city of oakland - client presentation

[IN]CITY Client: City of Oakland Instructors: Anderson, Burga, Stockstrom , Szibbo Bretthauer, Duffy, Fong, Junge, Topczewski

Healthy Housing in East Oakland: Identifying Indicators for a Proactive Rental Inspection Policy

The International Boulevard corridor stretches 9.5 miles from Lake Merritt to the Oakland/San Leandro border.

Historically known for disinvestment & foreclosure, the area is expected to change drastically with the installation of Bus Rapid Transit, proposed for 2017.

Premise of Research

Research Area 1Clinton / East Peralta

Research Area 2Arroyo Viejo / Fitchburg

Research Area 3North Stonehurst / Iveywood

San Leandro

OaklandN

Navigating the International Boulevard Corridor International Boulevard

Alameda

The City of Oakland’s OSNI partnership has identified Proactive Rental Inspections as a more efficient means of addressing housing code violations. In order best implement policy shifts, the following analysis reviews violations data from three specific Research Areas along East Oakland’s International Boulevard corridor.

Illegal dumping observed just North of International Boulevard (Research Area 2)

All renters (regardless of ethnicity, income level, or citizenship status) have the right to dignified housing, which should provide basic residential necessities and not directly threaten their health or safety.

Exterior neglect, South of Intl. Blvd (Research Area 1)

Scope of Project

[IN]CITY Client: City of Oakland Instructors: Anderson, Burga, Stockstrom, Szibbo Bretthauer, Duffy, Fong, Junge, Topczewski


Proactive Rental Inspections (PRI)

Renter occupant (or neighbor) identifies habitability issue

Current Method Traditional Code Enforcement Process

Proposed MethodProactive Rental Inspections

Files appropriate documentation with the City of Oakland

Code Inspectors survey property to determine if housing code has been violated

If code has been violated, landlord/property owner is issued a fine and asked to bring property back to code

Inspector visits property on regularly scheduled visit

If a code violation is identified, landlord is given an opportunity to repair the problem prior to fine being issued

Incentivizes property owners to repair buildings in advance of violation, strengthens relationships between community members and city officials

Precedents for PRI

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 3.

CityImplementation Registration Inspection Enforcement

DateEstablished Pilot Program? Registration

Type Fees Target Housing Frequency of Inspections

Checks for lead? Punishment Incentive

Greensboro, NC

2004

Yes,Began as a voluntary program

Registration of rental property

$250/unit per

inspection

Every rental unit type.

Every 5 years, then randomly

after thatNo Civil and criminal

prosecution. None

Los Angeles, CA

1998 NoRegistration

of rental property

$43.32/unit annually

All rental housing 2+

units.Every 3 years No

Civil and criminal prosecution; Rent Escrow Account

Program.

None

Sacramento, CA

2008

Yes,Targeted specific

neighborhoods first.


$16/unit annually

(registration) $127/unit

(inspection)


Larger buildings are inspected on a partially sliding

scale.

Every year for city-inspected

units Randomly for self-inspected

units

No Civil and criminal prosecution.

Compliant landlords can “self inspect”

Seattle, WA

2014 Yes, Slow phase-in


$175+/property every five

years


Larger buildings are inspected on a partially sliding

scale.

Every 10 years No

Civil and criminal prosecution.

Rental properties with prior

enforcement action will be inspected

early in the program.

None


[IN]CITY Client: City of Oakland Instructors: Anderson, Burga, Szibbo, Stockstrom Bretthauer, Duffy, Fong, Junge, Topczewski

Methodology

Who? What? Where?

... is living within our research areas?

... is the most vulnerable?

... are the landlords with the most frequently reported code violations?

... are the dominant code violations being reported?... code violations most affect health... building characteristics correlate with a high number of code violations?

... are the violations taking place?

... is there a pattern of substandard housing?... can the City of Oakland target its efforts to make housing safer?

Methodology: Designing a strategy to answer our guiding questions.

3) Results and Conclusions

1) Organize the Information

2) Spatial Visualization

Data Restrictions

• Census data is outdated• Inaccessible health information• Code violations not standardized• Much information is not spatial• Only reported code violations are analyzed

Definitions• External Neglect: Deteriora- tion or neglect of structural integrity or aesthetics of the exterior.

• Internal Neglect: Deteri- oration or neglect of the in terior features of the house, which may or may not be visible to the eye.

