Case #2200 Human Services Agency/public Housing Reason for Investigation The San Joaquin County 2000-2001 Civil Grand

Conclusions 8

• CL1
  that the excessive violations, and bat infestation are a result of lack of enforcement from prior years. Both the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County failed to inspect and enforce the minimum health and structure codes, therefore allowing this situation to occur. · Although the general relief stipend has been raised and is comparable to other counties there are limited facilities willing to accept general relief tenants.
• CL2
  The displaced tenants were relocated to temporary housing for 14 days, paid by the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Despite the fact that general relief recipients are not the only tenants renting from these hotels, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors took the responsibility of finding permanent housing for all the tenants in need of permanent housing after the initial 14 day emergency relocation expired. Prior to the current aggressive move to bring these hotels to code the hotels accepting General Relief vouchers were not monitored regularly nor held accountable to meet minimum health and structure codes by both the City of Stockton or San Joaquin County Environmental Health. HSA does not have the authority to monitor the conditions of any of the hotels
• CL3
  accepting General Relief vouchers. The responsibility of inspecting, citing, and if warranted closing any hotel is the joint responsibility of the City of Stockton Housing and Redevelopment and San Joaquin County Environmental Health.
• CL4
  Within the structure of the counties, it is apparent that the City of Stockton has borne a disproportionate cost of housing low and below income tenants.
• CL5
  that the excessive violations, and bat infestation are a result of lack of enforcement from prior years. Both the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County failed to inspect and enforce the minimum health and structure codes, therefore allowing this situation to occur. · Although the general relief stipend has been raised and is comparable to other counties there are limited facilities willing to accept general relief tenants.
• CL6
  The displaced tenants were relocated to temporary housing for 14 days, paid by the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Despite the fact that general relief recipients are not the only tenants renting from these hotels, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors took the responsibility of finding permanent housing for all the tenants in need of permanent housing after the initial 14 day emergency relocation expired. Prior to the current aggressive move to bring these hotels to code the hotels accepting General Relief vouchers were not monitored regularly nor held accountable to meet minimum health and structure codes by both the City of Stockton or San Joaquin County Environmental Health. HSA does not have the authority to monitor the conditions of any of the hotels
• CL7
  accepting General Relief vouchers. The responsibility of inspecting, citing, and if warranted closing any hotel is the joint responsibility of the City of Stockton Housing and Redevelopment and San Joaquin County Environmental Health.
• CL8
  Within the structure of the counties, it is apparent that the City of Stockton has borne a disproportionate cost of housing low and below income tenants.

Commendations 1

• CM1
  To HSA Adult Services and the County Board of Supervisors in their diligent effort to re-locate the displaced tenants who were faced with the challenge of relocating with 72 hours notice due to the closure of the downtown hotels. RESPONSE REQUIRED Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, the City of Stockton and the County Board of Supervisor's shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, the response shall indicate one of the following. As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed 6 months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.

Agency Responses 5

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.