Broken Glass Houses
“The cops are usually patrolling this area by around 7 or 8 every night,” Docktor said. They end up at the complex across the street, by her estimate, “every other day, at least.”
Lisa Ollivier can relate. For years she and her neighbors were tormented by the goings-on at their own neighborhood hell-hole — drug deals, prostitution, explosions, violence. She helped form a neighborhood watch group, which met with the property owner and contacted city officials, to little effect. Finally, after enduring six months of being too afraid to leave her own home except to run to her car, Ollivier’s neighbor, Jerry Droz, successfully sued the property owner in small claims court (“Sometimes Jerry Wins,” April 12, 2007), and the problems eventually dissipated.
Ollivier, now a landlord herself, has been on Glass’ housing task force since its inception. The group was designed, Glass says, to represent a broad spectrum of expertise and backgrounds: Lance Madsen is the community liaison for the Housing Authorities of Eureka and Humboldt County. Keith Taylor works with Native American communities. Mel McKinney is active in numerous environmental groups. Tim Flemming (who has been M.I.A. of late) works in substance abuse treatment. Barbara Hill is active in the Catholic church. Glass assembled the group shortly after his election, aiming to make good on his campaign promise to address Eureka’s crime problem, and the task force’s volunteer members came to believe the resolution lay in the broken windows theory.
The concept first surfaced in a 1982 Atlantic article by Dr. George Kelling, a criminologist and former probations officer, and James Wilson, a political scientist then at Harvard. In recent years the theory has gained credence as clinical studies have produced evidence supporting the hypothesis. In places such as New York City, Lowell, Mass. and Groningen, Netherlands, researchers observed how neighborhood cleanup efforts produced a significant reduction in crime rates.
“Our original aim, once we decided to [address the issue] based on rental housing, was to raise the quality of life for folks,” Ollivier told the Journal last week. She has personally observed the broken windows effect in the demeanor of those who reside in substandard conditions. “After so long of living in yuck, you start to wonder if that’s where you belong,” she said.
During their two years of research and preparations, the task force met with landlords, property managers, realtors and other concerned citizens, as well as the ACLU. They came to the conclusion that, while there are regulations to address substandard living conditions in Eureka, they’re scattered throughout the municipal code, making enforcement difficult — a problem exacerbated by a shortage of staff. The document they presented as a remedy — the one that sparked so much outrage — would have added 11 pages of regulations to the municipal code while also amending five related provisions to raise the qualifying bar for conditional use permits. “This [ordinance] created a nexus in the law — sort of one-stop shopping to make things easier on landlords and tenants,” Ollivier said.
Many California cities have instituted some variety of rental inspection ordinance, including Los Angeles, San Jose and Richmond. Sacramento is currently engaged in a rental housing inspection pilot program, with Sacramento County preparing to do the same. Carrie Simpson, neighborhood services manager for Rancho Cordova, saw how the program functioned when she worked in San Jose, where a rental inspection ordinance has been in place for more than 20 years. Asked if the broken window theory held true in the 10th largest city in the United States, Simpson replied, “In my opinion, there’s definitely a correlation.” Upon moving to Rancho Cordova, she decided to institute a similar ordinance in the Sacramento suburb. The program, launched early last year, has been a success, she said.
“We’re just looking at the minimum housing standards. We’re not going in expecting a 35-year-old apartment to look brand new.” Inspectors look for leaks, check smoke detectors, make sure counter-tops and floors can be properly sanitized — and, of course, note the broken windows. The city’s approach of “crime prevention through environmental design” is, in many ways, just a broader version of the broken windows theory. (CPTED pre-dates “broken windows” by at least a decade.)
→ post a comment
seven-o-heaven
Old Town Arcata
Will Plaza Point put the kibosh on Arcata whippersnapper shenanigans?
Recent on the cover
Feb. 2
Drug Money
Spending records offer rare glimpse into fiscal life of Humboldt’s drug cops
Jan. 26
Burlesque!
Now it’s bustin’ out all over
Jan. 19
New Direction
The fall and rise of John Shelter, homeless advocate turned entrepreneur
Today
Label GMOs Signature Gathering Training
meetings / 4 p.m. Sun Yi's Academy of Tae Kwon Do, 1215 Giuntoli Lane, Arcata. Help gather valid signatures to get the 'California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act' on the 2012 ballot. E-mail northernhumboldtlabelgmos@hotmail.com. 223-0424.
Open Celtic Music Session
music / 3 p.m. Cafe Veritas/Mosgo's, 180 Westwood Center, Arcata. Informal monthly gathering of musicians playing Irish and other Celtic music. Hosted by Seabury Gould. seaburygould.com. 845-8167.
Nonviolence Action Camp
etc. / 10 a.m. Chinmaya Mission near Piercy. Weekend-long direct action orientation features workshops, role playing, seminars, ceremonies and field trips. Bring food, bedding, warm clothes, signs, banners, bikes, drums, acoustic instruments. Pre-register. saverichardsongrove.org. 932-5898.
Audubon Society Field Trip
outdoors / 9 a.m. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, 1020 Ranch Road, Loleta. Meet at Refuge Visitor Center off Hookton Road. Leisurely, two- to three-hour trip intended for people wanting to learn birds of Humboldt Bay area. 822-3613.
