When Tony Lamont Brown barricaded himself inside the rental home last September, Portland police pulled no punches.
Brown was wanted for attempted murder in a domestic-violence case involving the woman living in the house on Northeast 81st Avenue.
Thus, the cops used explosives to breach the door, then lobbed tear gas inside. After several hours, the Special Emergency Reaction Team stormed the house and Brown was subdued.
Police were in top form. No harm, no foul, no unnecessary bruises.
Except, of course, to the house.
The house on Northeast 81st Avenue required more than $25,000 to repai Nguyet Le, who has worked for the U.S. Postal Service in town for the last 21 years, owns the rental. Officer Eric Zajac was especially helpful, she says, telling her to contact the city's Risk Management Division about the extensive damage.
Nguyet Le did just that. She asked the city to reimburse her for approximately $25,000 in damages, costs not covered by insurance, and more than $4,300 in lost rent.
The City of Roses?
The Bureau of Development Services first fined her $288.58 for code violations related to the damage.
Then City Risk weighed in. Its response is best summed up as: "Sue us."
"I can't agree to pay the full amount because we do not accept legal responsibility for property damaged due to the criminal acts of a member of the public," analyst Becky Chiao told Le in an email. "But I may be able to pay $5,000 as a settlement."
Le was stunned. "The city of told me I had to fix the house, or it would be fine, fine, fine, fine, fine," she says. "I was crying. Really. I didn't have the money to fix it."
Equally annoyed is Margie Sollinger, the city ombudsman.
"The facts are undisputed," Sollinger says. "The city blew up this woman's house."
While no negligence was involved, Sollinger adds, Nguyet Le has a "fair and moral" claim against the city, and Portland's charter requires that it be heard.
For most of the 20th century, the city honored that obligation to make citizens whole when it damaged their property in cases that didn't involve legal liability. In a 1983 memo, the city attorney acknowledged that the "most common type of claims ... is for damage to doors allegedly caused by Portland police officers pursuant to search warrants."
But in 1990, Sollinger says, City Risk pulled off a "silent coup." In a seemingly innocuous change, it took control of the committee that considered fair and moral claims.
That committee hasn't met since. City Risk decides when compensation for personal property damage is warranted, making sure those "good will" payments remain off Council's radar.
As Kate Wood, the City Risk manager, said in an email, "The Oregon Tort Claims Act, adopted in 1967, broadened standards for public entities' legal liability and provided a remedy to citizens. The underlying public policy for 'fair and moral' claims became unnecessary."
Wood tenders a 1990 opinion from deputy city Attorney Benjamin Walters as proof that the citizens' "first remedy would be through the tort process."
Sollinger disagrees, passionately. The "fair and moral" claims process is still locked in the charter, she points out, and Council reaffirmed that in April.
"The bureaucracy just decided to do things differently," Sollinger says. "They assumed authority they have no right to exercise. That's how we change laws around here. Instead of using the process, they go behind closed doors and opt not to follow the law.
"It's the tail wagging the dog. And it's such a perversion of our entire city government."
When I spoke Thursday morning to Tom Rinehart, the city's chief administrator, he conceded much of Sollinger's argument.
"Risk management leadership has taken that city attorney's (1990) advice and the OTCA change, and made it their operating guideline that they decide all claims. Then they report to council," Rinehart says. "That's been the operating MO of the city for a long time."
The two choices before Council? "Follow what's in code and charter," Rinehart says, "or clean that up, and update that to our current practice."
When Sollinger made that case to former Mayor Charlie Hales, he punted, as was his style. "I've tried to educate the last two mayoral administrations," she notes. "They're supposed to hear these fair and moral claims. They need to follow the law."
Will Ted Wheeler ever come to the aid of Le, who has spent $30,000 to repair damage done by police to ensure public safety?
So far, Sollinger -- who initiated dramatic changes at the 911 center -- is fighting this battle alone. She helped Le secure a refund for those insulting code violations, but she can't convince the city to give her a rightful hearing.
"There's still room for them to do the right thing," she says. "A small window."
-- Steve Duin
stephen.b.duin@gmail.com