Oakland’s Nuisance Eviction Ordinance (NEO) has finally been repealed

Oakland’s Nuisance Eviction Ordinance (NEO) has finally been repealed

By Lynda Carson - December 10, 2024

Note: Today Is The 20th Anniversary Since Mary Jesus Jumped From The Oakland Tribune Tower To Her Death After She was Evicted: Click here for more, https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2024/11/18/18870859.php .

Recently, reportedly according to Oaklandside by Natalie Orenstein, the City of Oakland repealed it’s Nuisance Eviction Ordinance a.k.a. Eviction for Nuisance and Illegal Activity Ordinance. The Nuisance Eviction Ordinance (NEO), required landlords to evict anyone that is targeted and deemed to be a nuisance by the City of Oakland. Renters need not be arrested, cited or convicted of anything to face eviction under the NEO.

During February 2004, Oakland became the first city in Northern California to adopt what was then called the Nuisance Eviction Ordinance (NEO). Despite many community members, organizers and activists including myself opposing the NEO because it would be used to evict longtime tenants to replace them with yuppies willing to pay higher rents, it was adopted by the City Council. NEO - https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=740196&GUID=C1223612-CA76-4675-A19B-1AF544469665&Options=&Search= .

The NEO was brutal. Reportedly, “Tenants evicted under the law cannot rent from that landlord again for at least three years. Landlords who refuse to evict the problem tenants can be fined as much as $1,000 a day. Property owners who fear for their safety can ask the city attorney's office to conduct the eviction.”

Additionally, in Oakland, the renters being targeted by the nuisance eviction program, need not be arrested, cited, or convicted of the conduct to justify removing the renters from any of the properties. Tenants may be arrested anywhere or not at all to face a nuisance eviction. Here-say may be used against the targeted renters, and the City is not required to reveal the names of any police informants or witnesses that may want to remain anonymous.

Since 2004, the NEO has been expanded to go after even more tenants, and has been renamed in the process. It is now known as the “Eviction for nuisance and illegal activity ordinance.”

In 2014, the NEO was expanded to target sex workers and pimps. Reportedly, “On October 21, 2014, the Oakland City Council unanimously voted to expand an existing law that allows the city to evict private property tenants who have become a “nuisance” to their communities. The original “nuisance eviction ordinance,” which the council adopted in 2004, permits city-led evictions of both residential and commercial tenants who have been involved in illegal drug activities or violence on their properties.

The revised policy, proposed by City Attorney Barbara Parker, added a number of other “nuisance activities” to the law — the most controversial being “pimping, prostitution, pandering, and solicitation.”

Across the nation, the brutal widespread programs, sometimes known as “crime-free” or “nuisance” programs, may have been unlawful when they would unfairly penalize communities of color, individuals with disabilities or survivors of domestic violence.

Reportedly, on August 15, 2024, “The Justice Department announced that it issued a letter to state and local police departments and governments about programs that may violate federal housing protections. The letter describes common features of these widespread programs, sometimes known as “crime-free” or “nuisance” programs, and cautions that they may be unlawful when they unfairly penalize communities of color, individuals with disabilities or survivors of domestic violence.”

In reply to an article of mine, on Friday, October 11, 2024, before Oakland repealed the (NEO), I received the following email below from attorney Ethan Silverstein.

Fri, Oct 11, 8:01 AM
to Lynda Carson

“Hi Lynda,

This is Ethan Silverstein. I wrote the law review article on Oakland's Nuisance Eviction Ordinance that you cited in your article on Indy Bay. Thanks, it's always great to see people writing about that law, which is somehow still on the books.

I just wanted to make sure you were aware that not only might the NEO be unlawful, it is absolutely unlawful now. That is because, as of 2024, it is illegal for any city in California to enforce any law that,

(2) Requires or encourages a landlord to do, or imposes a penalty on a landlord for the failure to do, any of the following:

(A) Evict or penalize a tenant because of the tenant’s association with another tenant or household member who has had contact with a law enforcement agency or has a criminal conviction.

(B) Evict or penalize a tenant because of the tenant’s alleged unlawful conduct or arrest.

(C) Include a provision in a lease or rental agreement that provides a ground for eviction not provided by, or that is in conflict with, state or federal law.