Sourcing the Data• City of Oakland documents• U.S. Census• American Community Survey• OpenOakland

Format Data for Statistical Analysis• Sort each violation by area• Determine important variables to analyze

Coding Violations• Determine categories of violation• Sort each violation by category• Codify anecdotal data

Define theResearch Areas• Make three datasets• Match block groups to research areas

Map the Data• Join datasets to ArcGIS• Analyze data spatially• Map key relationships

Guiding Questions

By answering the guiding questions, trends among rental properties will be determined.

Code ViolatorsWhy Here? Types of Violation

Exterior Neglect

Interior Neglect

Unapproved Activity

BuildingCharacteristics

Research Area 1


Why Test the Program in these Research Areas?

These areas have vulnerable residents and likely underreported code violations.


Older homes are more run down, so there are probably many unreported code violations in these areas.

Many residents in these areas are unlikely to report code violations, even if their health is suffering.

Most households in the Research Areas rent their homes. Because landlords are responsible for maintaining the units, tenants may be forced to live in unhealthy conditions.

Density of Renter Households

0-14% 15-33% 34-56% 57-82% 82+%

1951

Median Year Built in Research Areas

1979 2008

Lead paint banned

Beginning of foreclosure crisis

1940 2020

1989

Asbestos banned in many consumer products

Many homes in the research areas were built before major health hazards were banned.

During the Recession, many homeowners stopped taking care of their properties.

As homes get older, maintenance issues tend to pile up.

Healthy Home Timeline

5%

4%City of Oakland

Research Areas

...yet, code violations are reported at a lower rate than in other areas of the City.

Building inspectors say these areas are the most run-down in Oakland...

Most likely, many violations are not reported.

Low-income people are less likely to report violations, often because they are afraid the landlord will evict them and they won’t find another place to live. If tenants don’t speak English well, they won’t be able to navigate the complicated code enforcement system.

Many people won’t report maintenance issues to the building departmetn, even if their health is suffering, and even if they are legally entitled to have them fixed.

22%

In

of Research Area households, no adult is fluent in English.

Median household income in Research Areas is

than in the City of Oakland.

Research Areas:City of Oakland:

33%less

$$$$$$$$ 34,772$$$$$$$$$$$ 51,683



A. Chan

DMR Investments

D.& W. Cheng

Ch. Sun

G.& H. Ma

Ch. & L. Sun

Aurora Loan Services

A. & R Leung, J. Chum

D. Pham

Ivy Hill Development

L. & J. McGriff

Fed. Home Loan Morgage Corp.

Bank of New York

Aurora Loan Services

C. & S. Hardeman

C. Santos

J. Ambers

Fed. Nat. Morgage

G. & C. Flores

Deutsche Bank

Bank of New York

P. Carey

Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

Z. Chemanoor

Washington Mutual Bank

Community Fund

D. & L. Pham, V. Nguyen

Fed. Nat. Morgage

C. & L. Smith

Deutsche Bank

Properties with Code Violations

Landlords can be held responsible.

Who owns them?Where are they?

Clinton/East Peralta

Arroyo Viejo/Fitchburg

North Stonehurst/Iveywood

2217

1414

1313

1212

119

2422

201515

1413

1099

2114

1313

1010999

8

Owns in Multiple Research Areas



International Boulevard

4th Ave.

14th Ave.

24th St.

8th St.


Bancroft

73rd Ave.

Hegenburger Expy

San Leandro

83rd Ave.

Bancroft

98th Ave.

San Leandro

Oakland - San Leandro Boundary

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 Top 10 Violaters Per Area:

Number of violations per parcel:




Code Violation Types and Number Standardizing the Data: In order to analyze Oakland’s data for reported residential code violations from 2003 to 2013, we needed to standardize the dataset, which was not coded by complaint type. We created codes for violation types within three main categories - exterior neglect, interior neglect, and unapproved construction work or activity that did not receive permit or zoning approval.

Main Color Palette

Exterior Neglect

Interior Neglect

UnapprovedActivity

Dum

ping

Dete

riora

ting

Roof

s

Vaca

nt P

rope

rtyPlu

mbing

Heat

/Elec

tricit

y

Verm

in

Cons

truction

Activi

ty

Com

mer

cial A

ctivi

ty

806

105 64

158 171

51 44

103 9946

57

221

26

1120

188

13

79

258

116

227 210

966 52 40 18

602




975

424

1457

305

201

247

945

176219

# of reported cases in each research area:

Mold an

d Pain

t

Deterio

ration

Exterior neglect and unapproved activity receive far more reports than interior neglect.

Violations visible from the exterior of buildings are far more reported than interior violations.



