Napa woman given $18,000 after eviction for too many children

Home » News » Local

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Comment

By KERANA TODOROV
Napa Valley Register

2:30 p.m.Two landlords who evicted a tenant in Napa for having too many children have agreed to pay the woman $18,000, according to a spokesman for the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

The landlords settled the housing discrimination case without admitting liability, rather than go through hearing late last month with the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, said Bill Branch, spokesman for the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

The state agency in September alleged the two landlords discriminated against then-Napa resident Sonia Navarette for evicting her from her rented four-bedroom house on Sequoia Street because Navarette had given birth to a third child and was pregnant with a fourth.

Under state law the commission could have awarded up to $150,000 to the woman and each of her three children, Branch said.

One of the landlords involved in the case, Dottie Rentschler of Napa, on Wednesday strongly denied the accusations.

“It was never about the children,” said Rentschler, who bought the house from Arlene Dennett after the dispute began.

“At the attorney’s recommendation, we settled,” she also said.

She could not comment on the terms of the settlement without consulting with an attorney first to make sure there is no confidentiality agreement, she also said.

Dennett, of Richmond, could not be reached for comment.

Navarette moved out of the house in 2006, according to the accusation.

Stephen Cogswell, director of Fair Housing of Napa Valley, the nonprofit organization that helped Navarette filed her complaint with the state in September 2006, said Navarette now lives in Indiana.

“She really didn’t deserve to have this happen to her,” Cogswell also said, in reference to her eviction.

The house was rented under the Section 8 program, the federal program that helps with low-income residents.

Jan Maurer-Watkins, housing manager with the city of Napa Housing Authority, the agency that administers the program in Napa said she could not comment on the case because of confidentiality issues.

Branch, the spokesman for the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, said his agency filed close to 1,100 housing discriminations during the fiscal year 2006-2007.

The state Legislature has determined that it is important to have enough housing available for families with young children, Branch said.

67 comment(s)

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 1, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Man I dont deny she was probably treated unfairly, but come on she's on section 8 housing, can barely afford herself and the kids she already has, but she's just gonna keep pumping em out isnt she??

Rediculous "

Dirty Napkin wrote on May 1, 2008 3:23 PM:

" Good for her. Renters have rights too! "

tgrl707 wrote on May 1, 2008 3:27 PM:

" i have no issue with the section 8 program, i think it is great that there is a program out there to help families get back on there feet....the problem for me comes when a family who is receiving assistance because they can't afford the cost of living continues to have children. why is that fair? i think there should be guideline for people when awarded these luxurys. if you can't afford to support your family now, what makes you think that having more children will get you any closer to getting off assistance? because there are no rules, people take advantage of these programs and the people who really need it, are on a 2 year waiting list. i don't think she should of been awarded any money- "

Sassy1 wrote on May 1, 2008 4:24 PM:

" I agree with tgrl707...we all need help sometimes I dont deny that, been there done that, went back to school, got a good job and no longer needed help. But while it was there I thank you every day for it but I didnt abuse it!!!! NOW you need to have some rules, times change. We have Sec 8 and these assistant programs out there for a reason and those of you who abuse it are hurting those who are willing to use these programs for what they are designed for.

I think the waiting list for housing last time my son checked was 3-5 years and he was told race was an issue, he was not hispanic therefore was told probably be 5 years....whats wrong with this picture? "

Redredwine wrote on May 1, 2008 5:01 PM:

" It sounds to me that tgrl707 and Sassy1 are bitter! I do agree that she should have not been getting pregnant again if she can not support her family as is. And the fact that "race is an issue" and thats why Sassy1 son was told there was a 5 yr. waiting list is ridiculous!! C'mon that doesn't sound right?? I agree with Dirty Napkin, Renters have rights too!! "

irishman wrote on May 1, 2008 6:02 PM:

" its great she got the money now the state should make her pay back the section 8 money and also the cost of having the kidds, and food stamp money.etc, etc,etc,etc, "

napablogger wrote on May 1, 2008 7:10 PM:

" tgrl, 90% of the people on these social welfare programs are there due to poor judgement like this renter. That is why social programs never seem to help in the long run. All they do for almost all the people in them is feed the problem by making it easier to continue their poor judgement and irresponsible ways. They ought to do a survey of section 8 landlords and see how many of them are happy with the program. I bet not many. "

steph wrote on May 1, 2008 7:44 PM:

" Yes, NB, we're reading a lot here about renters RIGHTS, but nothing about RESPONSIBILITY. The war on poverty would do well to begin with ending free handouts that perpetuate chronic poverty and irresponsibility. "

vocal-de-local wrote on May 1, 2008 10:21 PM:

" It sickens me to hear a story like this. She's on section 8 and pregnant with a fourth child? Where's the common sense? And now she is rewarded with $18,000 because the landlords probably did not want their home destroyed by an excess number of people? I do believe landlords should have a legal right to limit the number of people living in their rentals. This woman has, and will continue to be rewarded by the system for having more children. This is nuts.

It's promising to see so many people posting here who see that such government enabling is unhealthy for both our system and those who are presumably benefiting from it. I am a strong believe in affordable housing and taking care of those who really need it. But when you see a woman already on section 8 having more babies, which ultimately affects her ability to find employment and get off of government assistance, it's a sure sign something is terribly wrong.

Additionally, children born to parents who lack resources cannot possibly be very good providers. How can you nurture a child when you're barely surviving? What are these people getting out of having four children when they probably can't afford one? Someone, please explain this to me?