(D) Perform a criminal background check of a tenant or a prospective tenant.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1418

Even before this, there were some Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations that basically said the practices were unlawful. The state program (the unlawful detainer pilot program) also sunset at the start of the new year and was not renewed for the first time since it passed in 96.

I'm not aware of Oakland currently enforcing the law, but I haven't heard of them repealing it either. Just thought you would like to know that there has been a lot of positive movement on this issue since I wrote the article in 2019. Basically, I think the program is dead for now, both in Oakland and elsewhere in California.

Attached is a letter we wrote to city council in 2021 about the issue.

Thank you for your work on this!
--
Ethan Silverstein (he/him)
Managing Attorney
California Center for Movement Legal Services
Phone: 341-210-7931 ”

Oakland Repeals Nuisance Eviction Ordinance a.k.a. Eviction for Nuisance and Illegal Activity Ordinance:

In response to the Justice Department notice sent out across the nation, according to public records recently, Oakland’s Nuisance Eviction Ordinance (NEO) a.k.a. Eviction for Nuisance and Illegal Activity Ordinance, which required Landlords to evict tenants for alleged specific illegal activity since 2004 (20 years ago), is no longer enforceable effective January 1, 2024, because of changes in state law.

Additionally, according to another report from Barbara Parker, Oakland City Attorney, and Laura Lane, Supervising Deputy City Attorney, “A landlord may still lawfully evict a tenant under the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance if “[t]he tenant has used the rental unit or the common areas of the premises for an illegal purpose including the manufacture, sale, or use of illegal drugs”.

However, the City may not have a policy requiring the landlord to do so. While the City is not required to repeal the Nuisance Eviction Ordinance, the Ordinance is preempted by state law and may not be enforced. Leaving an unenforceable ordinance in place can cause confusion for members of the public as well as staff. For this reason, the City Attorney recommends that the Council repeal the Ordinance.”

Widespread Resistance To NEO In 2004:

Back in 2004, there was widespread resistance to the NEO at some Oakland City Council meetings before it was passed into law, and many guest speakers spoke out against the proposed ordinance at the time. Click here for more, http://web.archive.org/web/20040423174603/http://www.sfbayview.com/033104/tenantsoutraged033104.shtml . Or click here for more, https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/03/19/16741571.php .

Jorge Aguilar of the Eviction Defense Center at the time said, "It is unconscionable! It's unfair to tenants, overly broad, and likely to be unconstitutional."

John Murcko of the Eviction Defense Center who I have missed since he passed away, was a fire cracker when he spoke and he stirred up the crowd by saying,"This law is a sham! The source of the problem most tenants live with is not crime. It's the condition they live under. I've represented thousands of tenants, and their exposed to rats and roaches, leaky roofs and sewers backing up into their homes, and no heat in the winters. We should be passing laws against the landlords for allowing these conditions to affect the community."

At the time, James E. Vann of the Oakland Tenant’s Union believed either way, that if it's not a conspiracy, it's a deliberate plan to take away the rights of the tenants and their eviction protections. At the podium Vann said, "This is bad law. This is terrible law. It tramples on civil rights. It tramples on human rights. It tramples on everything we're supposed to believe in."

According to Vivian Lee and Sitara Nieves of Critical Resistance, "The NEO, as it's currently written, permits eviction without conviction -- and without an appeals process. With little due process, evictions could be initiated by a disgruntled neighbor or, in the case of landlords, for financial gain. I think this is awful public policy. Nieves who has a Bachelors Degree in Comparative Religions, is one of the organizers from Critical Resistance that helped to fill up the council chambers with people in opposition to the NEO. "This will make Oakland less safe and it's not a solution to Oakland's drug wars," said Nieves. Property rights advocates should be concerned that landlords would be forced to evict their tenants based on mere hearsay from the police or other neighbors," said Lee and Nieves.

Rose Braz of Critical Resistance said, "We just heard from a woman talking about neighbors snitching out on each other. This ordinance relies on neighbors snitching out each other to be effective! It turns people in communities against one another. Homelessness does not build safer communities. Housing is not easy to find in Oakland, and you need to create more access to housing instead of creating more homelessness with the NEO.”

Dorsey Nunn from, All of Us or None, told the Council, "You’re getting ready to deny people housing in Oakland without having a conviction! This is outrageous behavior and will push people of color out of Oakland."

