City clerk CPRA 22-7840. Submitted 8/3/22-
August 14, 2022
Housing Discrimination Detailed
To the city clerk: You are requested to provide a copy of the city document that states “XIV. Equal Employment Opportunity” and “Code of Ethics Statement of Approved Principles for Public Service in the Government of the City of Los Angeles” or any document that references the same. Thank you. G. Juan Johnson.
The clerk responded: “We are in receipt of your CPRA (Request #22-7560) seeking City documents. The information you have provided is insufficient to determine the specific City documents requested. Please resubmit your request with a clearer explanation of the type of documents you seek and where you found the specific phrases provided.” Aug 1, 2022
To city clerk: CODE OF ETHICS. STATEMENT OF APPROVED PRINCIPLES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE. IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. (2017). https://ethics.lacity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CityCodeofEthics.pdf. (Updated (2005). This may be a city Ethics Commission document on the internet at the above link. Please provide a copy of such 2017 document, updated 2005, or provide documentation if this is an Ethics Department document? Please provide copies of any city document that governs the ethical conduct of the employees of the city clerk’s office. Thank you.
I am still trying to determine the full extent of the city employee’s conspiracy and acting in concert with the Property owner Hi Point 1522 LLC to continue to deny unit 9 tenants tandem parking and a properly maintained and working intercom system. Recently city employee Richard Brinson finally admitted that the city government has jurisdiction over the intercom system. Due to Brinson’s racism against me, he was not able to explain why the city has not ordered the repair of the intercom. Past excuses of the city/owner are that we are long term tenants, he only provides new intercoms to new tenants, he has not had the opportunity to repair, he needs to rewire the building, maintenance was not available when we signed the tent agreement, he (Hi Point 1522 LLC) did not receive my requests for maintenance, etc. Thousands of apartment buildings/condos across the city have working intercoms. Why as Black Americans is unit 9 tenants denied intercom repair for over seven years?
REFERENCE:
Subject: Parking Problems at 1522 Hi Point Street 90035
From: G Johnson (redacted)
To: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; councilmember.ridley-thomas@lacity.org; hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org; info@housingrightscenter.org; brent@powerpropertygrp.com; walter.barratt@gmail.com; 09e41e7459a05677911c@powerpropertygroup.mailer.appfolio.us; cynthia@powerpropertygrp.com
Cc: springfling@piconc.com; info@unnc.org; beachwoodcanyon@sbcglobal.net; chelseamcelwee.zknc@gmail.com; j.fletcher@whcouncil.org; adozal.wcknc@gmail.com; mary@caldelle.com
Date: Saturday, March 20, 2021, 08:45 PM PDT
1. After being assigned parking for two vehicles by the previous owner, the current owner in 2014 reduced our parking entitlement to parking for one vehicle, without giving us a corresponding reduction in rent (per city rent control LAMC). We were threatened with eviction if we did not move to a one car stall. For the next three months, all tandem parking stalls sat vacant.
2. At the present time, I have repeatedly asked the owner for a second parking stall or tandem stall since the unit 9 tenants have two vehicles. The owner has not responded.
3. After reducing our parking to one vehicle stall in 2014, the current owner said that we could be assigned to a tandem (2 car) parking stall if we were (1) first come first served and (2) the payment of $50.00 per month. We could not sign off on that suggestion because we were already first come first served, and we already paid for parking included in our rent payment. Our rent agreement shows that parking is available for two vehicles.
4. The owner has repeatedly written to the city officials that the cost of parking is included in the rent of each tenant, i.e there is no separate charge for parking.
5. At this property there are 18 one bedroom units, and 21 parking stalls, stall 1A, and then stalls 1-19. Stalls 1A-12 are single stalls (totaling 13) and stalls numbered 13-19 are tandem parking stalls.
6. I have asked the owner what the current qualifications are to be assigned to a tandem parking stall. The resident manager as well as the owner have refused to respond.
7. I currently as witness observe that stalls 13-16 are tandem parking stalls but there is only one vehicle parked in each of three of the stalls, therefore there are approximately available parking for three additional cars. See attached picture of parking lot.
8. As shown in the pictures, I have an electric vehicle, which I park on the street. I have to move the vehicle at least twice a week for street sweeping, a cost in electricity that I would not have to incur if I was allowed to park in the 1522 Hi Point St parking lot. Depending on if I am working and what time I arrive home, or if I want to go out at night driving, when I return home, many times I am faced with having to park two or three blocks away or have to wait until someone moves their car on the street. Often I avoid going out altogether to keep from having to lose my parking space. These damages occur to me simply because the owner’s actions are arbitrary, fraudulent, oppressive, or malicious in denying unit 9 tenants a tandem parking stall.
9. Currently there are on Hi Point St between Pico and Pickford, about eight construction sites , some in the completion stage but most still under development. The construction crews of these projects continue to use up available parking Monday thru Saturday. The LADBS has published a flyer which reads, “Good neighbor construction practices” and states “whenever possible, construction vehicles should be parked on site to prevent congestion on streets with limited parking”. Rarely do any construction crews park onsite. Hi Point this section is one of those streets with limited parking, in fact, Hi Point and some surrounding streets are one lane streets. At least if construction crews parked on Fairfax, there would still be one lane of traffic on Fairfax. Then properties like Hi Point Apts’ owner have available empty stalls that could be assigned in order to alleviate the parking congestion, but the owner refuses to allow use of those stalls.
