voters intended to send a mailing to all permanent absentee non-partisan voters explaining that if they wanted to vote in the 2008 Presidential Primary Election, they would be permitted to vote in either the American Independent or Democratic parties but only if they requested a ballot in advance for one of these parties. Approximately 60,000 voters in Alameda County fit into this category. The letter was prepared and mailed to all of the approximately 234,000 voters in Alameda County who are permanent absentee voters, not just the non-partisan voters. Many of these voters had registered with a party and were confused as to why the letter was sent to them. The registrar of voters sent out second corrective letters shortly thereafter acknowledging the mailing error. The grand jury learned the first mailing was sent to the wrong group of voters as a result of an employee error. The postage cost alone of each mailing was approximately $20,000. As a result of the error, the registrar implemented a new policy that requires that before any mailing is sent to a printer, it must be approved by at least two employees. 4 1 BALLOT SHORTAGE During the 2008 Presidential Primary it was reported there were ballot shortages in Alameda County. The grand jury learned there were eight polling places that were affected with a shortage totaling 15 ballots. No voters were turned away due to the shortage of ballots. Instead, sample and provisional ballots were used. Contrary to news reports, no court order was issued. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 4 2 DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE I-580 CARPOOL LANES INTRODUCTION A complaint was received concerning a proposed HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane on highway I-580 East from I-680 to Vasco Road in the Pleasanton/Livermore area. The complaint asserts that a temporary short-term solution of traffic congestion on the I-580 corridor is a wasteful use of Alameda County transportation funds and precludes Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Vasco Road in Livermore. INVESTIGATION The grand jury met with the executive director of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) who explained what is involved in planning, constructing and paying for regional transportation. ACCMA is the transportation policy and planning agency for Alameda County and oversees federal, state and regional transportation funding and sponsors key transportation improvements. ACCMA’s transportation policy establishes a long-range 25 year county-wide transportation program, updated every four years, of projects funded with discretionary state and federal funds; develops a short-range congestion management program which includes a five year capital improvement program, updated every two years, funded by state funds; and oversees special planning studies and projects such as the I-580 HOV lanes. The general approach to relief in the I-580 corridor in the short term includes the addition of east and west HOV lanes and the acquisition of right of way. ACCMA 4 3 has announced the intention of incorporating tolls for single-occupancy vehicles in the HOV lanes. The long-term plans include the construction of BART extensions to Livermore, subject to the availability of funding. Additionally, the route into Livermore has yet to be determined. The I-580 Corridor is the second most congested corridor in the Bay Area. Federal and state funding for HOV lanes is mandated to reduce air pollution and has the stipulation that construction start by December 2012. CONCLUSION The ACCMA has developed a short-term strategy for delivering some congestion relief in this corridor, and the grand fury finds this strategy reasonable. This is a viable option due to current funding availability. At this time, the BART route to Livermore has not been determined. BART expansion to Livermore and beyond is entirely subject to the availability of funding, and sufficient funding at this time has not been identified. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 4 4 CITY OF BERKELEY DRUG HOUSES INTRODUCTION The grand jury investigated a complaint regarding drug houses in the city of Berkeley. A drug house is a private residence where illegal drug activity takes place. The complaint alleged that the city has been derelict in its duty to safeguard public safety and has shown willful intent to not enforce local and state laws pertaining to abating public nuisance drug houses. The grand jury requested information from the city with regard to what action had been taken with respect to drug houses in Berkeley. HISTORY Since 1990, neighbors in Berkeley have participated in ongoing meetings with city staff and police regarding one particular neighborhood drug house. Between 1992 and 2006, these neighbors won two judgments in small claims court against the specific property owner who was alleged to have a drug house. In the lawsuit, the neighbors testified how their quality of life was negatively affected. For example, bullet casings, drug paraphernalia and used condoms were frequently found in the neighbors’ yards and on the street. In a court proceeding in April 2006, the owner of the drug house stipulated that the house was a legal nuisance. INVESTIGATION The grand jury learned that the city of Berkeley has a multi-faceted approach to addressing the problem of illegal drug use: 4 5 Drug House Ordinance Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) chapter 13.56 allows the city manager to order a property owner to take corrective actions whenever it has been determined that “the unlawful sale, storage, manufacturing or selling or giving away of a controlled substance, precursor or analog has occurred in or about the premises of any privately owned property.” (BMC section 13.56.020) Such corrective action “may include, but is not limited to, the hiring of a resident manager or security guard; the installing of secure doors at the front and rear of the buildings; the posting of ‘no trespassing’ signs in and on the property; the development of property rules which regulates [sic] the entrance to and egress from the property of nonresidents; and the institution of actions to remove any resident or others engaging in such illegal conduct on or about the premises.” (BMC section 13.56.020.A) If an owner fails to comply with the city manager’s directive, the owner may be fined $100 per day. (BMC section 13.56.030.B) Nuisance Abatement Law In 1999 the city revised its zoning ordinance, adopting chapter 23B.64, which permits the abatement of nuisances and expedites the processing of these cases. The city of Berkeley has the authority to use progressively stronger measures to abate illegal activities in drug houses. The city has been reluctant to apply the most severe measures to owner-occupied properties. In application of these measures the city does take into consideration the possibility of retaliation against neighbors. The city has been monitoring this problem property for many years. The grand jury learned that the city of Berkeley believes that under the law it must have a high benchmark for seizure of private property, particularly a home. 4 6 CONCLUSION In 2006, the city of Berkeley failed to take action on the owner occupied drug house when the court concluded and the property owner stipulated that the property was indeed a nuisance. The court noted that the owner “need[ed] to either actively manage the property so as to eliminate the nuisance or sell it.” The court further noted that there has been a 30-year history of drug problems with this property. The city failed to follow through with all possible measures to eliminate this drug house problem. The property remains a chronic nuisance to the neighborhood.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
08-14:
That the city of Berkeley apply the same standards regarding abatement of owner-occupied drug houses as it does for tenant-occupied and commercial properties.