"

tgrl707 wrote on May 1, 2008 11:36 PM:

" Redredwine- in reference to your comment about being bitter, if you think that stating facts about some of section 8 takers is being bitter, then infact i am. i am bitter about people of the community regardless of race taking advantage of programs designed to help, i also had the opportunity to have assistance and then did what i had to do to better the life of my family, move on and let another family in need take my place. i too find it hard to believe that the housing authority would make a comment as it did to that persons son, as statements such as those could lead to a discrimination lawsuit, however, 3, 4, or 5 years is way to long for any family to wait, i would hope by then they wouldn't need assistance and there family would be on its way for the better....but then again....i must just be bitter! "

raybo wrote on May 2, 2008 1:43 AM:

" An award like this should do more harm than good. It will likely make more landlords avoid Section 8, thus making it harder for the poor to find housing. In any case, having more babies is not the answer. "

yamamama wrote on May 2, 2008 3:56 AM:

" Maybe someone can explain Section 8 housing to me. What I would specifically like to know is why a landlord allows their property to become Section 8 housing. What is in it for them? It seems that when the housing market is tight, it would more profitable to the landlord to not be involved in this program. So why do they do it? Just wondering . . . "

savetycoon wrote on May 2, 2008 8:39 AM:

" What i want to know is why does she keep popping out kids. especially if she cant support them. Its understandable if you have 1 or 2 children on a section 8 program. but 3 and 4. no way. this woman has no common sense. BIRTH CONTROL, CONDOMS people, its not rocket science. Have protected sex, or better yet, instead of having sex, go and get a job to support the children you all ready have.! "

winemd wrote on May 2, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Unless I am mistaken, the amount of rent paid by the renter is based on their income. The difference between that rate and the market rate is paid by the goverrnment program. There are certain standards the housing has to meet, and a perception that the renters will not be resposible with the property, so many landlords don't choose to have section 8 housing. But from a monetary standpoint, it doesn't make that much difference to the landlord, unless you factor in maintenance and upgrading issues. "

News_Chick wrote on May 2, 2008 8:53 AM:

" To yamamama's question: Section 8 is a government sponsored program - therefore the landlord is guaranteed to receive their monthly rental payments like clockwork directly from the program, not the tenant. "

Skip M. wrote on May 2, 2008 10:57 AM:

" (Part 2) I have known many women on assistance (my ex-wife was one). Most know the rules and play the game quite well. In the case of my ex-wife, she left me when I got a job that paid too much for her to remain in general assistance. She saw this as me trying to take her money away from her. This is a common thread amongst many I have personally known who are chronically drawing aid. So it clearly stands to reason that this woman would want to settle this case for so little when she stood to gain so much. If she were awarded $150,000 for herself and each of her children, which would be $600,000 not counting the unborn child ($750,000) if that one were included. But, if she won such an award, she would lose her General Assistance, Food Stamps, Medical, and other tax-payer funded support. On the other hand, she could have bought a very nice home for cash, and gone to school to earn a undergraduate degree in whatever she wanted, and live very comfortably the entire time. To my thinking, she just threw away the winning lottery ticket. "

Skip M. wrote on May 2, 2008 10:58 AM:

" (Part 1) I think the issues here are getting a little off track. When a property owner offers their housing unit (single family home, or apartment), the primary concerns of that property owner/landlord should be; 1) Is the rent paid on time? 2) Is the property being maintained per the rental agreement? If the answer to both of these questions is “yes”, there should be no other concerns for the property owner/landlord. I see landlords continuously rent to people they know are drug dealers and gang-bangers, and do nothing adverse to those people as long as the rent is paid on time. This woman was simply raising her family, which (last I checked) is not a crime. This was a four bedroom house. Four small children in a three bedroom house would not be unreasonable since all you really need is a room for the boys and a room for the girls. If this home were in an “Adults Only” community, the property owner might have some grounds, but as far as I can see, this is not the case here. Based on what I have read in this article, which is a summarization at best, I would have liked to see this woman end up owning the home. By all appearances, the first landlord seems to have sold the property to the second in an effort to dodge the claim by the tenant. As for someone continuing to have children when they cannot support the ones they have, I agree with those who see this as poor decision making on Ms. Navarette’s part. But this is not China. There are no laws regulating how many children one may have. "

" Good for her!! It's not up to anyone but her to decide how many children to have or what she can afford. The cost to live in this town is rediculous!! Obviously that why she got out!!! Good luck Sonia:) "

realitybites wrote on May 2, 2008 11:44 AM:

" The Napa Fair Housing Program, who assisted in the filing of the complaint, is funded, in large part, by the very section 8 housing program itself (The Napa Housing Authority). Seems like a slight conflict of interest to me. The Section 8 Programs signs a contract with the landlord and then funds and organization that helps the tenant file an action against the landlord.

I only wish we could hear more from the landlord about the alleged real reason for terminating this tenant.

You'd have to be pretty ignorant to terminate a tenant because she was having another kid in this day and age. Where was this tenants "mentor"? Where was the housing authority or their non-profit step child at when it came to helping the landlord avoid this complaint?