By far the majority of the speakers March 16 were opposed to the NEO. The council members have been trying to sell the NEO as a tool needed to protect renters from criminals in their midst, but not even one tenant showed up to speak in support of it.

"I live in a neighborhood with drugs and criminal activity," but "I'm against the NEO,” declared Demetria McCain-Higgins. “This is only going to throw people on the streets, and not solve any safety issues. Vote no on the NEO," she said.

At the time, City records showed that violent crime in Oakland dropped by 8 percent during the past year. Drug related arrests have consistently dropped from a high of 11,405 in 1990 to a low of under 4,000 in 2003. Burglary and robbery are at their lowest levels since 1969, and there’s no evidence that evicting renters is a deterrent to murder.

Councilwoman Nancy Nadel said this ordinance does nothing to affect the problems of poverty that force people into criminal activity just to survive and that all it does is punish them.

"If any of you really think that the solution to Oakland's problems is to toss our grandchildren out into the streets when they get into trouble and expect the system to take care of them, then you’re a damn liar!" exclaimed Doris Stancil, a former member of the Rainbow Push Coalition.

"I feel that this is a conservative Jim Crow law, and I also feel that the school system is a conservative Jim Crow program,” said Olivia Prater of the Black Student Union at Laney College. “Now I see all of you with white sheets over your head."

"We need to deal with the source of the drugs coming into the community, not to go after it once it's been spread throughout the city,” said Elder Freeman. “Talk to Bush and his daddy. They’re dope dealers."

Linda Evans from All Of Us Or None said, "We are an organization of people coming out of prison. We know we have to fight for our rights because on every front we are being subjected to terrible discrimination. I think that the NEO is just one more example of that kind of discrimination."

"The language of the ordinance is so vague that tenants will not know what they have to do to avoid having eviction proceedings brought against them,” said Northern California ACLU staff attorney Julie Moss. "People that are not creating a nuisance but may be dealing with a drug addiction in the privacy of their own apartment are also included in this ordinance, and the ACLU urges the council to vote against the NEO."

Adam Gold of Just Cause Oakland denounced the NEO before the council vote took place and said, "We're tired of the council carting out these trojan horse ordinances that hurt the tenants. We can't put our faith in an ordinance that can be used to abuse the rights of Oakland's renters and we oppose the NEO."

Jonah Zern a school teacher that was with the Education Not Incarceration (ENI) Coalition said, "Closing schools and kicking people out of their homes is the same issue. Listen to the message of the ENI. We're asking for social programs for our community. We're asking you to create an inclusive community, not a divisive community that kicks out the poor for the well being of the wealthy."

Judy Appel from the Drug Policy Alliance was cut short by De La Fuente several times as she said, "This problem cannot be solved through a law that is fraught with constitutional and statuary pitfalls, and the Drug Policy Alliance opposes the NEO." The crowd yelled out in a roar several times by saying, let her speak when Ignacio De La Fuente tried to stop her in mid stream.

"I live in a neighborhood with drugs and criminal activity," said Demetria McCain-Higgins. McCain-Higgins exclaimed that she has relatives that have fallen into the hands of those dealing drugs and have had friends that have been improperly arrested, tried and convicted, and she opposes the NEO. "I'm against the NEO because I understand from reading it that it's fraught with problems. Your the government and you only get one bite, and you don't get two bites. Let the criminal justice system take it's course. If the tenant gets arrested they have a fifth amendment right, but you want them to defend themselves in an administrative setting. This is only going to throw people on the streets, and not solve any safety issues. Vote no on the NEO," she said.

And reportedly in the Chronicle in 2004, it said, “But longtime tenant activist Lynda Carson (myself) said she feared the new city law would lead to "witch hunts" against innocent tenants. She said landlords aided by police would abuse the law to force out longtime renters and replace them with yuppies willing to pay more money.

"They really want to gentrify this city,'' Carson said. "This insidious law makes it easier for landlords to get rid of anyone they want. They can just claim you are a nuisance.'' Click here, for full story... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/19/BAG5053Q301.DTL .

In 2020, the ACLU documented some of the many problems with ordinances that punish victims of crime. Click here, https://www.aclu.org/documents/i-am-not-nuisance-local-ordinances-punish-victims-crime .

Lynda Carson may be reached at newzland2 [at] gmail.com

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>