Mar. 30, 2000

"My reputation is important to me, and quite frankly, I resent some of the accusations made tonight."

So said County Assessor Ken Reimers at a recent Chico Planning Commission meeting, in response to a collection of neighbors who accused Reimers of purposefully allowing a house in their midst to deteriorate. Reimers, they said, is a slumlord, who uses his elected office to find under-valued properties, buy them, and milk them for all the rent possible, without regard for the quality of renters, the condition of the property, or the effect on neighborhood property values.

But while Reimers hotly contests the charges, an Examiner review of Chico Building Department records shows that they are essentially correct. Reimers has been repeatedly cited for violations of the building codes, and his properties have a documented history of substandard conditions, faulty wiring, failed heating systems, and even rats.

"furnace vent" resting on a wooden cabinet	"fire damage" at a light fixture
"illegal wiring in bathroom."	"illegal wiring in living room."
"Dilapidated side porch and guard rail."	"missing guard rail at rear porch."
The above photos were included in a building department inspection report after a December 1987 fire in a building owned by Butte County Assessor Ken Reimers.

One property, the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity house, was so badly maintained that it can only be described as a firetrap. And indeed, it was plain luck that Chico didn’t awake one morning to find a burned-out hulk with sixteen dead fraternity brothers inside.

The house, at 811 Rio Chico Avenue, was once part of a stately row of houses in the 19th century suburb of Chico known as Rio Chico. But with the expansion of the university, the entire neighborhood was neglected, and it is now a collection of dilapidated rentals and fraternity houses.

Reimers acquired the building in the mid 1980s, and immediately ran afoul the Building Department. On October 29, 1986 Reimers was sent a notice of violation for constructing a deck without permits, and for operating a fraternity house without permits. It was subsequently determined that the deck was not attached to the building, and so didn’t need to be permitted. The fraternity went through the City’s use-permit process and was later granted a permit retroactively.

A year later, however, Reimers was again noticed for violations at the property. In a letter dated October 5, 1987, the Building Department described the property as "Substandard," "Unsafe," and "Dangerous." The inspector’s report noted many code violations, including:

• No heater
• Unsafe and dangerous electrical wiring throughout house.
• "Inadequate Sanitation," including no ventilation in two bathrooms, no drain at all in a kitchen sink and an inadequate one in a shower, and poor lighting on a stairway and in bedrooms.
• Structural hazards including an unsafe fireplace and chimney, no handrail in the stairway and on a porch, a side porch that was "dangerously dilapidated."
• Hazardous electrical wiring including "unprotected wall-mounted, wiring throughout... Exposed live conductors, several broken light fixtures, burned out receptacles, missing cover plates."
• Hazardous Mechanical equipment including a dilapidated wall heater, vent and vent conductor.
• Hazardous Plumbing including "pressure relief valves on water heaters not plumbed to exterior of building and properly terminated.

Reimers was given ten days to start repairs on the building, but it appears that no work was done at all. Certainly two months passed without any construction or repairs, and the building remained in an outright dangerous condition.

Then, disaster nearly struck.

In the early morning hours of December 4, 1987, the fire department was called to the property to douse a fire that had erupted from a light socket in a second story bedroom. The fire started at 3 AM and, fortunately, was discovered by a resident who had yet to go to sleep. According to the fire incident report, "the fire was confined to a wall mounted light fixture and the attached wiring. During the crew’s investigation, it was determined the entire building had sub-standard wiring. Crew found: overloaded circuits, faulty wiring, unsafe usage of extension cords and portable space heaters, and faulty smoke detectors."

Certainly the fraternity members can be faulted for many of the dangerous conditions, but their actions—extending extension cords from one room to another, overloading the few working sockets, and firing up portable heaters—were clearly attempts to make a dilapidated building livable.

The Fire Department was so alarmed at the condition of the building that a building inspector was awakened to investigate the situation immediately. But despite the alarm, and the clear danger as proven by the fire, the house remained occupied, and still no repairs were begun.

On December 17, Building Inspector Nelson George went to the structure and took photos of the building. The photos show fire damage around a light socket, loose and uninsulated wiring hanging freely from walls and ceilings, a furnace vent with obvious gaping holes laying atop a wooden kitchen cabinet, an inoperable smoke detector, and a clearly dangerous side porch.