It should be a lesson to landlords everywhere - seek legal advice from a licensed professional. "

Sassy1 wrote on May 2, 2008 3:32 PM:

" tgrl70 i couldnt have said it better myself
thank you "

danigirl wrote on May 2, 2008 7:27 PM:

" Did anyone stop to think that maybe her kids were destroying the property that she was renting? Let's face it, renters never take care of a home like an owner does, and being that they pay almost nothing for rent or deposit, section 8 renters tend to not care about damage that they cause. I know this for a fact from people I have known in my past.
I agree that it is outrageous that someone on section 8 be allowed to dig themselves a deeper hole by having more babies. I am all for helping someone out when they are down and out, but it really burns me that I work so hard everyday to pay my way and the taxes that support these programs. By all means, have as many babies as you want; just don't do it on my dime! "

coigue wrote on May 2, 2008 9:53 PM:

" What a bunch of judgemental people we have here. What's the matter, bored with Brittney Spears? "

steph wrote on May 2, 2008 11:19 PM:

" Well, it OUGHT to be that the people footing the bill have the right to judge. I'm just appalled at those who feel a freeloader should just be able to do what she wants and expect ME and YOU to pay for it! What an outrage! So, yes, I'm all judgy, and I judge that this woman is irresponsible as a citizen and as a mother. And we as a society are irresponsible for letting her get away with her sloth and greed. "

kvm wrote on May 4, 2008 9:40 AM:

" I suspect there's a lot more to this story than what we read in the article. However, having said that, it is wrong to have more than two children when the planet's population is 6.6 billion. It is wrong to bring children into the world when you cannot support them. And a clue that you cannot support them is by being on public assistance. Having children is a choice, not an inevitable consequence of existence, like aging. We should cut off funding to recipients who produce children while on the dole. Subsidizing heedless breeders takes money away from education, emergency services, and funding to help people the elderly and the disabled. "

VJ07 wrote on May 4, 2008 12:52 PM:

" Please people... speculation, broad conclusions, assumptions made without proper information, and snobby judgemental comments. Why don't you just Google Napa Section 8 Housing, EDUCATE yourself first, and THEN make a sensible, accurate comment! Some just choose to believe that "ignorance is bliss"...... "

vocal-de-local wrote on May 4, 2008 2:41 PM:

" kvm, I couldn't have said it better. You and Steph hit the nail on the head.

VJO7, this is not snobbish judgment. It's practical judgment. We have a limited amount of resources on this planet. Our salmon and bee populations are showing signs of distress and so are people who are beginning to face the reality of a diminishing worldwide food supply.

The reason we are in this boat is because of enabling. Populations are restricted to the amount of resources they either produce themselves or are provided by outsiders. Populations artificially expand beyond the levels that nature can sustain when people are enabled to have more and more children beyond their own capacity to care for them.

We have been held hostage to phrases like "snobbish judgment" for much too long. Why don't YOU do a search on "government enabled population growth" so that you understand just how much damage we are bringing upon ourselves as a result of such enabling.

We must send a clear message to mothers like Sonia who over produce and then expect someone else to raise their offspring - such selfishness is no longer acceptable. If taxpayers are paying for food and housing (taxpayers ultimately pay for section 8 housing), taxpayers are "raising" these children. A mother should restrict the number of her children to the level of her own resources minus any assistance. Government enabling will destroy the quality of ALL of our lives and we are now forced to put our foot down. We don't all want to be subjected to living a life like Sonia just so she can have more children at our expense. This is good common sense. Snobbery is just another word used to manipulate the system of enabling. "

jenniem wrote on May 4, 2008 9:02 PM:

" For all of you who are juging Sonia as a bad person for her love of her children and thinking she is a bad mother and just living on our taxes, should be ashame of yourselfs for talking about her and not knowing how Sonia really is. Sonia loves her daughters very much and take very good care of them. Sonia is very young and had her first daughter at a very young age. Just to let you know Sonia works two and three jobs at a time to try to make a go of it. She is not on WELFARE, SHE WORKS, but it is just not enough money to take care of her children and meet the high cost of living so she asks for a little help after all as she does work she does pay taxes also. At least she is not in the streets with her children starving. With the cost of housing and rent a lot of people with good jobs still can't afford the housing cost but yet who critics them and says they should stop having family. People who do not have all the facts should not be so opinionated until they do know all the facts. "

tgrl707 wrote on May 5, 2008 9:23 AM:

" jenniem- since you seem to know so much about sonia then maybe you can clarify for all the readers, if sonia can't afford the cost of renting with 3 children, then why would she decide to get pregnant again? last time i checked, having children is very expensive- diapers, formula, food, ect.... which again leads us to say...stop having children if you can't afford them. "

realitybites wrote on May 5, 2008 10:45 AM:

" There is no time limit on receiving Section 8 housing. The program continues to pay a tenant's rent (or a portion thereof) until the tenant no longer qualifies based upon income.

Thus, why would a tenant stop producing children or find suitable employment when they only stand to loose their housing assistance? The program rewards those who continue to have children and remain under-employed or unemployed.

It's not like the Section 8 programs stops paying after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. It never stops as long as the tenant qualifies based upon income. The more children a tenant has, the higher the income level a tenant can make before they loose Section 8 housing assistance.

The housing assitance system, as currently structured, rewards those who remain in poverty and have children they can't afford to support. "

70chevelle396 wrote on May 5, 2008 6:36 PM:

" I dont know why my comments on this story never seem to go on here. "

109823 wrote on May 5, 2008 9:49 PM:

" reallitybites, sounds like you're very aware of the aspects of the Section 8 program. It's to bad this area can't be reviewed by the powers to be and restructured to end rewarding women for having more children. We like a lot of adults chose to have just two offsprings to replace ourselves but there are cultures that aren't intelligent enough to realize that the population of the world is rapidly approaching dangerous levels and very few countries like China have limits on how many kids families can have. We reward with tax refunds for dependents. This should be up to 2 children anything over and you should have to pay. That might have some effect on the current birthrate in the U.S. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on May 6, 2008 7:39 AM:

" I'll try again. No one except the land owner should dictate who, how many or how long a tenant lives in a home. It's the home owner who is responsible for over crowding, insurance, parking availability, noise, nuisance and abuse to property, not to mention the costs entailed by over crowding a house w/too many people.

