Just because something upsets you doesn’t make it wrong. Unless, of course, members of Berkeley City Council agree, as they did with the neighbors of 2133 Parker St. in their Jan. 31 decision to declare the 17-bedroom, student-occupied building a public nuisance after the city previously allowed its expansion and conversion.
In justifying its decision — which also ordered building owner Ali Eslami to reduce the number of bedrooms to five — the council cited an August 2011 Zoning Adjustment Board decision that determined the house to be in violation of residential density limits because it is “detrimental to the immediate neighborhood.” But surely a building will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood if those residents who make up the community are locked in a mindset that condemned the structure long before anybody moved in.
More than that, the city cannot grant permits that expressly allow developers to proceed one way and then use the municipal code to disallow them later — the rules were the same during the permitting process as they are today.
And now the results of one neighborhood’s complaints could set a concerning precedent for the entire city. By caving to neighborhood politics and punishing one owner and his tenants, the council has invited others to do the same in the future.
Already, the council has proposed changes to its zoning laws in response to this situation, which would limit the amount of floor space that can be allocated to bedrooms. If the city needs to change its rules to make sure a building like 2133 Parker isn’t allowed, then the council’s justification for declaring Eslami’s building a nuisance is flawed.
Regardless of whether the municipal code changes proposed last Tuesday go into effect, leaving the window open for angry neighbors to band together, present a case to the City Council and prompt the uneven enforcement of housing density rules is both alarming and unacceptable. That is not how the law is supposed to work and must not become the norm.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Has the Senior Editorial Board ever considered why neighbors are angry?
If we set aside the fact that laws were broken to allow this monstrous group living accommodation to be built in a low-density neighborhood, surely the conduct of the students who moved into the building should also be examined also.
Did the students show respect and consideration for their neighbors when they crawled out onto the rooftop and proceeded to inflict their rowdy behavior on their neighbors?
No.
Did they care that the huge party they threw in the first month – with all three floors, the front and back decks and the front sidewalk, teaming with loud drunken students – would keep their neighbors up until 2:30?
No.
Did they care that because of their excesses, Berkeley police officers were called to shut the party down, taking them away from more serious matters?
No.
Perhaps students should consider why neighbors were upset before they assume that neighbors are just targeting them for no particular reason.
Ali Eslami has built a number these projects on south side, and each one of them is a neighborhood nuisance. His tenants trash the neighborhoods, receive numerous nuisance citations, and constantly disturb their neighbors, both students and long time residents. Most of his projects have been the subject of stop work orders due to illegal construction. He is a blight in the community and receives rents on his properties that are at least 50% higher than comparable south side rents. He takes advantage of students, neighbors, and puts nothing back in our community.
I’m glad someone has finally stuck up for Ali. He provides good quality housing in an area that desperately needs it. The ones making up lies are the neighbors, mainly Patti Dacey. As a lawyer, she can bring lawsuits at no cost to her while she’s cost Ali six figures in legal fees. He’s losing money and just trying to keep his workers employed so they can feed their families.
The number of neighbors that are actually worked up about it barely outnumber the council members they swayed. Kriss Worthington and Jesse Arreguin plan to be lifelong politicians and not contribute to society. They are swayed the few loud squeaky wheels, squeaking from all the drugs they did here years ago. Kriss appointed Patti to the Planning Commission as a favor for her working on getting and keeping him elected. Now he does her bidding so she won’t turn on him and put another pawn in his council seat. See the CityCentric project, supposed to be going in at Parker and Shattuck (and desperately needed for that blighted area). It was unanimously approved by the council and then Patti brought a lawsuit. The project has been delayed 3 years already because Patti is anti-development, anti-student, and complains about students living around her. She lives at the corner of Blake and Ellsworth!!! You’d think a lawyer would be smart enough to not live 5 short blocks from a large university and then complain about students! The only hope Berkeley and those hoping to improve it are 1) these older complainers die off or leave the area, or 2) the silent majority becomes more involved in the process and appoints council members who actually have convictions to do things like clean up Telegraph and allow south Shattuck development to bring more life to this great place, which lives and breaths thanks to the University.
So, the “senior editorial board” of The Daily Cal thinks it is okay for a landlord to break the city’s law, as long as the public officials who are supposed to enforce the law, have instead ignored that law. And that when citizens complain to the city about an outrageous flaunting of this law, then those citizens should not be allowed to make public officials actually enforce said broken law. Or in other words, the guy who breaks the law should have future immunity just because he manages to pull a fast on the cops in the original instance? Glad you guys aren’t on the Supreme Court.