More →
EIGHT Comments
Comment / By Not buying it / Sept. 4, 2009, 10:31 a.m.
If Glass had limited his ambitions the way Rancho Cordova did—leaks, smoke detectors, sanitation, broken windows—he would have had 1/100th the opposition. But instead he proposed a limitless approach where investigators could cite and demand repair for anything—a staircase with risers an inch higher than current code; a sloping floor; a couple of missing roof tiles; dry rot in window frames. These are not the stuff of substandard housing. They are part of living in a city with an unusually old housing stock. Not once did Glass acknowledge that. Despite numerous opportunities to do so, not once did he propose limiting the scope of the inspections. If he had, I would have signed on in a minute instead of still fuming about the rank stupidity of the proposal and my certainty that he will try to bring it back again. Right now he’s only one vote away from pulling it off. It won’t be long until he gets away with it.
By the way, your numbers on the Wharfinger showdown are not even close. There were far more than 100 people there.
Comment / By Parke Bostrom / Sept. 4, 2009, 4:56 p.m.
Please see my lengthy comments in response to this article on my blog. Here is the link:
http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/16
(Alternatively, just click on my name, above, as it is linked to the correct entry on my blog.)
Thank you!
Comment / By Therese Duke / Sept. 5, 2009, 8:32 p.m.
If thoroughly investigated by law enforcement, a general pattern would emerge that a group of marauding substance abusers move into the apartments of disabled individuals and threaten, or otherwise coerse them into silence while the “squatters” tear the place up. This has been the case in more than one instance that I know of. The blue ghetto on Wabash is one example, the Squires housing at California and Harris is another.
I have direct knowledge that disabled people are being repeatedly exploited in Eureka, often losing their Section 8 vouchers, because they’re housing more people than approved by the Housing Authority. The next step for these already challenged individuals is eviction.
The end result is that our most at risk population is victimized twice; first by the substance abusers that move in and take over the residence and then by law enforcement officials that can’t or won’t protect them.
I don’t presume to have the answer. This is a complex problem that cannot be easily solved. But, indeed, something must to be done to help all those involved, the abusers and the abused.
And finally, this solution would need to include the neighbors that have been victimized. Just by virtue of the location of their homes these individuals have been made to endure the destruction of their neighborhood. Their suffering deserves acknowledgment.
Comment / By Big Rub / Sept. 8, 2009, 11:48 p.m.
Slumlords oppose! Who could have guessed it?
Why haven’t these noncompliant bastards been fined yet?
Fine them on the first offense. If they can’t fix a window within 3 months, they are worthless as a landlord.
Comment / By kathy anderson / Sept. 9, 2009, 9:59 p.m.
Had Larry Glass really cared about how rental property looks he would have taken a more positive and preventive attitude toward the subject rather than forcing another law upon this community. Incentives work better than punishment to inspire people to change their way of living. Encouraging people in his district to fix broken windows by offering help or materials to home owners will endear people to him where punishment and fines will only piss them off! But that means that neighbors will have to get involved with eachother……oh my!
Comment / By DM Kelley / Sept. 10, 2009, 9:20 a.m.
So when a tenant breaks a window it’s the landlords fault? When a tenant destroys carpets, it’s the landlords fault? So when a tenant puts holes in the drywall, it’s the landlords fault?
The ordinance was intended to go after one landlord in particular, with good reason. But, instead of going through the proper procedures in shutting down the guy, the city proposed a useless ordinance. The whole thing is redundancy in regards to the laws already in place at the state, county and city levels.
What it comes down to is a pathetic way for the city to make a buck. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel to balance their budget.
When an applicant is viewing a dirty, substandard unit it comes down to their choice to hand the application to the landlord. They accept the conditions they see. If these applicants accept these deplorable conditions, then complain, it’s hypocracy. 99.9% of the landlords know, if you have a dirty place, you will only get dirty people.
And here is something that Mr. Glass seems to miss the point on - you can take the cat out of the hood, but you cannot take the hood out of the cat.
Now the city wants to have landlords register their rentals for a fee. Funny, this is FREE Public Information. Any yahoo with a computer can find out who owns a piece of property.
Again, city looking for an easy way to make a buck
Comment / By Randy Shaw / Sept. 28, 2009, 8:40 p.m.
Having sued Ted Loring 27 years ago (and winning) I can hardly believe I find myself agreeing with his comments. The Glass proposal was way over-the-top (interior inspections? HELLO 4th amendment!) and there was no apparent effort to develop consensus in the community. But the choice of a few to live in squalor does bring down the neighborhood for the many, and everyone benefits if there is some limit to how low the appearance of a property can sink before a landlord needs to act…in their best interests and the neighborhood. The Glass plan failed because it went waaay too far, and not because it violated some mythical right of the few to impose squalor on the many.
Comment / By rob ramey / Yesterday, 5:54 p.m.
Having sued and obtaining a judgement for aprox $10000.00 against keith taylor a dozen years ago for trashing a 1800 home I owned, I certainly don’t feel he should be on this committee!