Some people should not be involved in government

Just now, I was stopped at an intersection not far from my home when Sandra Motzer, crossing the street with her husband Tim, said loudly, “Oh god, there she is!” They passed in front of my car, Tim Motzer smirking.

Sandra Motzer, active in numerous neighborhood organizations including the councils, is someone who once wrote an email to other members of her neighborhood watch, several developers, and several apparent house flippers, talking about how parking strips could be marked and then the codes enforced to get renters in her neighborhood to move. Perhaps not so auspiciously for the homeless, she also chaired the Lake City neighborhood committee on Mayor Murray’s homelessness initiative. Tim Motzer is a former City of Seattle Parks and Recreation manager and, at least until Mayor Murray withdrew funding from the neighborhood council (I haven’t kept up on that; I hope  funding was not restored), was active in the neighborhood councils as well as a neighborhood watch member who attempted to intimidate renters in his neighborhood out of parking on public streets with a public display of anger and fist-shaking.

It’s hard to imagine that people like this exist, or that they would be welcome in local government in an increasingly diverse community of any egalitarian spirit. I’ve barely even met either of them and probably spoke with one briefly once or twice before their sentiments became clear. With behavior more fitting for high school than in community, it’s no wonder what has happened to me in my neighborhood; small-minded people are the spirit of mobbing. These are the people who would be enthralled by an old-fashioned shaming of those they cannot control.

Mean-spirited people who hide what they are in positions of supposed benevolence, small-minded people who drain city coffers with their nuisance complaints, their incessant and often bogus reports of civil code violations, their misuse of civil services including false reports to police, people like these who would try to run off those who rent or those they plain don’t like, should be excluded from leadership roles. This is the only way to create change for the better. The time for “leaders” like Tim and Sandra Motzer has long since passed.

 

Advertisements

On the mob and the decision of Mayor Murray to dismantle the Seattle neighborhood council system

A couple months back, someone sent me a link to SEIU 775 president David Rolf’s opinion piece in the Seattle Times, “Seattle’s neighborhood councils have raised selfishness to an art form” (July 25, 2016, http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattle-neighborhood-councils-selfishness-raised-to-an-art-form/). Preoccupied as I was much of the summer with the sad process of evicting a deadbeat roommate, I didn’t get around to it earlier. But that’s just as well since I would have missed including a link to The Stranger‘s acerbic headline on Mayor Murray’s attempts to deal with Seattle’s housing affordability crisis: “Seattle’s Neighborhood Councils Are Exclusionary, Self-Interested ‘Cartels,’ and the City Wants to Cut Ties with Them.”

In his attempt to hold back the growing “economic apartheid” that exists in Seattle, Mayor Murray issued an executive order defunding the neighborhood “cartels,” and should be issuing further legislation on the matter to city council chambers, well, just about now. (The Stranger, http://www.thestranger.com/news/2016/08/03/24422135/seattles-neighborhood-councils-are-exclusionary-self-interested-cartels-and-the-city-wants-to-cut-ties-with-them.)

David Rolf’s op-ed piece begins with a single statement that acknowledges the position of those who rent in neighborhoods like my own:

We should not use taxpayer money to support Seattle neighborhood councils that have an agenda excluding renters, people of color, the young, the poor and those who need social services from their neighborhoods.

Rolf’s comments that neighborhood councils consistently argue against new development do not address neighborhoods like mine in which watch and council members welcome the razing of existing single family houses in favor of new single family residences that can be sold at the million dollar mark, or for razing smaller, older properties to allow speculators on either side to “build out” before they flip the homes they own.

Continue reading

Mobbed in the locker room (part 1)

A windstorm cut through Seattle yesterday, felling trees and leaving a trail of debris. But that didn’t stop the parking lot at the Lynnwood Recreation Center from filling up.

Swimming has been a mainstay form of exercise for me since my childhood when my parents enrolled me and my sister into youth swim team. With a cycling injury that’s stopped me from taking long walks and bike rides for nearly a year now, swimming and gardening have been my only forms of exercise.

I was swimming at a pool in Shoreline, but that pool is now closed until June for repairs. Averse to the crowded city pools of Seattle, I’ve settled on the city of Lynnwood, about ten miles north of Seattle, as the best alternative for a pool with lap swim hours expansive enough to afford me, at least on occasion, the solitude of a lane alone. But this doesn’t stop the tenant clearers who have been working for nearly two years now to harass me out of my legal home in an anti-renter neighborhood in northeast Seattle.

This post describes how real estate mobbers criminally violate the privacy of others in order to harass me in those private spaces in the public domain: locker rooms and bathrooms.

Real estate mobbing, as I have experienced it in this lakeside neighborhood in northeast Seattle, means constant monitoring—watching—and harassment, within and without my home. The monitoring is enabled by stalking.

Monitoring describes a subset of stalking activities, but I haven’t been able to find a specific definition of it in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). But I took a second look at the RCW and it looks like when watching is performed for the purpose of harassment, it is legally defined in the State of Washington as stalking.

Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.46.110. Stalking. (2007)
(1)  A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:
(a)  He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and
(b)  The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and
(c)  The stalker either:

(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or
(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.

RCW § 9A.46.110 pretty clearly describes the manner in which I have been followed within and without my home and in and out of the State of Washington for nearly two years by a bunch of scumbucket real estate speculators or the harassers they hire to help them to harass residents from the properties they want. On a finer point, we could say that whenever they’re not committing some other crime enabled by the stalking, according to the law, they are stalking me.