10. I have suffered economic damages because I cannot park in the parking lot at 1522. The construction crews have helped to increase my damages because I spend more electricity driving from street to street looking for parking. I am a senior citizen, and like most, I can experience some mobility issues and need to get to a restroom. If I am in my car and have to drive around the block repeatedly, then I suffer. If I have groceries, I cannot use the parking lot, so I have to park on the street to unload the groceries. Sometimes due to COVID 19 people not using their cars for work, and due to construction crews using available spaces, I have had to temporarily park in the driveway (see picture) to unload the groceries, more electricity spent turning the car off and on because I cannot use the parking lot. These are continuing damages.
11. Now I see the resident manager Kassandra Harris has posted a sign on the gate “do not block driveway—tow away zone”. Let me give you a list of who parks in the driveway in front of the gate at least temporarily: UPS, Amazon, Fed Ex, the property owner, the property management company, maintenance, new tenants moving in. The parking lot opening is pretty wide so most times the access is not blocked. Also, often there is no sign saying what building the lot is for, so if people see the gate open, they just drive right in thinking it is public parking.
12. About a week or two ago, construction crews posted no parkings signs for a Tuesday. There was no parking available. I was forced to park in the driveway of 1522 for a number of
hours until construction crews were gone. No one’s access was blocked to the parking lot. See the attached photo of no parking signs for Tuesday, March 23, 2021.
13. I sure wish the manager would pay more attention to the non-operating car of tenant #5 (a white man) , that has been illegally stored in the parking lot for over three years. As a Black tenant, I don’t get the same equal privilege to park a non-operating car in the lot.
14. Of course there are those who park in the driveway because the intercom is not operating as intended.
It is my belief the owner of the property has released to the state DFEH the names of all current tenants at this location.
All rights reserved.
Geary Juan Johnson
A Black American and senior citizen
1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035
Phone 323-807-3099
cc: City Neighborhood Councils Attached pictures:
Hi Point and Saturn taken March 20, 2021, Saturday morning showing no resident’s cars parked due to construction “no parking- tow zone signs”.
Picture of security gate and parking lot at 1522 Hi Point St with my car in the picture. Date Picture of posted street signs saying “no parking- tow zone” for Tuesday March 23
CCC section 1942.4(a)
(a) A landlord of a dwelling may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit pursuant to subdivision (2) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if all of the following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice:
(1) The dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1 or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling.
(2) A public officer or employee who is responsible for the enforcement of any housing law, after inspecting the premises, has notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent in writing of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions.
(3) The conditions have existed and have not been abated 35 days beyond the date of service of the notice specified in paragraph (2) and the delay is without good cause. For purposes of this subdivision, service shall be complete at the time of deposit in the United States mail.
(4) The conditions were not caused by an act or omission of the tenant or lessee in violation of Section 1929 or 1941.2.
Unruh Act CC 51 prohibits arbitrary discrimination
“Arbitrary discrimination is unique to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and is intended as a sort of catchall category. It has been interpreted to ban discrimination based on those personal characteristics that have no relation to a person’s ability to be a good tenant. The ban on age discrimination in housing, for example, is a direct result of a court’s interpretation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Other types of arbitrary discrimination would likely include discrimination based on a person’s political affiliation, group membership, physical appearance, unconventional dress, or military service.
“Essentially, the idea behind this category is to prevent housing providers and businesses from preferring or discriminating against groups of people for unreasonable reasons. If there is no legitimate business reason to justify a discriminatory policy, then there is a chance that it will be considered illegal.”
LAMC RAC section 410.04
“Housing services are services that are connected with the use or occupancy of a rental unit including, but not limited to, utilities (including light, heat, water and telephone), ordinary repairs or replacement, and maintenance including painting. The term also includes the provision of elevator service, laundry facilities and privileges, common recreational facilities, janitor service, resident manager, refuse removal, furnishings, food service, parking and any other benefits, privileges or facilities. (LAMC Sec. 151.02, Definition of Housing Services)” (emphasis added)
2021-3-19 Manager Posts Do Not Block Driveway.jpeg
313.7kB
2021-3-19 Hi Point and Saturn no parking.jpeg
900.4kB
2021-3-19 No parking for Mar 23 Tow away.jpeg
373kB
Subject: Amended. Parking Issues at 1522 Hi Point St – Reference DFEH Case Number 202104- 13236514- Continuing Performance duties of Hi Point Apts LLC
From: G Johnson (redacted)
To: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.ridley-thomas@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org
Cc: info@housingrightscenter.org; walter.barratt@gmail.com; highpoint1522@gmail.com; cynthia@powerpropertygrp.com; 09e41e7459a05677911c@powerpropertygroup.mailer.appfolio.us; brent@powerpropertygrp.com; attorneygeneral@dojca.gov
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 01:38 PM PDT
To whom it may concern:
At the Friday, May 14 court hearing on this matter Walter Barratt, employer of Power Property Management Inc., told the court that he was willing to provide us with a tandem parking stall if we paid $50.00. He basically regurgitated this from 2014 because from 2014 to now, he admitted that he negligently had not responded to my inquiries about parking, essentially telling me by his silence that the tandem parking was not available.