NO ONE!!! Not the city, county, state, Fed Section 8 authorities, etc. should have ANY say about how a landlord rents property.

If I owned property, and it was, say a 3 bedroom home....I'd say 5 people maximum! That's reasonable and responsible. Any more and you're crowding, specially if three of the 5 or more are drivers.

Renting property involves more than what happens within the walls of the structure..it involves the neighborhood, as well and how the rented property effects that neighborhood.

Enough politically correct tripe. Get the ACLU, Federalies and other power players jockeying for a dependent voter block out of tax payers' way. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on May 6, 2008 7:52 AM:

" Steph & kvm....WOW! You both are spot on and absolutely right! Nothing else needs be said...you've about wrapped it up...don't breed if you can't afford it..don't breed because the planet is strained w/too many people as it is and if you can't keep care of yourself, don't expect taxpayers and property owners to pay your way. Someone said something like, 'last I looked, you can have as many kids as you want, this isn't China.'

Well, it SHOULD BE! Obviously people are too dumb to control themselves. Too many people, kids.

It Isn't rocket science...it's common sense. If you don't have that, don't have kids. I say, give a test for having children just as for applying for a drivers' license..if you don't pass...too darn bad! "

realitybites wrote on May 6, 2008 8:29 AM:

" It seems a bit odd that the rhetoric posted here has turned to population control - rather than the governmental agency that paid the tenants rent and then paid an agency to assist the tenant in filing a complaint against the landlord. Although population control and the environment are both extremely important issues, you don't hear any politicians taking up to the torch to limit the number of children a couple can have. What about having the parents post a bond if they want to have more than 2 children?

It's been a long time since landlords were "free" to rent to whomever they choose. In order not to discriminate against "families with children" the government mandates that the landlord accept applications from prospective tenants who fit within occupancy standards. The general rule is 2 plus 1 - each bedroom can hold 2 occupants and 1 additional occupant for a common room. Thus, a landlord must accept an application from a family of 5 for a two bedroom unit. This standard changes based upon the actual square footage of the bedrooms.

The landlords in this story should have consulted legal counsel before they decided to terminate this tenant. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on May 6, 2008 9:05 AM:

" Realty bites, I don't care what the government mandates...if it is MY property; I do w/it as I please! If I don't want ANY kids living in my home, then SO BE IT!

The government is in our lives TOO MUCH turning this country into a welfare state, entitlement junkie population which expects to steal from Peter to give to Paul.

I repeat, who cares what the gov. mandates...if I want no kids in my house...that's how it's going to be!

AND it is a question of overpopulation...every single issue in all the blogs here on the Register site...building, growth, water issues, housing issues, mandates, "affordable housing," traffic, law breaking ALL boil down to the same common denominator....

Frustration and crowding as a result of TOO MANY PEOPLE. Deny that and you may as well give it up.

That woman w/4 kids on the public dole is a burden and deficit to this society...on Sec. 8 or NOT. "

jellybean wrote on May 6, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Sounds like yet another additional problem us Americans are having in our Social Services arena. This is the epidemic I like to call "Bite The Hand That Feeds You"

To irishman...I agree with you. She should pay the Sec 8 funds back with her winnings, whether she skipped out of California to Indiana or not! Pay it BACK Ms Navarette. Our govt has helped you in your time of need, it's time to pay your debt to OUR society. "

realitybites wrote on May 6, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Concerned Citizen:

I appreciate your position. I too believe that government intrusion has gone way overboard. I also believe that the socialist programs put in place as a result of the "New Deal" and President Johnson are outdated and have produced a segment of society that believes they are somehow "entitled" to what the rest of us work hard for. I also believe that population control and environmental issues should be the central discussion in this coming election. Instead it's the endless war for oil and health care reform.

The facts are the facts, whether you "care" or not. The Napa Fair Housing Program and similar programs throughout the US send "testers" or "actors" if you will, into the community to look for fair housing violations. The Napa Fair Housing Program provides these "testers" with fake identification, credit reports, references, the whole works, looking for violations. Your own tax dollars hard at work looking to bust landlords "who don't care" about the law, as currently written.

I personally respect a landlords right to do as they please with their property. I don't believe that unlimited Section 8 housing or "testing" is a proper use of tax dollars. However, this article clearly demonstrates that big brother is watching and it can be expensive if you get caught in their nets. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on May 6, 2008 1:38 PM:

" Thanks Realitybites! You said it better and I concur 100% "

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 8, 2008 12:29 PM:

" 1. Navarette’s section 8 status has nothing to do with her landlords’ violations. It's an ad hominem attack and irrelevant.
2. Private Property rights allow an owner only four basic privileges: 1) Right to Control 2) Right to Benefit 3) Right of Transfer 4) Rights of Exclusion. When a landlord decides to rent her/his property, they have exercised all their rights but have also waived the right total exclusion. The house is now a commodity and as such, subject to the rules of business decided by society at large. After all, the property owner has the "right" to keep their property off the market too.
3. By choosing to place the house on the market, they are accepting society’s dictations about how they can use this property in relation to others.
4. While simplistic mutterings of "government intrusion" and "New Deal socialism" appear to provide a quick answer to perceived injustices, they fail to address the fact that both landlords chose to rent to section 8, agreed to abide by state rental laws, and willfully violated these laws.
5. Finally, why don’t all of you just come out and say it: you think she’s a free-rider welfare queen and deserves every injustice she gets? That as long as she’s “not working” she doesn’t deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, or justice?