Leaking Pipes, Lack of Hot or Run-ning Water, Non-functional Toilets, other Plumbing Issues

Heat/Electricity is Not Working Properly

Roach or Rodent Infestation

Paint Deterioration, Water Damage, Visible Mold/Mildew, Deteriorating Stairs

Interior Indicators of Neglect

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

²

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

²




4th Ave.

8th St.

14th Ave.

24th St.

Hegenburger Expy

73rd Ave.

83rd Ave.

Bancroft

San Leandro

98th Ave

San Leandro

105th Ave.

Bancroft

Oakland-San Leandro Boundary




Mapping spatial patterns of interior neglect: After standardizing the City’s dataset, we mapped each violation type by research area using ArcGIS. A greater diversity of violations fall into the interior neglect category than others.

Our maps reveal higher rates of interior neglect in the first two research areas, likely due to the higher concentration of housing in those areas. No obvious spatial patterns of internal complaints exist at the block level.

Why does mapping interior neglect matter? Interior neglect such as mold and vermin infestations has serious consequences for the health of residents.

We suspect the quality of residential interiors is largely the product of an attentive landlord who ensures constant maintenance.

Interior code complaints are more likely to be reported by residents than neighbors.

In conclusion, it is difficult to decipher spatial patterns of interior neglect with such a small sample size. Future research could analyze a larger area.

There is no significant spatial pattern of interior neglect.



Unapproved Construction, Conversions

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

²

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

²




4th Ave.

14th Ave.

24th St.

73rd Ave.

83rd Ave.

Bancroft

San Leandro

98th Ave

San Leandro

105th Ave.

Bancroft




North Stonehurst/Iveywood8th St.

Construction work or uses that have not attained permit or zoning approval. Includes rental conversions, unit additions, and repairs.

Mapping patterns of unapproved activity: After standardizing the City’s dataset, we mapped construction, repairs and conversions that did not receive proper permits by research area using ArcGIS.

Our maps reveal many cases of unpermitted activity.

The North Stonehurst/Iveywood research area has a higher concentration of unapproved activity than the other two areas.

There is no obvious spatial pattern of unapproved construction, etc. within research areas.

Why unpermitted activity is dangerous: Lead poisoning: Alameda county requires that construction workers of old homes to be trained in lead safety. Unpermitted work sidesteps this safety net. Without precautions, unhealthy lead dust can spread.

Shoddy work: Permit review requires an inspector to ensure work is up to code. Without approval, current and future tenants may be living in an unsafe home.

Our research areas had a large number of unapproved activity.

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

²

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

²

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

²




4th Ave.

8th St.

14th Ave.

24th St.

Hegenburger Expy

73rd Ave.

83rd Ave.

Bancroft

San Leandro98th Ave

San Leandro

105th Ave.

Bancroft







Dumping of Trash, Debris, or Inoperable Vehicles, Overgrown Vegetation

Dilapidated Garages, Damaged Roofs, Other Visible Signs of Exterior Deterioration

Vacated Property, Vandalism, Boarded Windows, Unregistered Foreclosures, Squatting

Exterior Indicators of Neglect

Mapping spatial patterns of exterior neglect: After standardizing the City’s dataset, we mapped each violation type by research area using ArcGIS.

Our maps reveal that illegal dumping and unruly yards receive the most complaints. These types of violations are especially concentrated in clusters, a pattern evident in all three research areas.

Vacant properties also appear to concentrate in clusters. Properties that sit vacant for long periods attract a range of problems that exacerbate deterioration and attract vermin infestations, mold, vandalism, and squatting.

Exterior Deterioration includes inadequate weatherproofing, damaged roofs, and other issues that inhibit the habitability of the structure and may indicate interior problems.

Why do these clusters of exterior neglect matter? The Broken Window Theory postulates that signs of neglect are an implicit acceptance of crime and apathy. Streets that have high concentrations of neglect may invite crime. The City of Oakland may focus its pilot program on these streets to prevent the spread of blight before the street becomes characterized as one where “no one cares.”

Exterior code violations can be found in clusters.



Violations and Building Characteristics

All building types are likely to have high numbers of unreported code violations.

More interior code violations are reported in small apartment buildings.

However, there are probably hidden health hazards in single family homes.

Different Types of Homes Have Similar Kinds of Code Violations

Multifamily buildings have more water-related problems. Over half of complaints against small apartment buildings have to do with water--either plumbing issues or mold/mildew. Water issues make up only a third of reports in single-family homes. Overall, however, the distribution of complaints is about the same for all building types. When issues are reported less frequently, it is probably not because of the kind maintenance issue.

