Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Once again the problem in Oakland is much less a computer system problem as it is a people problem. A new expensive program with a fancy acronym, headed by yet another high paid manager and trying to do all things for all people may not be the panacea suggested by the author of this article. For staff, the mission will be confusing when you combine life safety goals with commensurate goals of avoiding displacement of tenants and reducing costs for owners. Those goals will inevitably be in conflict. When that occurs, which goals are the priority in decision making will be problematic, inconsistent and ultimately political. At the end of the day, "code enforcement" includes zoning codes, building codes, fire codes and housing codes. In addition to looking at different things when inspecting a property, the people who perform each task have different backgrounds, education and training. The current situation is that those people do not communicate with each other in any meaningful way in order to identify problem properties and jointly coordinate mitigation plans. If they did, the recent tragedies, where all facets of code enforcement had knowledge, could never happen. In most cities, there are internal systems of communication that make code enforcement happen every day. Oakland's Building Department has budgeted and spent millions over the last 20 years promising high tech solutions to this inspection problem and nothing has changed. Why will it be different this time? What really has to change is the current inexperienced leadership, especially at the top of the food chain. There has to also be a retraining of staff so that they realize how the work they do is connected organizationally and systems set up to facilitate internal communications. It's not the system, it's the culture!
Wow sounds like to me, quite a few TOP RANKED EMPLOYEES!!! NEW & OVER LOOKED THE WELL BEING OF OUR CHILDREN & OAKLANDERS.. HMMM & SHE'S PUSHING FOR ANOTHER TERM. NOT
I dont always agree with her decisions (almost never), but whether she know its not not, Jonathan Fearn is a smart choice as a developer with a background in affordable housing and community development. He is aware of issues regarding dentrification, displacement and the needs for housing for all income levels and a proponent of environmentally smart urban planning and land use that does not displace long term residents.
It was NOT mentioned that prior to joining SummerHill in 2006, Mr. Fearn worked as Development Manager for Em Johnson Interest, a real estate development firm specializing primarily in affordable housing and economic development projects within low income communities. Mr. Fearn is a certified LEED and GreenPoint Rated Professional and holds a Masters of City Planning with a concentration in Housing and Community Development from UC Berkeley,
No re-imagination of code enforcement is necessary for rental properties.
A person renting out a property isn't a low income individual. Certainly a company isn't. If either category can't or won't maintain the property so as to make it habitable by the code, they need to divest, either voluntarily or be forced.
Cases like Ghostship and the halfway "halfway house" cannot be tolerated.
Ya know, ya gotta wonder why he couldn't get the arithmetic correct... And if something THAT simple is wrong, what else is?
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation