See what Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc has to say
[Editor: as of January 29, 2018, the city rent control department Maria Wood and Rushmore Cervantes and the state department of fair employment and housing have refused to respond to recent complaints about the property. Does this make you feel safe at Hi Point? Is fair housing a joke in America?]
Subject: Councilperson Herb Wesson/President please place on City Council agenda under Communications from Public for next available agenda
From: [Tenant name and email redacted]
TO: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
DATE: Sunday, January 28, 2018 3:47 PM
Do you want to reside at 1522 Hi Point St 90035?
[Based on court and administrative documentation and email interaction with property owner Hi Point Apts, LLC, manager Walter Barratt, resident manager Cynthia Ogan, Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc., the Mayor’s Fund for Los Angeles: Karsh Family Foundation, Wasserman Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Westfield Property Management LLC; Jeffrey Wilson; WREA employees Matt Williams, Matt Johnson, Jonathan Schwartz, Theresa Ryan, Abigail Adams, Adrian Snow, Sabrina Schloss, Rigo Ramirez, Albert Cervantes, Jack Matillo, George Ramos, Ken Lam, Peter Kim, Michael Dickson, Lamar Davis, Robert Davis, Alan Dang, Doris Porter, Marian Podpora, Adam Polder; AAGLA members William Dawson, Mozannar Construction, Inc. , Ali Mozannar, et al.]
1. Four Judges have declared that they will not assist in the enforcement of tenant rights at this property.
2. Four white Judges do not want Black tenants to have “full and equal housing services and privileges”.
3. For over three years, Black tenants have been denied housing services of working intercom, tandem parking stall, and rent reductions.
None of the defendant’s have stated to the Plaintiff when the intercom will be repaired.
4. The court has ruled tenants do not have rights under the following laws: 42 USC section 3604 Housing Discrimination; Civil Rights Act 1964 Title II Public Accommodation; 42 USC section 1981 Fourteenth Amendment Equal Rights; 42 USC 1983 The Ku Klux Klan Act; Title VI Civil Rights Act 1964 Race Discrimination in Federally Funded Program; 42 USC section 1985 Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights; 42 USC section 2000a Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation .
5. None of the defendant’s have stated to the Plaintiff when the intercom will be repaired. None of the defendants has stated to Plaintiff, a Black American, when he will will receive the full and equal privilege of a tandem parking stall. The entitlements under the rent agreement and the owner submitted and city approved THP are not waived.
6. “Any and all units are subject to re-inspection and require the same uniform compliance throughout the premises.” 2014 City Code enforcement; Obviously the non-working intercom is not in uniform compliance with the fifteen units of white tenants.
7. Numerous government agencies, numerous government employees, and four Judges, stand in the way of fair housing at this address.
8. Property management LB Property Management in court failure to appear admitted allegations as true that defendants breached the rental agreement and did provide maintenance of the intercom at this property.
9. None of the defendants in the court case filed an answer with the court denying the violations of federal and state laws in the Complaint.
“Any and all units are subject to re-inspection and require the same uniform compliance throughout the premises.” 2014 City Code enforcement
10. Williams Real Estate Advisors [“WREA”], property management company, claimed they spent thousands of dollars to stop tenants from getting fair housing at this property.
11. After a Black tenant complained of denial of maintenance, denial of parking, and denial of rent reductions, racism and retaliation, WREA asked the court for $25,000 to punish the tenant and claimed the tenant was harassing them. The court denied the motion for $25,000.
12. The court dismissed the state as well as federal claims against manager Walter Barratt without prejudice. WREA reports to Walter Barratt and is paid by Walter Barratt.
13. Numerous government agencies, numerous government employees, and four Judges, including the Department of Fair Housing and Employment, city LADBS, city rent control department, have stated there is no protection for tenant rights at this property.
14. Numerous discrimination, code enforcement and rent control complaints have been filed against this property.
“…Large and small dogs constantly bark and roam the property common areas without being on a leash; once a maintenance worker was witnessed to be pushed up against a gate by a dog not on a leash….”
15. The owner maintains that only dogs on the original rent agreement can be on the premises, and dogs must be accompanied by owner at al times, but when tenants complained about illegal dog activity [“illegal dog boarding”] and dogs not on a leash, the owner accused the tenant of “harassment” and no action was taken against the dog owners. Large and small dogs constantly bark and roam the property common areas without being on a leash; once a maintenance worker was witnessed to be pushed up against a gate by a dog not on a leash.
16. Some tenants are told they must pay $100 deposit for utilities without being told that other tenants are not paying the $100 utility deposit, and that such deposit may at some time violate the rent control ordinance, in this master metered building.
17. Tenants rent money has been used to practice unlawful discrimination against tenants, has been used to support dilapidated and code enforcement violations on the property.
18. The WREA has told certain tenants to address rent payments to WREA but if that is not what their rent agreement says, this could amount to criminal fraud.
“…WREA admits that the websites mentioning this property have been shot out to 1777 search engines worldwide…”
19. WREA and the property owner admitted knowledge they were named in a lawsuit where the tenant sought $687,000 in damages and $502 million dollars in punitive damages for racial discrimination and retaliation, et al.
20. WREA admits that the websites mentioning this property have been shot out to 1777 search engines worldwide.
21. WREA claims this property and complaints appeared in the March 29, 2017 San Diego Reader, page 14, and the USC Daily Trojan March 30, 2017 Housing Guide. Readership over $370,000.
22. The rent monies of tenants who are white pay for the lack of maintenance at this property.
23. WREA has threatened tenants with eviction because they complain about denial of housing services and lack of fair housing.
“…The rent monies of tenants who are white, pay for the lack of maintenance at this property….”
24. California government has declared that “It is recognized that the practice of …discriminating in the terms ….foments domestic strife and unrest … the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information in housing accommodations is declared to be against public policy.”
25. A simple request for housing services/accommodations has resulted in lawsuits that have named scores of government employees and tenants.
26. WREA says that if you live at this address, you will not get fair housing from the owner, his company, or hundreds of government employees.
27. WREA says if you live in this building and complain, they will charge you with “harassment”.
28. WREA says it will ignore any entitlements stated in your rent agreement.
29. The city rent stabilization department will seek to deprive you of rights under the rent agreement.
“…WREA says that if you live at this address, you will not get fair housing from the owner, his company, or hundreds of government employees….”
30. WREA and owner will not provide the application process for getting housing services of intercom, maintenance, and tandem parking.
31. All tenants pay rent for an intercom system that does not work.
32. WREA ignores code enforcement complaints.
33. WREA has admitted that Black tenants were denied housing services intercom repair or replacement and tandem parking for over three years.
34. WREA said by email it feels that denying Black tenants “full and equal housing services and privileges” and taking rent monies under false pretenses and not complying with the rent agreement and city THP procedures, does not constitute racism or retaliation. However, in federal court proceedings, WREA never filed an answer with the court denying the truth of the complaints against WREA.
“…WREA ignores code enforcement complaints…”
35. A Black tenant wrote January 5, 2018 to WREA and others: “The intercom remains unusable, we still have not been provided a tandem parking stall or second parking stall while whites Ogan and Navis appear to have the use of 4 parking stalls.”
36. WREA emailed back Jan, 5 at 4:57 pm : “…stop harassing our office.”
37. WREA wrote by email, “the federal civil rights case you brought against us …was thrown out with prejudice in our favor.”
38. Is WREA fact or fiction? I quote from the court decision:
“It is hereby adjudged that plaintiff’s federal claims against all defendants except Walter Barratt and Cliff Renfrew are dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, and the action is dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Baratt and Renfrew.” Case No. CV 1603236JLS (AJW); Central District Los Angeles, original complaint filed May 11, 2016.
So the truth is that all the state claims —which number around twenty claims against WREA et al—were dismissed without prejudice which means the court has ordered that no decision has been made and that the court orders that no rights or privileges are waived and that Black tenants can still claim housing discrimination and the other 22 claims. WREA is still obligated to follow all state laws claimed. In addition, the court ruled that state as well as federal claims against Walter Barratt were dismissed without prejudice meaning those federal as well as state claims were not thrown out with prejudice as WREA alleges; WREA is an agent/employee of Walter Barratt.
39. WREA is refusing to comply with the federal court order.
40. WREA claims that emails and faxing reporting fair housing issues are “harassing” to its staff employees.
41. On Jan. 10 2018 by email, Blackman tenant reported to WREA electrical, fire safety, habitability, maintenance, and sanitation issues including [1959 words] intercom not working; trash, debris, or rodents on the premises; exit door requires maintenance, inoperative vehicles on property; trash, debris, and/or discarded items stored on premises.
42. WREA wrote back, “This is our second formal notice to immediately stop harassing us” and “you continue to maliciously harass us.”
Fact or Fiction?
WREA: “These issues that you keep bringing up are now over three years old.”
True: As leasing agent and management company for Hi Points Apts LLC and Walter Barratt, and for resident manager Cynthia Ogan and maintenance Ali Mozannar, WREA admits that Black tenants have been without a working intercom for over three years, denied rent reductions and tandem parking stall. The federal court ruling states that there has been no waiver of rights or privileges and that tenants can still complain about deprivation of fair housing.
WREA: WREA claims “vendors” were chased around with cameras.
False: WREA was actually recorded themselves with a cell phone in what appeared to be WREA videotaping tenant and guest June 27, 2017. There is no evidence from that video that any vendor was being chased with a camera, nor has WREA been able to provide who, what, when, why, where of his allegations. The claim of WREA constitutes fraud.
WREA: “You have posted the owners number on line on Yelp which was taken down.”
False: The owner’s number is a matter of public record; vague and lacking in specificity as to “you” have posted. WREA has provided no evidence of what it alleges was posted or removed.
WREA: “Threatened to damage property and mace other tenants dogs.”
False/true: At no time did I threaten to damage property, but I did advise owner of my legal right to abate a nuisance [the owner’s legal obligation is also to abate a nuisance]; I did say I would seek to protect myself from free roaming dogs and use mace if necessary [which might be the same rights available to a white tenant, I would hope].
WREA: “You even threatened to start reading emails in your voicemails.”
False: I did not threaten to do anything, I said it was an option. After all, you’re the one who gave me your phone number to leave a voicemail. WREA is violating LAMC section 41.33 below.
Owner Walter Barratt [WREA] alleges Blackman is causing tenants to leave 1522 Hi Point St Apts
WREA: “You have hindered our ability to lease units and have caused tenants to leave; both of these are in violation of your lease.”
False: No such action has been made. Vague and lacking in specificity as there is no such provision in my rent agreement. I am not responsible for WREA incompetence.
WREA: “The truth is…you have become a very poor sport and have decided to punish anyone and everyone that does not agree with you.”
False: I am not a poor sport, in fact I am complying with my obligation to act in a reasonable, good faith manner, which WREA is not. WREA likes to call people names. The allegation of “punish” and “agree” are vague and lacking in specificity to the extent my rent agreement does not address such obligations or lack thereof as being relevant. The obligations of owner/agent and tenant are spelled out in the terms of the agreement, and fair housing laws, and “punishment” and “everyone who does not agree with you” does not appear in my rent agreement.
WREA is supposedly a member of the AAGLA and the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce.
“…WREA claims that emails and faxing reporting fair housing issues are “harassing” to its staff employees…”
All rights reserved.
1522 Hi Point St #9
Los Angeles CA 90035
[tenant name and phone redacted]
COURT RULING BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER 22, 2017. DOCKET ENTRY 117 [redacted from 19 page ruling]:
“It is hereby adjudged that plaintiff’s federal claims against all defendants except Walter Barratt and Cliff Renfrew are dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, and the action is dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Baratt and Renfrew.” Case No. CV 16-03236 JLS (AJW); Central District Los Angeles, original complaint filed May 11, 2016.
LAMC 41.33 “Peaceful Enjoyment”. LANDLORDS – DISTURBING TENANTS. “No person, except a duly authorized officer pursuant to the authority of legal process, shall interfere with the peaceful enjoyment, use, possession or occupancy of any premises by the lawful lessee or tenant of such premises either by threat, fraud, intimidation, coercion, duress, or by the maintenance or toleration of a public nuisance, or by cutting off heat, light, water, fuel or free communication by anyone by mail, telephone or otherwise, or by restricting trade or tradesmen from or to any such tenant.” [Emphasis added.]
ref: Maintenance and intercom was available [present] at the start of my tenancy; tandem stalls were also available [present] at the start of my tenancy. The owner and various government employees claim these services were not available.
[Editor: The above has been redacted from a document to Public Officials]
The City of Los Angeles
Authorized the Intercom System at Hi Point Apts
1. It is undisputed:
2. The City government Los Angeles granted a CFO to Hi Point Apts around 1973.
That CFO included all portions of the building as well as the intercom system.
3. The city HCIDLA authorizes the intercom system of the SCEP inspection.
4. Circa 2015 the HCIDLA authorized a capital improvement rent increase; pictures
show that this increase included the keypad and intercom system installed as the same unit, even though unit 9 is not connected. I pay $17.08 a month increase, partly so other White tenants can enjoy an intercom system denied to me.
5. Thru the LADBS permits, the city has authorized primary renovations to 15 units, and all fifteen units have working intercoms; the city has authorized the intercom system.
6. The city approved a THP for unit 9. There is no guarantee that those renovations
will include installing a working intercom, but past practice indicates [the DFEH hearsay is that the owner installs intercoms when apartments become vacant] a new intercom will be installed in unit 9, at that undetermined time, thus establishing the city
authorization of the intercom system. WREA cannot raise a dispute here as to the city’s current authorization that the intercom be repaired or replaced.
Check out two other great sites on city rent control issues:
Los Angeles Affordable Housing and Rent Control
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS)
“A legal threat is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_threat
One attorney said, “Rather than respond to a few simple service requests, the owner claims to have spent thousands of dollars and endangered the lives of white tenants just to retaliate against Blacks. Why would anyone want to live under such tortious conditions?“
[Editor: Owner Walter Barratt has admitted that some repairs in the building have not been done in three years, yet he still collects tenants full rent money. The same code enforcement department who approved the electrical sub panels connected to the intercom is the same code enforcement who says they have no jurisdiction over the intercom. Huh? Based on a 2014 city code enforcement “Notice and Order to Comply”, the building was ruled substandard because it is not in “uniform compliance.” Further the city wrote: “The Housing Department has determined this building to be substandard per section 24436.5 of the State Revenue and Taxation Code.”]
Do you want to reside at 1522 Hi Point St 90035?