The point of the stalking is to give chase, and the point of the chase is to make the tenant run. Real estate mobbing, as I have experienced it, combines techniques of surveillance with the form of harassment most effective for the victim’s environment in a cops-and-robbers approach to chasing a legal tenant out of her home. For those unfamiliar with this blog, I’ll recap.

Based on the fact that my mobbing began after years of bullying orchestrated by members of the neighborhood watch in my northeast Seattle neighborhood, bullying that demonstrated collusion between the “watch,” developers working the neighborhood, real estate agents and some apparent small-time investors and house flippers who bought the houses around me, and based on the fact that the criminal harassment that is part of my being mobbed at home is pretty clearly delivered from the houses to the north and south of me, this appears to be an American form of real estate mobbing, a form of harassment used to “clear” tenants from properties that speculators want. The methods of the harassers are so practiced that I must conclude they are professional harassers or have worked with professional harassers to learn their technique.

This method of “clearing” tenants is, no doubt, the dirty little secret of unethical developers and speculators, preferred because in treating the legal tenant like a criminal and investigating the tenant background for anything that can be used against him, the criminal harassers not only play to and profit off of the nastiness of anti-renter neighborhoods, but by pretending to be working for “the law” or other authority figures they are able to harass and harangue tenants into believing they are in legal jeopardy and then to get them to quietly “move on,” and keep their mouths shut.

The stalking that enables the harassment—much of which is legally considered cybercrime—is unceasing, continuing even during an individual’s most private moments. The formal opening of a mobbing, at least the point where civil harassment makes an obvious leap into the criminal realm, may come with the victim “overhearing” statements that let her know she is being watched inside her house. In my case, it was the voice of a neighbor two years ago, probably projected onto the window pane of my bathroom window, saying, “I turned down the mic. She’s in the john.” A woman responded, “Did they say we could do that?” The pretense that I was “overhearing” things was soon dropped as the mobbers began to constantly remark on my activities. This is a way to ensure that you know you are being watched, and to harass. In a single stroke, mobbers remove privacy and quiet from your existence. This is probably a pretty effective method of tenant clearing.

It’s an election year and a storm is afoot. Let’s talk about how the criminal harassers who call themselves “mobbers”—this “bad-boy” wave of real estate speculators—stalk and harass in public locker rooms and bathrooms.

Beware, these are the Ides of March.

(To be continued…)

Don’t steal cars near houses that are being mobbed

Last night the new owner of a home near me told me that a new Audi was stolen from his driveway earlier this month. I hadn’t heard.

If you’ve read my earlier blogs, you know that I’ve had security cameras. At present, I only have one, but after the new home owner told me about the loss of his vehicle, I checked my security footage to see if it included the stretch of time during which the Audi was stolen. It does.

At any rate, I told the home owner he could drop by and see if the framing of the video might make it worth reviewing or turning over to the police.

The thing is that, in my experience of this real estate mobbing, I am constantly being monitored. What is happening to me is a crime that is highly illegal. To protect their interests and those of their associates or supporters in the neighborhood watch, in development, and in real estate speculation, the real estate mobbers must monitor my driveway and the street. I have noted in the past that at least some of the harassment is quieted when police cars, cars with scanning radios, are close by me. This requires an eye on the street that I have assumed to be constant.

And that means that there may be a real estate mobber or professional tenant clearer, especially one who might have been working in the house to the north of me that is directly across the street from where the Audi was stolen, who might have seen something, and had a better view than my security camera, when the vehicle was stolen.

Because of the constant threats included in the harassment from the neighboring houses, harassment that has been intended to scare me out of my home, this column is anonymous. But I write a letter, at least monthly, that is addressed to the Attorney General, the Seattle City Attorney and other officials. And the police do know who I am. I hoped that this combination of anonymity and reporting would protect me until I could get an investigation. So if the information in this blog is used, I would hope that it is used in a way that continues to protect me, and perhaps finally to investigate and arrest the real estate mobbers and let me get back to my life.

Hire a mobbing victim; get free penetration testing

This entry was started last weekend so may include references to past events as though they are ongoing. It is also important to note that when I describe what the harassers are “saying” on the On being mobbed site, I am referring to voice harassment that tenant clearers—so called real estate mobbers—deliver continuously to me as part of a stalking practice called monitoring, day or night and within or without my home, using whatever techniques are available and best suited to the environment. This is not a case of civil harassment; it is a crime of multiple felonies. Based on my experience of living in this situation now for nearly two years, I believe the most commonly used techniques of harassment are radio, wireless network hacks, cell phone lurking and stalking, and projection by speaker and ventilation.

Continue reading

My neighborhood has a problem with bullying

It makes sense that a real estate mobbing, an organized crime whose goal is forced eviction and the “turning over” of a property for speculation, would occur here in this lakeside neighborhood of northeast Seattle that has been the focus of a small group of residential developers and real estate speculators since the early days of recovery from the “Great Recession.” It makes sense that this brutal crime would be perpetrated by small-time house flippers who thrive on neighborhood brouhahas and economic distress, or fly-by-night developers thrilled at the prospect of playing cops-and-robbers as they bully the vulnerable off property they want. Symbolically, real estate mobbing might be seen as a revenge crime of embattled home owners against the renters they scapegoat for diminished property values or a “feel-good” crime of owners against renters who fared better than they did in the recession, kind of like the crimes of the Nazi era against the Jews they blamed for any downturn.

No matter how you cut it, real estate mobbing makes sense in my anti-renter neighborhood. My neighborhood has a problem with bullying.

Continue reading