I’m surprised no one on this board has started ranting about “state’s rights.”

I chuckle to myself every time I read a Napan defend white collar crimes while deploring the desperate actions of the poor.

And of course, the two are never related……..

"

realitybites wrote on May 8, 2008 1:22 PM:

" To Dr. Faustus - I beg to differ. Did you read the portion of the article that says the Napa Fair Housing Agency assisted in drafting the complaint? Isn't that agency funded in large part py the Federal Housing Progam that pays the rent? I have a problem with that! I understand that discrimination is discrimination, whether it be a Section 8 tenant or not. We don't know what the real reason was for the termination notice, let alone whether the alleged violation was "willful" or not.

My problem is with the governmental program paying the rent and then assisting in the filing of the complaint. Why didn't the Fair Housing Agency contact the landlords and assist them in avoiding the claim? I'm sure the landlord could have rescinded the notice if it was truely improper. "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 8, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Dr. Faustus - You are my new hero! Wonderful comment, well done! "

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 8, 2008 6:11 PM:

" Realitybites:

Conflict of interest? Cui Bono?

It is the responsibility of the landlord to make sure that they are in full compliance with the law. These two individuals had every opportunity to assist themselves with avoiding the claim.

Furthermore, had this case gone to administrative hearing they most likely would've lost - hence the settlement. Taking into account the move to settle and the enormous fee - $150,000 for each child and Navarette - it's not unreasonable to assume that substantial evidence exists showing both landlords willfully attempted to violate the law.

Possessing private property does not entitle the holder to carte blanche behavior. "

realitybites wrote on May 9, 2008 7:55 AM:

" There is no evidence that the landlords acted willfully. Your assumption that the landlord acted willfully is a mere assumption. Furthermore, the chance of the tenant settling the claim if she had actual proof of a "willful" act is unlikely given the magnitude of the potential award.

What is more likely is that the attorney fees to contest the "alleged" violation were more than the actual settlement amount.

I've never said a landlord can do as they please with property placed on the market. I personally don't believe the government has any business dictating the termination terms, however, I fully understand the law as currently drafted.

What bugs me is my tax dollars going to pay the rent AND assisting the tenant in her complaint WITHOUT first contacting the landlord and offering some guidance. I see a conflict there, sorry you don't. The government is a thrid party to the contract between the tenant and the landlord. The government should not get to choose to assist the tenant in a contract wherein they are a third party, while they remain silent when it comes to the landlords duties. "

steph wrote on May 9, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Faustus is wrong. Ms. Navarette's dependence on the charity of taxpayers to raise her children, even as she makes more children, is indicative of her character. It's not a strenuous exercise to imagine at least three possible justifiable reasons for her eviction, such as negligent destruction of property she doesn't own or care about, or, not paying her portion of the rent on time, or, regularly having more than the allowed number of "visitors" staying in her home. If Ms. Navarette's welfare was providing a steady, trouble-free income for the property owners, what reason would they have for evicting her? Fortunately for Ms. Navarette, she had an enabling behemoth state agency for legal protection, should she at any time choose to invoke the untouchable "discrimination" defense in a distraction from her own behavior. Hence, the settlement. $18,000, while an injustice to the property owners, was at least quicker and less costly than the type of attorney necessary to defend against the endless resources of the State. Faustus, you may feel like a hero for patronizing the poor. But not holding people accountable for their actions, not asking them to take personal responsibility or learn from or correct their mistakes keeps them poor. It's not helpful. Wealthy and middle class people are often very responsible, on the other hand, and we resent coddling those who help themselves to our paycheck and then cry "foul" when things don't always go their way. I am curious, though, what white collar crime caused Ms. Navarette to produce these four children she can't care for without welfare?" "

vocal-de-local wrote on May 9, 2008 5:50 PM:

" Steph, Your posts indicate the type of level headed person you are. I really appreciate reading them and I agree with almost everything you say.

However, I disagree with one point you made. Middle and wealthy income people can also be irresponsible. Poor people exist, and for whatever reason, some will remain poor no matter what.

We are not all born with identical potential. Someone who is born small cannot make themselves big, unless they use lifters in their shoes. Someone who is born with limited cognitive function cannot enter medical school and become a doctor. Granted, we have some flexibility with cognitive growth but it's limited by our genetics. We cannot add lifters to our brains (as our educational system would like us to believe)!

There are poor people who do NOT reproduce irresponsibly. And there are poor people who are also justifiably dependent on government programs like section 8 because they can only make minimum wage at a fast food restaurant the rest of their lives. Some people will never be able to enter the more complex and demanding workplace due to the limitations they were born with. It's not their fault.

I do however blame people with such limitations for having too many children when they can hardly afford to care for themselves. Government assistance should not be used as an excuse to reproduce at high rates and expect someone else to pay for it. I'm sure poor people would like to join the ranks of the middle and upper middle classes, but one thing is certain, having children will make that goal harder to achieve. I'm ok about some forms of dependency as long as the dependent are responsible. People like Navarette ruin it for the "responsible poor".