The next day, December 18, Reimers sent a letter to Building Official Tony Baptiste. Reimers explained away the violations by saying that "I have had an ongoing communication problem with the house manager (Mr. Steve George)—the main problem has simply been a lack of communication in letting me know about problems." But despite whatever "communication problems" Reimers was having with the alleged building manager, it is a documented fact that he was notified via registered mail by the Building Department directly—over a month before the fire.

Reimers promised to complete the work over the Christmas holiday, when the students were out of town.

On December 21, however, Baptiste sent a letter to PG&E advising them of "an unsafe condition that exists at 811 Rio Chico Way. In my opinion, both the electrical and mechanical systems in this residence are in an extremely hazardous condition.... It is my recommendation that you have the building inspected and disconnect the utilities if you find them in a hazardous state."

Baptiste also sent a letter to Reimers the same day, declaring that the residents could not enter the building, except "only to retrieve personal belongings."

The work demanded by the City was apparently done, and Baptiste issued a notice of satisfactory correction on February 8, 1988.

But Reimers did not change his methods. Two years later, the same property was again cited by the Building Department.

On November 26, 1990 the Building Department inspected the house and issued a violation, calling the building "substandard" and "unsafe." The summary of the violation was remarkably similar to the one before the fire, and included:

• Upstairs water heater not working
• Some circuits not working, electrical coverplates missing, loose switches and receptacles, exposed wiring, etc.
• Several bedroom windows not operable.
• Poor hot water pressure, possibly caused by crimped pipe at water heater.
• Water heater vents are not properly terminated above roof.
• Upstairs toilet is plumbed with hot water and has a leaky ball cock.
• Underfloor area is open to basement unit, and is not rodent-proof from the exterior.
• Debris in side and rear yard
• Leaking swamp cooler.

This notice of violation was taken more seriously than the previous notice, and on December 20,1990 Reimers was given a letter of correction for the structure.

But the property remains a problem in the eyes of City inspectors. On June 16, 1999 Reimers was sent another notice of code violations. He was given ten days to "remove all rubbish, garbage, trash, junk and debris. Repair or replace all loose and/or deteriorated decking, steps, structural supports, handrails, electrical and plumbing." The required work was done, at least to the satisfaction of the inspector, and the fraternity remains in the building.

Although it’s no excuse, either legally or ethically, the problems at the Rio Chico property might be attributed to the difficulties in dealing with a fraternity. But other Reimers properties have similar difficulties, and the documentary record shows a callous disregard for the condition of his property, not to mention the safety of his renters.

The house at 170 East Sacramento Avenue, for example, has similar problems. The house sits in the well-maintained middle-class neighborhood behind the Veterans Hall on The Esplanade. Reimers bought the property in 1988 and immediately divided it and converted it to a rental. Neighbors now complain that it is an eyesore, is not maintained, and that Reimers rents to unsavory characters who trash the place.

In July of 1990, Reimers received a building permit to do some reconstruction, but allowed the permit to lapse in April of 1991 without asking for an inspection of the work from the building department. The City then issued a citation to Reimers, and ordered him to obtain a new permit and to have the work inspected. The following month Reimers reapplied for the permit, and the work was inspected and approved by the building department.

In June of that year Reimers installed an upstairs bathroom in the house. The work was fully approved by the building department.

On June 7, 1995, building inspector Lance Jessick was sent to the building in response to complaints from neighbors. Jessick noted that an "extension cord used to run power to other sections of house. Rats were supposed to have been eradicated prior to this. Were not."

On June 27, 1995 Reimers was cited for a code violation for the property for problems with the electrical system in the building. He was ordered to repair some inoperable smoke detectors, to "remove hazardous, illegal [electrical] feed to rear of building," and to cover open junction boxes and outlets. The report notes that "open splices are not allowed."

The next month, in response to an anonymous complaint, Reimers was cited for a second code violation, but the building file does not provide any other information.

The work demanded by the City was completed on November 3, 1995, at which time the building department signed off on it.

The next year, however, the City issued a third citation to Reimers, this for a public nuisance. He was given ten days to "remove the discarded branches, furniture, trash and debris from this property and from along the alley."