08-15:
The city of Berkeley review its municipal codes and state legislation to ensure appropriate tools are in place to abate owner-occupied drug houses. If current laws are insufficient, adopt or modify city ordinances to abate drug house problems. 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
That the DRC partners are advancing the project before securing total right of way control over all track from the Union City Intermodal station to the CalTrain station in San Mateo. Unless the rights of way are owned by the DRC project, there is a danger that UPRR, which presently has priority scheduling rights over much of the track, will continue to give freight traffic priority over passenger traffic.
F2:
Within the DRC project’s scope is the possibility of building the Niles freight bridge crossing Alameda Creek and Mission Boulevard, which proposal the grand jury understands is not a requirement of the DRC passenger train process. Since the Niles freight bridge still remains a proposal, it cannot at this time be deemed a public gift to the UPRR, but the grand jury hopes that the taxpayers receive quid pro quo if the project includes the bridge (e.g., transfer of ownership or significant usage of the track).
F3:
Connectivity to the Union City Intermodal station should be a priority to Alameda County as a whole as the purported purpose of DRC is to get commuter cars off of the surface streets and highways. Simply connecting the Newark Station to San Mateo would fall far short of achieving the goal of DRC, BART, Capital Corridor, ACE and connecting buses.
F4:
The grand jury believes that the funding projections for this project were significantly understated in the voter guide. The grand jury finds this highly worrisome. 39
F5:
In the course of its investigation, the grand jury learned that there is no single agency authorized to control or direct rail projects in the Bay Area, which currently has 27 agencies with varying levels of authority for this project. We recommend that subsequent grand juries monitor the progress of the DRC project at all stages of its development and build-out. Particular attention should be paid to the Union City Intermodal connectivity, resolution of right of way control, and, if applicable, the inclusion and cost to taxpayers of the Niles freight bridge. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 40 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS The grand jury investigated a mailing error by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and a reported shortage of ballots at polling places for the 2008 Presidential Primary. During the course of our investigation, we met with the registrar of voters. MAILING ERROR For the February 2008 primary election, the registrar of voters intended to send a mailing to all permanent absentee non-partisan voters explaining that if they wanted to vote in the 2008 Presidential Primary Election, they would be permitted to vote in either the American Independent or Democratic parties but only if they requested a ballot in advance for one of these parties. Approximately 60,000 voters in Alameda County fit into this category. The letter was prepared and mailed to all of the approximately 234,000 voters in Alameda County who are permanent absentee voters, not just the non-partisan voters. Many of these voters had registered with a party and were confused as to why the letter was sent to them. The registrar of voters sent out second corrective letters shortly thereafter acknowledging the mailing error. The grand jury learned the first mailing was sent to the wrong group of voters as a result of an employee error. The postage cost alone of each mailing was approximately $20,000. As a result of the error, the registrar implemented a new policy that requires that before any mailing is sent to a printer, it must be approved by at least two employees. 4 1 BALLOT SHORTAGE During the 2008 Presidential Primary it was reported there were ballot shortages in Alameda County. The grand jury learned there were eight polling places that were affected with a shortage totaling 15 ballots. No voters were turned away due to the shortage of ballots. Instead, sample and provisional ballots were used. Contrary to news reports, no court order was issued. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 4 2 DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE I-580 CARPOOL LANES INTRODUCTION A complaint was received concerning a proposed HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane on highway I-580 East from I-680 to Vasco Road in the Pleasanton/Livermore area. The complaint asserts that a temporary short-term solution of traffic congestion on the I-580 corridor is a wasteful use of Alameda County transportation funds and precludes Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Vasco Road in Livermore. INVESTIGATION The grand jury met with the executive director of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) who explained what is involved in planning, constructing and paying for regional transportation. ACCMA is the transportation policy and planning agency for Alameda County and oversees federal, state and regional transportation funding and sponsors key transportation improvements. ACCMA’s transportation policy establishes a long-range 25 year county-wide transportation program, updated every four years, of projects funded with discretionary state and federal funds; develops a short-range congestion management program which includes a five year capital improvement program, updated every two years, funded by state funds; and oversees special planning