"

steph wrote on May 9, 2008 9:28 PM:

" Well, Vocal, touche. Thank you for making an important point. It is possible that Miss Navarette is intellectually challenged. I'd not considered that possibility, and frankly, I'd be at a loss in that case as to what is "right." Still, it is alleged that she was evicted for having too many children, not for being intellectually challenged. However, in the larger picture, your point brings up more questions, such as how do we as a society effectively help challenged people to be more responsible and safe and happy and productive. I do maintain that we'd have plenty of money for vital social services and public works if those who COULD take care of themselves and be responsible would do so. "

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 10, 2008 1:38 PM:

" “Your assumption that the landlord acted willfully is a mere assumption.”

Yes, but not an unreasonable one. There’s nothing wrong with making assumptions; irrational assumptions are the one’s to watch out for. For example: the assumption Ms. Navarette must be to blame because she’s poor.

There is no logical reason to bring up Ms. Navarette’s economic status. Her income - or lack thereof - has no bearing on the issue. Both Vocal-de-local and Steph are almost obsessive about her section 8 status, how many children she has, and her overall social status. Neither one of you – or others for that matter – would keep returning to this non-issue if you didn’t feel it was somehow relevant. In other words, you’re both blaming Ms. Navarette because she’s poor. And there’s something else here too: a tacit admission that it is entirely possible Ms. Navarette’s children had something to do with the eviction – and many of you feel such a case would be perfectly acceptable. Otherwise why would you begin touting property rights, personal responsibility, and all the other Reaganite mumbo-jumbo?

No, this has nothing to do with ‘justice’ or ‘fairness’ or ‘equality’; no, many of you here are blaming her because she’s poor. And I’m sure the last name Navarette only fuels your sense of righteous conviction.
"

vocal-de-local wrote on May 10, 2008 7:04 PM:

" Fuastus, you're jumping to conclusion. For one thing, I have nothing against someone being poor. But we MUST begin addressing the problem of those who are poor who ALSO have more children than their ability to support.

Why are some women doing this? I think we all know why. Perhaps YOU can offer an educated reason why this is happening. Each child brings a certain amount of income with it? Might that have something to do with it? My mother worked in social services. I grew up observing things, listening to conversations etc. What's your experience?

Our system is dysfunctional. Do you think it's ok to bring children into the world which cannot be cared for without government assistance? It's one thing to have an accident, one child situation. But we're talking four children and who knows how many more this woman is planning to have. It's not ok.

This is a very clear message to those women who think they can get away with it. Most of society doesn't want to pay for you or your children. You're dragging the middle class down who struggle to support their OWN children, put them through college etc. These services will be reduced in the future. Take a look around and face the reality of limited resources and rising energy costs. Do you think you can ride the social service lift forever? "

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 10, 2008 7:57 PM:

" In my opinion, the landlords received an early parole. They violated the law and served only 3% of their due sentence with no probation; and you all have the impudence to say they were somehow cheated? Make no mistake; these “agencies” are not, by any means, serving the interests of the poor or downtrodden. This was a dog-and-pony show. "

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 10, 2008 7:58 PM:

" I considered the settlement issue too. Ms. Navarette received 3% of what she entitled – why would she settle for so much less? I suspect Ms. Navarette had absolutely no clue about how much she was entitled to, and no one bothered to tell her.

In my opinion, the landlords received an early parole. They violated the law and served only 3% of their due sentence with no probation; and you all have the impudence to say they were somehow cheated? Make no mistake; these “agencies” are not, by any means, serving the interests of the poor or downtrodden. This was a dog-and-pony show.
"

steph wrote on May 10, 2008 10:10 PM:

" End of discussion. You pulled the race card. "

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 10, 2008 11:31 PM:

" Vocal-de-local: Do you honestly believe that woman across the country are sitting around their Formica tables plotting ways to get pregnant? The screaming toddlers, the colds, the daycare, the projectile vomit – all of that so she won’t have to work? That’s her grand scheme? Impregnate her way to easy street?

There are so many fallacies with your arguments I don’t know where to begin. Pregnancies tend to spike in refuge camps. Did you know that? I suppose it’s because they’re all enjoying the free beans and medical care, but it’s a fact that poor people tend to have more children. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why – sex is fun. When you’re uneducated, broke, and depressed, sex is about all one has left.

Corporate America and Globalization are destroying the middle-class vocal, not some dastardly mother on welfare. All other first world nations seem to be carrying their social burdens just fine – more or less – and they’ve been doing it for decades. Yes, they have debt - all countries do - but so do we. Except, in America, all of our debt gets us nothing but bombs, cops, and prisons. We're number one. Hoo-ray.

“My mother worked in social services….”

And my grandfather was in the Navy, but that doesn’t make me a sailor. "

vocal-de-local wrote on May 11, 2008 12:41 AM:

" Well, Dr. Faustus, as we head into the future and face greater competition for jobs, resources etc. we WILL be forced to limit reproduction. Unless some catastrophic event comes along like a virus that wipes half of us out, we will head in the direction of discriminating against those with too many children. In the future, it will be legal for a landlord to remove a tenant from their property for having too many children. In fact, the government will be forced, out of necessity, to reduce assistance to those who continue having children while on aid, including section 8. The government will someday revolve it's policies around population reduction.

We're not there yet, I know. But I am surprised that anyone would encourage a mother of three, dependent on government assistance and pregnant with a fourth child, to go after whatever monetary reward she could get. Is it not enough for her to bleed the system? Our lawsuit happy society is killing us and your mentality is the reason why.