You almost have to work at it to get cited by the City. Typically, the Building Department will send a "notice of violation" to the owner, who is then given ten days to respond. The Department regularly grants time extensions, if it is apparent that the work will get done, and after it is the matter is dropped via a "letter of correction." Only when this process fails does the City embark on legal action and file citations with the court. Reimers, however, has a criminal file in Superior Court with three citations for the East Sacramento property. Each case was dismissed because the work was completed before Reimers was brought to trial, but the Reimers’ style of property management clearly riles City officials.

Not to mention nearby residents. Neighbors along East Sacramento say that Reimers’ property is a blight and is affecting their property values. Last weekend, while neighbors were mowing their small patches of lawn and taking advantage of the balmy day to plant flower gardens, Reimers’ property, badly in need of painting, sat unattended, with two empty beer kegs on the porch and a line of about fifty Budweiser bottles extending down the sidewalk.

The recent Planning Commission meeting involved a boundary line modification between two Reimers-owned properties on Hobart Avenue. Reimers asked the Commission to move the line 36 feet northward, such that the parcel at 1240 Hobart would increase in size from about 22,000 square feet to about 28,000 square feet, while the parcel at 1258 Hobart would decrease in size from about 15,000 square feet to about 9,000 square feet.

State law gives the Planning Commission no latitude in these matters. If the line change results in parcels that comply with City zoning laws, then the change must be granted. Still, the Commission refused to do so, and instead continued the matter.

The property at 1240 Hobart, like other Reimers property, has its own set of problems. The house is the old Eames farmhouse, constructed around the turn of the century on land purchased directly from Annie Bidwell. It is a large house, and at one time had a grandeur to it, but after Reimers purchased it, in 1978, it began a steady decline due to lack of maintenance.

The rest of the block was subdivided in the 1930s, and was known as the "Klondike Addition." Most of the houses are small, single story cottages on small lots. By the seventies the neighborhood had a variety of residents, student renters mixed with professionals and the elderly original owners. Nowadays the area is an oasis for young families buying their first homes, a surprisingly affordable patch of houses close to downtown and the university. A neighborhood pride is evident along Hobart Street, and on any given weekend you’ll find people working on their property.

When Reimers purchased 1240 Hobart he immediately tried to split the large lot into three parcels, with the apparent aim of building apartments. At the time, City zoning laws allowed high density housing in the entire swath of streets between The Esplanade and the railroad tracks, but Reimers’ application was the incentive for neighbors to organize to change the zoning. Led by Jim Jessee, who lives three doors down from 1240 Hobart, the neighborhood petitioned the City to rezone the area to single family residential, which would prevent any new apartment buildings from being constructed. The City Council finalized the rezone in 1979.

Simultaneously, the Planning Department denied Reimers’ request to split the lot at 1240 Hobart into three parcels, but did okay a split into two parcels. "Subdividing the existing single parcel into 3 lots," wrote thenPlanning Director Hoole, "would create a residential density which unsympathetic to the character of the neighborhood. Average parcel size in the area is approximately 10,000 square feet. The majority of parcels are developed for single family use and a substantial number of residents have expressed opposition to higher density development in their neighborhood."

"The [Planning Department]," he continued, "finds that a minor land division creating three parcels is not acceptable at this location. However, a design creating 2 parcels (approximately 11,000 square feet each) would be acceptable..."

Reimers appealed that decision to the Planning Department, and then to the City Council, but neither body agreed to overturn staff’s recommendation. Although granted the opportunity to split the lot in half, Reimers has not done so.

At the 1979 Planning Commission hearing, Reimers "maintained that his proposal would meet all City requirements, and that Mr. Jessee had caused the neighbors to be unduly concerned," according to minutes from the meeting.

Jessee made complaints at the time that there were four student renters at 1240 Hobart, each with their own car, and that parking and traffic were becoming an issue on the street. He believed that permitting the split would only worsen the problems. He is now quick to add that he has nothing against student renters. "There’s plenty of good student renters on our block," he said. "It’s the landlord that’s the problem."

