Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Santa Cruz red-tag forces tenants to move out

Santa Cruz red-tag forces tenants to move out

Landlord, surprised by repair costs, says he sought solution since October
By Jondi Gumz
jgumz@santacruzsentinel.com @jondigumz on Twitter
POSTED:   04/03/2014 05:57:15 PM PDT17 COMMENTS

Anthony Cruz looks over the paperwork he received from the city of Santa Cruz telling him he had to vacate his red tagged Pacific Avenue apartment as
Anthony Cruz looks over the paperwork he received from the city of Santa Cruz telling him he had to vacate his red tagged Pacific Avenue apartment as workers tape off the red-tagged building Thursday. (Shmuel Thaler — Santa Cruz Sentinel)
Santa Cruz >> Tenants at a six-unit apartment complex downtown were forced to move out Thursday after the city red-tagged the building as unsafe a week ago.
City code compliance specialist Jacob Rodriguez informed landlord Darius Mohsenin via letter March 28 that "beams and posts at the second-story walkway and stairs were dilapidated and deteriorated to the point of possible failure."
The Southwestern-style apartments are at 696 Pacific Ave., near the Kaiser Permanente Arena.
Two tenants were upset, saying they got 24 hours notice to move out.
Anthony Cruz, 38, who has lived there with his 6-year-old daughter for a year, wanted a cash payment from the landlord rather than accept a room in the motel offered by Mohsenin. Cruz said the motel has had drug arrests and he didn't want to expose his daughter to that environment.
"I'm baffled how something like this can happen to people," Cruz said.
Jennifer Scott, walking with a cane from her second-floor apartment, said she sprained her back in an explosion and accepted the motel room offer.
She said the landlord "has a beautiful heart" but "he lets people in and then they turn against him."
Mohsenin, who is traveling abroad, said he appealed to city inspectors last week for a month to come up with a repair plan to minimize disruption to tenants. He proposed "shoring up of the most critical beams," noting six months had gone by since the problem was discovered by city building inspectors in October.
Mohsenin said he consulted a contractor and engineer, learning engineering work alone could cost $7,000.
"I'd have to increase rent to cover it," he said.
All six units are occupied by tenants with federal Section 8 vouchers, which since sequestration pays $1,141 for a one-bedroom unit, according to Mohsenin.
"Few one bedrooms in downtown Santa Cruz, or greater Santa Cruz, rent for that," he pointed out, noting tenants who move out would have 60 days under federal rules to find housing or lose their vouchers.
The city notice of violation orders Mohsenin to "ensure all displaced tenants are relocated to safe housing for the duration of the (repair) project."
He is required to submit the tenant compensation plan within 20 days and provide written proof of relocation for the demolition and construction phases. Failure to do so could result in civil penalties of $500 per day.
The city also ordered Mohsenin to: Obtain a permit for demolition of the unsafe stairs and walkway by April 10, submit plans for repairs by April 28, obtain a permit and correct building deficiencies by May 28 and schedule the final inspection by June 28.
Once the walkway is removed and city inspectors approve, the first-floor apartments can be occupied, according to Rodriguez, the code specialist.
Chief Building Official Mark Ellis said his staff got a complaint in August about work without a permit, at which time the landlord agreed to obtain permits but did not do so.
"We are still waiting for (repair) plans to be submitted," Ellis said, noting that staff issued a permit to demolish the unsafe walkway to expedite that work.
Mohsenin said he gave Cruz 90 days' notice to move out by May 3 because of lease violations and that he is not obliged to provide relocation assistance because Cruz is in arrears on rent.
Cruz, an electronics technician at Lintelle Engineering before it downsized, said the two-bedroom unit cost $1,500 a month. He said he paid a $480 plumbing bill and electrician for the landlord and replaced a broken window and thus does not owe the landlord.
City Attorney John Barisone said tenants who are displaced with less than 30 days' notice because of unsafe conditions are entitled to three weeks' rent or 30 days in a safe living situation.
"It's their choice, not the landlord's," he said.
If the landlord and tenant disagree, the tenant can seek help from California Rural Legal Assistance, he said.
It's unusual when the city tells residents to move out due to unsafe conditions. The last case was in 2010 at 390 W. Cliff Drive, an 18-unit oceanview condo complex which was torn down and then rebuilt; most of the occupants were owners instead of tenants.
  • The landlord was busted for using illegal immigrants and hiring unlicensed contractors who have no idea as to what they are doing. Every repair is a poor fix on top of a bad fix. Maintenance is horrible and it takes years to get a problem fixed without lots of screaming.
    One child fell out of her second story bedroom window. Luckily she was not hurt, but social services required bars to be placed on the windows so it does not happen again. The bars were never installed and now the family has moved.
    We lost power several weeks ago. Two weeks ago we had a water problem. The licensed contractor was being bullied by Darius to increase the water pressure, against the inspectors wishes. 
    There are some really nice people here and we all get along except for a few problem people that should go away. Now, we have been displaced and living in the Flats in a dump of a hotel when we did nothing wrong.
    Darius sewed what he reaped.
    On top of all this, Anthony is a drug dealer, so his complaints are null and void. He already has daughter taken away from him once this year for being a horrible parent. The police have been called many, many times when his sellers/buyers are hiding in the corner and waiting for him to come home. Recently he got in a fight and hit one of his 
    "guys" over the head.
      • Avatar
        The "owner" Darius's family has owned this property and several others around town for over 20 years. I find it hard to believe he could not afford to repair the damage without "raising the rent" since he collects over $30,000 per month on this one property. Owners like him give others a bad name.
          • Avatar
            Thank you! My thoughts exactly.....these greedy slumlords must be stopped. If he really can't afford the $7,000 dollars then he better sell the complex to a responsible landlord.
            • Avatar
              In this case, I expect the city is the party that bears the most blame. They seem to operate like petty tyrants. Regulations ostensibly aimed at helping renters live in safe places should not punish them by throwing them out of their apartment with hardly any notice. It's mad. I have a friend who is worried about getting kicked out of his own apartment after learning it was red tagged, apparently not even for a safety reason but for some bureaucratic reason, some spat between the city and the landlord which will end up with the tenants being effectively punished.
                • Avatar
                  The landlord himself admits that he was notified of the problem by the City six months ago. That is "hardly any notice." If the landlord did nothing and did not notify the tenants, I fail to see how the City is responsible. In this climate, where rentals are hard to come by, more and more landlords become slumlords.
                  • Avatar
                    So who's telling the truth, the landlord or the tenant?
                    • Avatar
                      The City wants to force the property owner to sell to a hotelier. Just wait and see.
                      • Avatar
                        This is a good example of Fubar.
                          • Avatar
                            What could be so difficult about obtaining a loan for the repairs???
                              • Avatar
                                The family is filthy rich. The 1% Kind. They do not need loans, they need a conscious,kick in the butt, lots of fines and many court mandated years of living in there own poorly maintained units with exactly the level of consideration they gave.
                                  • Avatar
                                    Ask Rumplestiltskin- time, rolls and rolls of red tape, and ever increasing costs (time related - cost of living). Very sad problem.

                                    No comments:

                                    Post a Comment