Poor Ms. Navarette. She didn't know what she was entitled to. Unbelievable. "

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 11, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Vocal-de-local:

The United States is one of the largest countries on the planet with less than 1/3 of its population. There's plenty of land here. In fact, there are plenty of resources. The problem is that some people own more than others. We could conserve more resources if we switched from a consumerist vision of economic policy – a policy established post WWII – to one of thrift, quality, and conservation i.e. pre WWII. But those ideals are antithetical to consumerism, post-modern capitalism, and robust GDP growth.

I do find it interesting that your first thought is to preserve the economic system. Rather than addressing resource use and distribution – the more reasonable starting place when dealing with growing populations – you would prefer to police a woman’s womb; yet another clue in your support of Social Darwinism. I suppose that a license would be granted based on income? Only the rich may breed?

To consider population control is to admit that you believe some people are worth more than others. I do not have time to hold your hand through the reasoning but that is the philosophical conclusion to your belief. I happen to believe that all people are of equal intrinsic worth a belief you clearly do not hold.

steph:

I'd forgotten that race is no longer an issue in America. No reason to discuss it anymore. My apologies.

NValleyGirl:

Please forgive my rudeness. Thank you so very much for the kind words.

"

vocal-de-local wrote on May 11, 2008 10:26 PM:

" Faustus, there may be plenty of land here but it's not all agriculturally productive. And resources, including food, must be transported. Fuel and delivery prices WILL continue driving food costs up. At the very least, our resources will be limited by cost.

Additionally, climatic change of any type can make the food/population balance a little shaky. So how do you propose we feed all of those hungry people dependent on assistance when the middle class will be struggling? We really need to take preventative steps now in order to prevent suffering later.

If you've ever read any of my posts, I have applied population control toward everyone, rich or poor. It's just that the poor who are on government assistance tend to have more children than the educated middle class, so that's a better place to start.

There is NOTHING wrong with encouraging people to think about our environment and consider having fewer children to help the situation out. People must quit treating population control like a taboo subject.

My first thought is NOT to preserve the economic system. In fact, "expense" usually drives populations downward. I've posted a lot about this. Giving too many resources, without cost, to groups who tend to reproduce at higher rates is interfering with the natural "expense" that might discourage a higher reproductive rate. This is not social Darwinism, it's common sense.

And if I wanted to police womens wombs, I would be against abortion. The language you use in your post is emotional garble used to discourage any dialogue about over population. I really think can talk about this without interjecting such emotionalism into it. And truth is, I value people enough to have this conversation. Over population is the BIGGEST environmental threat of all. "

realitybites wrote on May 12, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Faustus - Where do you come up with this stuff? Now, your assuming no one informed the tenant of her rights? The article clearly states that Napa Fair Housing assisted her in filing the complaint. Tax payer dollars not oly paid her rent, they paid for someone to helped her file a complaint. Do you think this tenant paid for her attorney?

Despite the obvious erroneous assumptions, there is NO evidence the landlords actions were "willful" and NO evidence that the tenant was misinformed of her rights.

As to the issue of overpopulation - I sincerely feel that if you want to have more than 2 children, you should be required to post a bond to ensure that my tax payer dollars aren't used to raise your kid. There is entirely too many people having children they can't afford. Simple economics, if you can afford it, fine. If you can't, why should I pay for it?

"

vocal-de-local wrote on May 12, 2008 1:40 PM:

" Faustus, here are two excerpts you might want to read. The entire article can be found by googling ""Sea shepherd -The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?"

"Today racism, cultural rights, and the right to exploit nature for commercial gain are the weapons used to defend gross over-exploitation of species and the destruction of natural habitats".

And "Who should have children? Those who are *responsible* and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career. Whereas some people are engineers, musicians, or lawyers, others with the desire and the skills can be fathers and mothers. Schools can be eliminated if the professional parent is also the educator of the child. This approach to parenting is radical but it is preferable to a system where everyone is expected to have children in order to keep the population of consumers up to keep the wheels of production moving. An economic and political system dependent on continuous growth cannot survive the ecological law of finite resources."

"

MarkMiwords wrote on May 12, 2008 10:16 PM:

" Well, that's it, folks. I was considering purchasing a rental to help fund my retirement...... Not a chance, now. I'm not a wealthy person & I can't afford to get sued. I can only see all this as leading to having less section 8 units available in the future "

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 14, 2008 11:14 AM:

" Realitybites: Perhaps you should read the article a little more closely.

1) Napa Fair Housing (NFH) is not a public agency. It is a private non-profit which receives grants and donations – some of which from public sources – to fulfill its self-proclaimed mission.
2) Mr. Branch of the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission (CFEHC) – a public agency – stated Ms. Navarette could have been entitled to $600,000. NFH had no way of knowing how much Ms. Navarette could have been awarded; and because CFEHC is a quasi-judicial commission they could not tell her.
3) Guessing at how much Ms. Navarette could be entitled and/or advising her on how much to settle for could be construed as legal advice, and as such, requires the assistance of a lawyer.
4) I’m going to guess that a woman on section 8 housing couldn’t afford a lawyer.
5) I’m going to guess that a non-profit didn’t pay for one.
6) By admitting to us the amount the commission might have awarded to Ms. Navarette, Mr. Branch had let slip certain realities about the case. Of course, no one can officially point fingers. But by letting the public know the might-have-been potential of the case – coupled with the move to settle - we can construct a reasonable picture of the behind-the-scenes action.
7) There is no way the cost of defending the case would equal or exceed $600,000 – the potential award – unless the defense really had to fight the evidence.
8) Get a grip.

MarkMiwords: Good, fund your retirement with your own money.