Despite Jessee’s continued complaints about the renters at 1240 Hobart, and about Reimers allowing the property to deteriorate, there have been no citations or code violations for that property noted by the building Department.

Still, except for some foundation work done as soon as soon as Reimers bought the property in 1978, there have been no repairs requiring building permits for the next 21 years, until last year, when there was a flurry of activity, including a bathroom remodel, and other work.

The recent work, which Jessee and other neighbors applaud, has been done because Reimers’ son is now living in the house. Neighbors say that Reimers Junior is a welcome change from previous tenants, who they describe as loud and unpleasant, and sometimes as drug dealers.

"They would park in front of my house, with their engines running while one guy would run down the street for ten minutes," says one nearby neighbor. "It got so bad that I finally went over there and told them to have their customers park somewhere else. So they moved around the corner."

This neighbor also alleges that the house had another thing in common with other Reimers property: no heating. "We had three nice girls living there a few years ago," says the neighbor. "But they said they wouldn’t pay the rent until the heat was fixed, and so Reimers evicted them."

"I’ve been watching this situation with sadness," Jessee said at the recent Planning Commission meeting. "This is a big lot, right in the center of the neighborhood, and it’s been turned into a dump and milked for all the rent possible, and absolutely nothing done to it for all this time.

"Every complaint that you have ever heard about slumlords and how they wreck a place—Mr. Reimers is a classic example of it.

"In fact, I sometimes think it is intentional in that he can continue to run down the neighborhood and property values and buy them up cheap and have more student rentals."

Reimers, however, points at his recent attention to the property, after 21 years of neglect, as proof that he’s a responsible land owner. "I spent a lot of time out there over the summer, watering the grass and mowing the lawn" he told the Planning Commission. "It’s not substandard. I’m an expert."

But Reimers makes no bones about his intention: he wants to move the boundary line 36 feet so that the resulting larger parcel can be split into three lots that meet the single family zoning designation. "I purchased [1258 Hobart, the next door property] in 1998, because I wanted this strip of property," he said.

There’s nothing illegal about buying an adjoining property in order to change the boundaries, but the details of the transactions left the Commission bewildered. It seems that Reimers bought the 1258 Hobart property, and immediately resold it, minus the 36-foot wide stretch of land, to a Mr. Glenn. The appraisal required for Glenn’s loan, however, was based on the Assessor’s parcel, which included the 36-foot stretch. Moreover, Glenn says he has been taxed on the larger property.

Glenn says further that he anticipates problems with his bank because if the Planing Commission allows the boundary line change, any foreclosure would be for property that he doesn’t own. He fears the bank may recall the loan immediately, and he may lose his house as a result.

Glenn doesn’t dispute that he doesn’t own the 36-foot strip, but is caring for the the property anyway. His primary concern is that the record is set straight. "I just want it settled," he said. And he asked the Commission to deny the boundary line modification until it is.

"I was kind of naive," Glenn told the Commission. " The other owner told me he was the Tax Assessor, and I based a lot of trust on that."

Reimers blames Mid Valley Title Company for the problem. "My office [the Assessor’s office] asks the title company to put a little note on it when you purchase a property and not all of it, but unfortunately Mid Valley Title made an error. They didn’t tell my office specifically."

"Now," he continued, "if someone from the loan company went over and appraised the wrong piece of property, I’m sorry, I can’t be held responsible for their not doing their job.

"How this affects neighbors two or three doors down is beyond me."

While the problem as outlined to the Commission might be expected to arise from a novice home buyer, it’s quite remarkable coming from the County Assessor himself. One would think that he would watch his own property transaction move through the system, but apparently not.

Now, though, Reimers is ready to use his office to solve the problem. "I will talk to the lender and the title company," he says.

The Commission, which includes two realtors, refused to act on the boundary line change, and instead instructed Assistant City Attorney Lori Barker to get to the bottom of the property dispute. Several Commissioners took the unusual step of advising Glenn to get an attorney.

"Frankly, the legality of this!" commented Jessee to the Commission. "How the hell does he sell a lot and have the mess that you just heard? And he’s the Assessor of the County, and he should know better.

"And I’ll go further. You look at all the property he’s acquired over 30 years and there’s a pattern—he’s used his office to find these properties and do these kind of things."