HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar. 8, 2005 On June 26, I wrote Duane Chapman a letter. Part of it read as follows: “Per our conversation of June 25, 2002, I am enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to the individuals listed below. This letter was preceded my a missive to the Contra Costa County Grand Jury regarding the living conditions at the Pittsburg Family Center. “The day we talked, Shelter, Inc.’s maintenance worker R---- H---- visited me at seven p.m., and asked what “electrical problems” I needed repaired. I told him it was not a matter of repairing things in ten minutes or an hour, or was it something that could be fixed with a Band- Aid approach. I informed him that the electrical system throughout the building was problematic. “Coincidentally, the following day screens were put on the windows. It’s funny how one letter can get something done in four weeks that they couldn’t, or wouldn’t do in fifteen months. Perhaps they should consider the fact that if they had written a few letters, mine wouldn’t have been necessary. “I look forward to speaking with you again, and hopefully some of the people who will receive my follow-up letter. Feel free to contact me by phone at the Pittsburg Family Center, or via e- mail at stellbread@yahoo.com. If you need to contact me by postal service, feel free to do so at P.O. Box 1264, in Pittsburg.” Copies of the letter went to the Attorney General’s Public Inquiry Unit, State Senator Tom Torlakson, Joe Canciamillia (East County representatives in the California Legislature), and to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors.) PFC’s maintenance records were poorly maintained and of “questionable accuracy” to say the least. One of the residents filled out a work order and asked that mildew be removed from her carpet and mattress. Two days later, PFC maintenance worker R---- H---- filled the order out as “completed.” In truth, nothing had been done. Though PFC staff performed weekly house inspections, never once were the deplorable living conditions cited for need of repair. HUD should have visited and looked into our claims. They should have gone through the inspection files. They should have ordered PFC to move us to safer and more size-appropriate housing at ECFTC in Antioch. Instead they turned a deaf ear to us, as did Senator Torlakson. However, I did receive letters from Supervisor Federal Glover, and Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla. Neither addressed the issue satisfactory. Apparently, Mr. Glover hadn’t paid much attention either: In his one-page response, he spelled Merlin’s last name three different ways. So much for attention to detail and literacy. PFC violated other HUD regulations on a regular basis, in particular, the Zero Tolerance policy toward threats and acts of violence. This created a double standard; an arbitrary system where certain tenants were punished for mild violations and others went unpunished for much more serious offenses. There were two tenants who had been carrying on a dispute for the better part of a year. One of the ladies got drunk and went to the others apartment and threatened her. She was merely written up (given a warning; three warnings and you are expelled from the program.) The victim in this case was later threatened by her neighbor across the hall, who later boasted to me and another tenant, about telling Mrs. Garcia, “I’ll catch (the other tenant) off these premises and kick that bitch’s ass.” Two days later (Labor Day) these ladies engaged in a physical altercation. The Pittsburg Police Department responded, as did Shelter, Inc. employee L--- L----. The women were given a written warning and given a probationary period of thirty days. HUD regulations clearly state that both tenants should have been removed from the program. Under California’s Misconduct In Transitional Housing statute, both women would have been removed from the program for, “…intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury…or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injure to himself, herself or another, where injured person is another participant…” (Section 50582 (b).) An unsafe atmosphere existed at PFC, where some female tenants had been known to give visitors of the opposite sex their keys to the front gate, or provide other access to the premises after hours. Several tenants have been written up for this, but not expelled from the program, despite the consensus among tenants that this presenteda serious safety breach. Miss Garcia claimed that little could be done, “because it’s hearsay.” Our concerns were ignored, even when such actions occurred in front of multiple witnesses. Yet, I was giving a “strong memo” because my son was alleged to have jumped the outer fence at one a.m. Another time, my nephew was visiting a female tenant whom he become friendly with. Later he went outside on the grounds and began playing catch with yet another tenant’s son, and broke a window. Not once during this visit did he visit my apartment, but it was I who received the warning and was threatened with expulsion if I did not pay for the window. My nephew paid for the window and acknowledged that he had not visited with me that day. Mrs. Garcia’s response was a terse, “I don’t care. He’s your nephew.” I had been a model tenant in that I was quiet and courteous to my neighbors. I had been helpful to them by babysitting, helping them fill out forms, directing them to various housing sites, or public agencies. Never had I threatened violence— let alone carried it out, nor had I gone to anyone’s door inebriated and cussed him or her out. But some single ladies were known to have been engaged in those sorts of activities. Their penalty: Probation, suggestions for them to attend conflict resolution sessions, or to “stay away from each other.” But PFC and Shelter, Inc. staff exiled me because I wrote a letter that merely requested they do their jobs. I was served with an Unlawful Detainer summons despite Miss Bowley acknowledging, “By HUD rules you have up to twenty-four months to stay in the program. And believe me, we will not allow you to stay a day beyond that.” Although my credit is bad, some landlords were willing to work with me, or add my name to their waiting list because I had no Unlawful Detainers on my credit report. Because PFC staff has access to the information in our files, there is no doubt in my mind they knew this. The information contained in our files includes our income and credit history. Thus, the reason Shelter, Inc. filed the Unlawful Detainer was to further harass me, knowing that it would appear on my credit report and adversely affect my housing search. What Shelter, Inc. has done is flagrantly flout the law. Once my letter exposed them, they blatantly retaliated against me. They assume that all poor people are poor thinkers. They assume that any persons with a low income must also have a low I.Q. This time, they guessed wrong. They have done all they could to make themselves look good by rehabbing one of these substandard units and promising to rehab the rest of them, “whenever they become vacant.” In essence, they told us, “We know you live in inadequate and unsafe housing, but you’ll have to tough it out: Then when you move, we’ll correct things.” Such acts were illegal, illogical, arrogant and implied ignorance ad infinitum. Nor is HUD blameless. They should have, and must enforce their rules and regulations. They must demand answers as to why Shelter, Inc.’s employees have been allowed to circumnavigate statutes set forth by the state and federal government. They need to find out why PFC’s inspections failed to note the aforementioned problems, and why were the apartments allowed to be rented in such deplorable condition. I’m sure Shelter, Inc. will respond, “If your apartment is in bad shape, why did you rent it?” Let me answer by giving you the most basic of truths: That homeless people are desperate for housing, and desperate people utilize desperate measures. They have children to worry about, and finding shelter for these children is imperative. Let me add that in Knight V. Hallshammar (1981, 29 Cal. 3d 46), the Supreme Court ruled that tenants do not waive their rights under warranty of implied habitability simply by moving in while knowing that the place is substandard. Future residents of PFC reaped the benefits of my letter. All eight apartments were renovated, refurnished and brought up to code. This included installing newer, more energy efficient appliances, electrical fixtures that worked properly, and removal of lead paint and mold. Thanks to one man doing what he believed was right, Mr. Wederpohl and his cronies assertion that PFC "provides housing that is safe, decent and affordable," muight someday be fact, rather than fiction. ------------ About the author: Timothy Stelly is the 45-year old author of "Tempest In The Stone" and the upcoming, "The Malice of Cain". He resides in Pittsburg, California with his three youngest children Dante, Kimberly and Lawrence. I have a new website: stellbread0.tripod.com Email: stellbread@sbcglobal.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