studies and projects such as the I-580 HOV lanes. The general approach to relief in the I-580 corridor in the short term includes the addition of east and west HOV lanes and the acquisition of right of way. ACCMA 4 3 has announced the intention of incorporating tolls for single-occupancy vehicles in the HOV lanes. The long-term plans include the construction of BART extensions to Livermore, subject to the availability of funding. Additionally, the route into Livermore has yet to be determined. The I-580 Corridor is the second most congested corridor in the Bay Area. Federal and state funding for HOV lanes is mandated to reduce air pollution and has the stipulation that construction start by December 2012. CONCLUSION The ACCMA has developed a short-term strategy for delivering some congestion relief in this corridor, and the grand fury finds this strategy reasonable. This is a viable option due to current funding availability. At this time, the BART route to Livermore has not been determined. BART expansion to Livermore and beyond is entirely subject to the availability of funding, and sufficient funding at this time has not been identified. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 4 4 CITY OF BERKELEY DRUG HOUSES INTRODUCTION The grand jury investigated a complaint regarding drug houses in the city of Berkeley. A drug house is a private residence where illegal drug activity takes place. The complaint alleged that the city has been derelict in its duty to safeguard public safety and has shown willful intent to not enforce local and state laws pertaining to abating public nuisance drug houses. The grand jury requested information from the city with regard to what action had been taken with respect to drug houses in Berkeley. HISTORY Since 1990, neighbors in Berkeley have participated in ongoing meetings with city staff and police regarding one particular neighborhood drug house. Between 1992 and 2006, these neighbors won two judgments in small claims court against the specific property owner who was alleged to have a drug house. In the lawsuit, the neighbors testified how their quality of life was negatively affected. For example, bullet casings, drug paraphernalia and used condoms were frequently found in the neighbors’ yards and on the street. In a court proceeding in April 2006, the owner of the drug house stipulated that the house was a legal nuisance. INVESTIGATION The grand jury learned that the city of Berkeley has a multi-faceted approach to addressing the problem of illegal drug use: 4 5 Drug House Ordinance Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) chapter 13.56 allows the city manager to order a property owner to take corrective actions whenever it has been determined that “the unlawful sale, storage, manufacturing or selling or giving away of a controlled substance, precursor or analog has occurred in or about the premises of any privately owned property.” (BMC section 13.56.020) Such corrective action “may include, but is not limited to, the hiring of a resident manager or security guard; the installing of secure doors at the front and rear of the buildings; the posting of ‘no trespassing’ signs in and on the property; the development of property rules which regulates [sic] the entrance to and egress from the property of nonresidents; and the institution of actions to remove any resident or others engaging in such illegal conduct on or about the premises.” (BMC section 13.56.020.A) If an owner fails to comply with the city manager’s directive, the owner may be fined $100 per day. (BMC section 13.56.030.B) Nuisance Abatement Law In 1999 the city revised its zoning ordinance, adopting chapter 23B.64, which permits the abatement of nuisances and expedites the processing of these cases. The city of Berkeley has the authority to use progressively stronger measures to abate illegal activities in drug houses. The city has been reluctant to apply the most severe measures to owner-occupied properties. In application of these measures the city does take into consideration the possibility of retaliation against neighbors. The city has been monitoring this problem property for many years. The grand jury learned that the city of Berkeley believes that under the law it must have a high benchmark for seizure of private property, particularly a home. 4 6 CONCLUSION In 2006, the city of Berkeley failed to take action on the owner occupied drug house when the court concluded and the property owner stipulated that the property was indeed a nuisance. The court noted that the owner “need[ed] to either actively manage the property so as to eliminate the nuisance or sell it.” The court further noted that there has been a 30-year history of drug problems with this property. The city failed to follow through with all possible measures to eliminate this drug house problem. The property remains a chronic nuisance to the neighborhood.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
08-16:
The city of Oakland increase its number of sworn officers with the Oakland Police Department to a minimum of 1,200.
08-17:
In future Oakland Fire Department hiring, the process for issuing and receiving the applications be managed by the Human Resources Department.
08-18:
The city of Oakland ensure that the fire department not participate in the distribution or acceptance of applications.
08-19:
The city of Oakland develop a plan that ensures an orderly process for accepting applications that includes security and the ability to accommodate large numbers of applicants. 6 2 2007-2008 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report