Most exterior code complaints are against single-family homes. Because build-ings with exterior problems are likely to have interior problems, too, there are probably many interior violations in single-family homes. But it’s also possible that exterior conditions, like illegal dumping, happen without the landlord’s in-volvement, and that the interior of the buildings are safe.

Single-Family Homes Duplexes/Triplexes Small Apartment Buildings(4-6 Units)

Plumbing

Electrical/Heat

Interior Deterioration

Vermin

Mold/Mildew

Fire Hazard

Average Reported Interior ViolationsPer Unit, by Type of Dwelling

Single-Family Homes Duplexes/Triplexes Small Apartment Buildings

Single-Family Homes

Duplexes/Triplexes Small Apartment Buildings

0.8

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.0

0.8

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.0

Most interior code complaints are against small apartment buildings. This might be because people are more likely to report violations in an apartment building, but it also might be because apartment buildings are more run down, or have less responsive landlords.

Types of Violations, by Type of Dwelling

Average Reported Exterior ViolationsPer Unit, by Type of Dwelling

Type of Dwelling Type of Dwelling

Ave

rag

e N

um

ber

of

Vio

lati

ons

Per

Un

it

Ave

rag

e N

um

ber

of

Vio

lati

ons

Per

Un

it


[IN]CITY Client: City of Oakland Instructors: Anderson, Burga, Stockstrom , Szibbo Bretthauer, Duffy, Fong, Junge, Topczewski

Recommendations for the City of Oakland:

Option 1:Inspect a random sample of properties within the Research Areas.

Record all unreported violations in a standardized format (ex. a checkbox for each type of violation).

Standardize the dataset on reported code violations, so the two datasets can be compared.

Identify predictors of unreported violations

Identify patterns about what violations go unreported and why

Allow these patterns to guide other aspects of code enforcement policy

Prioritize proactive inspec-tions in the rest of the City according to these predictors

Option 2:First, inspect buildings with existing exterior code violations

Provide multilingual instructions on reporting code violations

Next, inspect other build-ings within Research Areas

Change reporting system so tenants can make reports in multiple languages.

Provide multilingual educational materials on tenant rights regarding code violations, especially regarding anonymous com-plaints

The City should gather data on unreported violations during the pilot program, and allow the analysis of this data to guide the implementation of a City-wide program:

The City can also improve the current code violation process to make it easier for tenants to report existing violations:

Rebrand Complaint Line as an “Anonymous Tip Line” for non-compliant landlords.

Redo Code Enforcement website so the phone number for Complaint Line is more obvious.

Add an anonymous online reporting form.

Gather More Data

Improve the Current System

Take Full Advantage of Proactive InspectionsDuring proactive inspections, the City should pay special attention to common and easily fixable violations, such as the presence of lead paint.

Results of Statistical Analysis: No Significant CorrelationsStatistical Significance of Tested Variables

Variables Tested

r2 V

alue

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Below the line: Statistically Significant Correlation

Above the line: Not a Significant Correlation

Gen

der

Ratio

Ow

ners

hip

to R

ente

r Ra

tio

% W

hite

Res

iden

ts

% B

lack

Res

iden

ts

% U

nder

age

Resi

dent

s

% E

lder

ly R

esid

ents

% V

acan

t H

ousi

ng U

nits

#

Hou

sing

Uni

ts

%

of H

ouse

hold

s w

ith <

1 Pe

rson

/Roo

m

% H

ousi

ng S

tock

Bui

lt Bef

ore

1980

% O

wne

d H

ousi

ng W

ith M

ortg

age

% H

ousi

ng w

ith K

itche

ns

% H

ousi

ng w

ith A

dequ

ate

Plum

bing

Med

ian

Num

ber

of R

oom

s

% R

esid

ents

Bel

ow P

over

ty L

ine

% U

.S.

Citi

zens

% F

ore-

gn B

oth

Resi

dent

s

% R

esid

ents

Spe

akin

g En

glis

h

No statistically significant correlations were found between reported code violations and characteristics of the housing stock or socioeconomic characteristics of the residents.However, we have not conclusively demonstrated the lack of correlations. Future researchers may find correlations if they use smaller geographic units and have more observations about code viola-tions. Additionally, some correlations may not have emerged due to confounding variables. More elaborate analysis may be able to disambiguate confounding variables.

city of oakland - client presentation

Documents