Let’s examine the parking problem, for the sake of negotiation. (1) The state housing discrimination laws prohibit a landlord from refusing to rent housing services by telling a tenant the services are not available (tandem parking) and the same laws prohibit a landlord from singling out a tenant for unfair treatment and setting different terms and conditions for such tenant. Walter Barratt has done all these things and thus has violated the fair housing laws. (2) Retaliation because I complained is unlawful. By not assigning our unit 9 an available tandem parking stall with no extra charge, he has continued to unlawfully retaliate against me because I complained. Walter Barratt works with his agent, resident manager Kassandra Harris. (3) The rent agreement shows that the cost of parking is included. There is no indication there will be an extra charge for parking. Therefore, Walter cannot charge $50.00 for parking. (4) Walter has filed with the City rent registry documents that show that for all units at 1522 Hi Point St, parking is included in the rent. There is no indication in these documents that any tenant is being charged a separate fee for parking. Thus, Walter has singled me out for unfair treatment. It is true he could post a sign in the common area that “tandem parking is $50 extra” but that would be incongruous because (1) many tenants already have rent agreements in which they may already have a tandem stall at no extra charge and (2) it would not apply to tenants where tandem
parking was available at the inception of their tenancy. But of course, no such sign is posted.
Of course, if I was to pay $50 under these circumstances, I would be infringing upon my right to claim discrimination and I would waive my right under the LAMC: that a landlord can charge an additional fee for housing services only if the service was not available at the inception of the tenancy.
Contrary to what the biased and retaliatory city employees have stated, tandem parking in 2010 was “available” at the inception of unit 9 tenancy. I have pictures of unit 9 parked in tandem stall 14 and another tenant parked at stall 8; the city employees refused to admit that another tenant was assigned to stall 8, proving that unit 9 was assigned to stall 14, the rent agreement being a clerical error.
In summary, the landlord is without authority to charge unit 9 $50 for tandem parking because it would constitute unlawful different terms and conditions; it is not agreed to in our rental agreement, and the landlord is without authority to charge $50 for tandem parking because such fee would violate the LAMC that does not allow an added fee for services that were available at the inception of the tenancy.
I am surprised the owner brought this $50 up last week because I disposed of his argument years ago. Even when sued in federal court 2015, he never filed an “answer” to the complaint and never alleged the $50 fee. Of course, he still does not admit the fee would be unlawful. I told the court on May 14 that unit 9 already pays the $50 because parking is included in the rent.
Walter at the hearing spent a lot of time saying he felt harassed by reading articles on the internet. He complained about seeing the words “Racism at Hi Point Apts” on the internet and that such sites were directed at him. I have attached a Google page showing that there are numerous apartments with the name or similar “Hi Point Apts” and some are out of state. I also remind the parties that many of the documents that Walter may be reading on the internet are documents published to the internet by the Los Angeles City Clerk’s office. I guess Barratt will now sue the City government for harassment. There is a cause and effect, that Walter seems unable to comprehend, that if he had provided the intercom maintenance and tandem parking in 2015 as requested, I would not have grounds to complain now.
Walter said in court that I, as a tenant (Black) am not entitled to fair housing or housing services. I disagree because the “entitlement” comes from federal, state, and local fair and civil rights housing laws as well as the rental agreement.
All rights reserved.
Geary J. Johnson
1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035
Phone 323-807-3099
reference: Power Property Group, PO Box 472, Culver City, CA 90232. reference: Power Property Management obligations per their 1/10/19 letter:
“… full-service management company…responsible for collecting rents, coordinating repairs…all matters/repairs must go thru our office.”
reference: Civil Code section 52 provides:
“(a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6. ”
reference: jurisdiction of code violation inspectors from H & S code: “including but not limited to…any building or portion thereof…general dilapidation or improper maintenance… the welfare of the public…inadequate sanitation”. Code enforcement inspectors Marcel Nicolas and Luis Tolentino said they refuse to enforce the H & S code in this regard. I have talked with city fire department employees who told me the city inspectors do have authority to inspect multifamily dwelling intercom systems.
Geary Juan Johnson
Phone 323-807-3099
TimelineDocuments
Public
Request Published
August 8, 2022, 4:32pm by Clerk CPS Coordinator
Public
Request Closed
The information that you have requested has been provided through the original Request No. 22-7560. An email with a link to the requested information has been sent to the email address submitted with your request. This request with the Office of the City Clerk is considered closed.
August 8, 2022, 4:32pm by Clerk CPS Coordinator
Public
Department Assignment
City Clerk
(Editor: CPRA link is https://lacity.nextrequest.com/requests/22-7840 )
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 