"

Dr. Faustus wrote on May 14, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Vocal-de-local: Food and delivery prices continue to rise because of our method of transport – trucking - which is a little like delivering a tanker’s worth of oil in a million 23’ sailboats. There’s a lot of “should’s” in your thinking. To consider population control is to police a woman’s womb – bottom line. How else do you propose making sure people don’t have children? It’s not emotional garble; it’s simply the logical conclusion to what you’re proposing.

What’s considered “responsible?” Who’s considered “responsible?” Do you mean “responsible” in the capitalist sense of the word? What do you mean by “afford?” Should people be expected to project the future cost of inflation before planning to have children? Can everyone predict that inflation is will outpace their wage or industry and therefore they should hold-off on having children? You throw a lot of words around without defining them for us; or even yourself, apparently.
"

realitybites wrote on May 14, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Faustas:

Napa Fair Housing is a private non profit created by the Napa Housing Authority Director himself. They receive the BULK of their funds from The Napa Housing Authority.

As usual, you blog misses the point. Why did the tenant gave up her potential award of $600K? It wasn't because she was uniformed or without representation. Ever heard of legal aide? Another publically funded, though private non-profit organization that puts my tax payer dollars to work by invading the rights of landlords and abusing the legal process.

Well, I guess based on the article and your "assumption" that Mr. Branch is not an attorney, he must be giving legal advice without a license.

The reality here is there is no evidence of the landlord acting "willfully" or that the tenant was uninformed of the potential award. There are more than enough social welfare programs, be they private non-profits set up and funded by the public sector, to make sure that this poor tenant got another free ride. "

vocal-de-local wrote on May 14, 2008 8:38 PM:

" Faustus, you do have some valid points. Yes trucking is expensive. But reality dictates that food prices will continue rising and remain elevated because we often do not react to a situation until we are forced to. For example, people will continue driving big SUV's until fuel prices are so high that they can no longer afford it or until government increases registration and other fees for fuel inefficient vehicles.

I understand your concern about how we should determine who should have children. China does it by economically punishing those who have more than one. No one is told who can have children or how many children they can have. They are allowed choices but it will cost them.

I am a strong believe in social services for people who really need it. For example, my parents neighbor has a high functioning autistic adult daughter who works, but is still dependent on help.

But someone who is using social services, or rather social *resources*,
and continues bringing more children into the world, which further tax our resources, that's where I draw the line.

Such people should receive fewer and fewer benefits for each child. We need a resource bank which keeps tabs on environmental abuse. Having too many children is an abuse of our environment. We certainly shouldn't be paying people to have children! Do you agree?

I also think child tax credit should be eliminated.

I do not think we should purposely make food cheap (because high cost of living will discourage reproduction.)

We should offer free birth control for everyone.

"

Concerned Citizen wrote on May 20, 2008 8:21 AM:

" Faustus, I guess what the problem is....we have to determine what the meaning of "is" is. Your tristed and legally manipulative logic serves only one purpose...to keep money coming in to those who DON'T deserve it while bilking those who are trying to make an honest living.

You suggest that we have been given "insight" into the case by the quote of a very high settlement amount thus assumig that "defense really had to fight the evidence." Suggesting that there was great harm done to the tenant and illegal behavior on the part of the landlord(s).

Only if you swallow the idea that the gov. can enter into a personal agreement and force an issue. Section 8 or not, a landlord/property owner should not be expected to forfeit all rights and determinations about his property when entering into such an agreement.

Your terminology is very much legalese and very much accepting of dictates which the rest of us don't necessarily agree with.

Your case only holds water if others agree that it does....and we DON'T. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on May 20, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Vocal-de-local stated it best: "I also think child tax credit should be eliminated."

I completely agree. Why did this ever start, in the first place? What 'braintrust' came up with the idea of subsidizing child birth? Where is the family; extended family, in this picture?

Since when did we become more a socialist leaning society? And why?

I agree w/China's stance....you have kids, you pay. Period.

And Faustus, "policing a woman's womb?" No, let's just keep on "kidding" the world into a mindless, sardine cramped, high rise, polluted, angry and frustrated mess....that's the way to go.

And, all land is not plantable and not livable...and the resources/energy it would require to make it so would more than outweigh the fact that square miles exist which are not, yet, populated. This is the most specious and false argument thus far...that, because there are areas which do not host a large human population means there is "room to grow."

NOT SO! "

Adlede1 wrote on May 21, 2008 12:51 PM:

" I had to make a comment. I also had a situation like this where the woman was evicted for not paying rent (5 months) she was pocketing the govtment money and not paying rent, and on top of all this, I had to pay the sheriff, the movers and the storage, because she could sue me if anything she owned was stolen or destroyed, what a law, this woman also had 3 kids and 2 pets..go figure "

Adlede1 wrote on May 21, 2008 2:07 PM:

" had to make a comment. I also had a situation like this where the woman was evicted for not paying rent (5 months) she was pocketing the govtment money and not paying rent, and on top of all this, I had to pay the sheriff, the movers and the storage, because she could sue me if anything she owned was stolen or destroyed, what a law, this woman also had 3 kids and 2 pets..go figure "

Adlede1 wrote on May 21, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Have to make a comment. I also had a situation like this, where the woman was evicted (behind 5 months), she was pocketing the govetment money and not paying rent, and on top of all this, I had to pay the sheriff, the movers and the storage, because she could sue me if her property was stolen or destroyed, WHAT A LAW, woman had 3 kids and 2 pets.. go figure, section 8 is not for everyone "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: