Berkeley’s Vendetta against an African American family
The following is an attempt to give conceptual coherence to the story of what has happened to Mr. Leonard Powell of 1911 Harmon St. in Berkeley. Mr. Powell is African American, and a veteran of the US military. Since 2015, the city of Berkeley has engaged in a campaign whose essential outcome has been to evict Mr. Powell from the house he owns. Given the heights to which rental levels have risen, driving him out of his home will be tantamount to driving him out of town. What the city has pursued is tantamount to a heartless vendetta. And the story is rife with excesses and procedural misconduct.
When Mr. Powell first purchased the house, in 1974, he had a family, a wife and six children. The house was a duplex, which he transformed into a single-family home, and it fit the family perfectly. Forty years later, when the city of Berkeley first becomes aware of this house, three of the people living in it were in poor health. Mr. Powell’s brother needs continual access to an oxygen machine. One of his daughters has to undergo dialysis every day and did so with a machine in the house. And Mr. Powell himself had very limited energy owing to the fact that he had donated a kidney to his wife, in an effort to save her life. Nevertheless, the city of Berkeley managed to drive these people out of that house, on which they depended, in June of 2017. The city did this by working, over a two-year period, to put the house under receivership. The obsessive steps the city took to accomplish this are clearly spelled out in proceedings in Alameda County Superior Court (Berkeley vs. Powell; all filings referred to here are part of that case).
In the following report, I will focus on three factors in Mr. Powell’s story. The first is a police raid on the house in July 2014. The second is the campaign announced by the city in court filings beginning in March of 2015 to place the house under receivership. And the third has to do with the representation given Mr. Powell by a lawyer he unfortunately retained to assist him in resisting the receivership in April 2017.
I will first give some background to this history, and then address each of these factors in turn. I have read over the Superior Court filings in the case and spoken to Mr. Powell at length about them. I will be drawing certain conclusions as I proceed. These conclusions are mine. They represent what the documents and sequence of events I have encountered in this case tell me.
-more-