Showing posts with label Bestor Robinson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bestor Robinson. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

May 9, 1925: As I Delve into Bestor Robinson...

I am aware that I have had certain expectations regarding Bestor Robinson. I think the picture is more complex and more pathetic than I realized at first. Or is that my expectation too? I expected him to be a hero. It seemed like he was going to be one. Then he just up and changed his course, or so it seems to me. And then there is his "other" life: the outdoor adventurer and WWII hero.

From here, it is easy to imagine why the son of an Oakland Judge might have turned away from this public life and turned towards the hilly life in the hand of his father-in-law, Senator Arthur H. Breed. But wait! The context and the motivation are forthright! Was it the opinion of the Trib expressed in the placement of the announcements side by side?

Friday, May 15, 2009

May 15, 1924: CITY DEFIED IN REMOVAL OF BUILDINGS

Test Suits Likely to Compel Razing of Golden Eagle Hotel and Other Structures Condemned; Other Courses Although its time has expired, the according to a ruling some time ago by the city board of condemnation, the Old Golden Eagle hotel still stands at the corner of Sixteenth and San Pablo, and the city legal forces are now considering three ways of eliminating the edifice, according to officials in the city attorneys office. The board of condemnation last night, at a meeting, ascertained that its order of condemnation had not been carried out. The board then resolved to ask the city attorney to "take take proper legal steps" to abolish the old landmark which is the property of William C. Jurgens. Bestor Robinson, deputy city attorney, to whom the job was handed, says there are three methods of going after the building:
1—Physical destruction. 2—Criminal prosecution against the owner. 3—Sue in the superior court for abatement of the building as a nuisance.
SUIT IS PROBABLE
Robinson intimated that the third method would probably be followed. Robinson asserts that "the city ordinance concerning the condemnation of old buildings has never been tested," and therefore it might be dangerous to "go right ahead and smash down the building." Robinson asserts that the second alternative, criminal prosecution against the owner, is possible but might not stand if the basic ordinance were found to be inoperative. It was intimated that the Jurgens case, being the most important of its kind, might be brought into court as a thorough test of a city's right to condemn aged buildings after which the city's rights in the matter will have been established. Oakland Tribune, Thursday Evening, May 15, 1924

Thursday, May 14, 2009

November 7, 1961: 'Operation Padlock' Resumes

Building, Housing Code Enforcement Back to Normal Enforcement of Oakland's building and housing codes is back to normal today despite a running battle between Mayor John C. Houlihan and the attorney who knocked a hole in some of the laws. Building inspectors and urban renewal representatives reared back from their duties momentarily last week after Atty. Bestor Robinson warned they could be arrested under the federal civil rights law. Robinson, who had just won a Superior Court preliminary decision that some sections of the Housing Code are unconstitutional, warned of a "possible personal hazard in further operations under these sections." Robinson represents Richard A. Smith, lessee of the Portland Hotel, 476 Ninth St., which building department officials planned to close as part of the so-called "Operation Padlock." The hotel is owned by Mrs. H. D. Zaidel, of 781 Pomona St., El Cerrito. A top-level strategy meeting yesterday between City Manager Wayne E. Thompson, Jack E. Taylor, building and housing administrator, and city legal aides, produced these developments: 1—Pending a final order from Superior Judge Lewis E. Lercara, field representatives are continuing to enforce the various building and housing codes. Taylor said City Atty. Hilton J. Melby has explained Judge Lercara's action last week was only preliminary and no portion of the code has yet been declared unconstitutional. 2—That immediate action should be taken to delete from Section 1309 of the building code the provision that the section applies only to certain types of residence buildings built prior to 1909. This was one of Judge Lercara's major objections. 3—That if Judge Lercara's final order follows substantially his preliminary findings, it would not be advisable to appeal to a higher court. Instead, following the final order, the city will amend the codes to conform to Judge Lercara's opinions. 4—Melby pointed out that, between now and the Nov. 14 date set by Judge Lercara for settling of legal findings, the city may present arguments as to why he should amend his preliminary decision. Taylor said that since Judge Lercara had agreed to almost all of the objectives of the city regarding the Portland Hotel, if not the procedure, and ordered serious health and safety hazards corrected, he feels the city has a basis for arguing for retention of some of the questioned code provisions. 5—The city is proceeding to tackle a second test case involving another old hotel, the Liberty, at 805 Washington St. The owner, Raymond Dami, and the lessee, Howell Wong, have been charged with 14 counts of criminal code violations resulting from health and safety hazards. One of the hazards cited is a leaky toilet above a wholesale meat plant, according to Deputy Distr. Atty. Charlotte Cohelen. The case will be heard by Municipal Judge William Hoffman. Dami is represented by Robinson. Wong is represented by Atty. Raymond Louie. Since Lercara's action last week, Houlihan and Robinson have exchanged blistering letters over Robinson's warning to city representatives. Houlihan told Robinson his letter to Taylor and other officials may constitute criminal extortion. Robinson in turn yesterday challenged Houlihan to a court test of the extortion charge. Taylor in announcing that 'Operation Padlock' as well as other urban renewal and housing code enforcement activities is continuing as before emphasized that he has no intention of opposing the court ruling. "If Judge Lercara finds certain sections of our code are unconstitutional, I will certainly respect that order. It is our sworn duty to uphold decisions of the court. If the code is not equitable to the community, it should be changed so that it is," Taylor declared. Oakland Tribune, Tuesday, November 7, 1961