THE COALITION FOR 10801 TENANT SAFETY AND JUSTICE SPEAK OUT AGAINST COMPANIES LIKE PEPSICO, INC., BUILDING OWNERS LIKE FRANK RAHBAN, NATIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (NIC) AND SIGN COMPANIES THAT DISREGARD TENANTS, BLIGHT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS & THE ENVIRONMENT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY -- DISREGARD SAFETY. NOW THE MOST RECENT INJUSTICE: DUE TO RETALIATION OF THIS BLOG, THE OWNERS FOUND A WAY TO "EVICT" DR. ALLAN ON A TECHNICALITY -- SEE LEFT SIDE BAR FOR DETAILS AND HOW YOU CAN HELP.
To learn about the story of our protest watch this compelling video featured on KCET's SoCal Connected:
To see the slogans and signs paraded around at the protest click here.
here
-->
The spineless Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s appearance on this KCET video was pathetic and clearly shows how disinterested he is in helping the signage problems in Los Angeles. Do you believe there might be a conflict of interest weighing in on his decisions?
We have a message for the mayor and the city council -- Overblown, monstrous, Supergraphic signs blight the city and are not designed to cover up buildings. Also, the digital billboards is another disgrace that can be included here.
Here’s a checklist for Mayor Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles City Council as you prepare to enact the new sign ordinance:
Supergraphics’ are a blight to the entire community at large
They disgrace and deface building designs
They are disruptive, obnoxious intrusions to all affected individuals that have to see these 24/7
Some of them can even pose serious fire and safety risks (as seen on this video). Our building was deemed unsafe by the fire department… and what was done to protect the tenants and all the occupants? NOTHING.
Supergraphics’ send the wrong message to anyone visiting Los Angeles
Supergraphics' don’t necessarily stimulate the economy; only a few folks benefit from this channel of advertising at a severe cost to our city.
We need to revert back to traditional forms of advertising and also consider new, creative ways to pitch products without so much disruption and upset to our city
Supergraphics' are meant to distract, and drivers already have more than enough distractions to deal with. Can't we surmise that additional distractions pose added dangers to drivers on our thoroughfares? The massive 10801 supergraphics' was positioned right up against the freeway. Now how safe can that be?
Are your intentions to support the citizens of Los Angeles, or the donors that fill your campaign coffers?
In summary: Advertising dollars that pad your election campaigns and in-your-face -- all-over-the-place advertising that force feed product pitches down the throats of the citizens you represent should not dictate a design for Los Angeles or for that matter, any city.
==============
And emails are coming in. Feel free to chime in and give us your best shot! Hi David, I watched it on the internet. You were great!!! I so agree with you, and I support your standing up for the injustice bestowed upon you and others. Keep me posted! This guy seems like one greedy bas*****, and I loved that you went to his house to protest. The signs are obnoxious and putting them over windows is outrageous. I'll see you soon! From an anonymous patient.
Spencer Cross (spencercross) on January 21st, 2009 @ 11:07 am
I’m glad you posted this as I was debating it and hadn’t had a chance. That’s actually a photo of my old office building and I can tell you from first hand experience that everything they say about supergraphics blocking views and sunlight is totally true. They used to have unbelievable views out of that side of the building, but no more.
Anyway, what I found most infuriating about this story is the fact that new supergraphics are going up despite the city’s 90-day moratorium on outdoor advertisements. Yet another example of how the outdoor companies continue to flout the law and operate as if they’re not subject to regulation. It pisses me off to no end, and somebody in city government needs to step up and put the screws to them.
We are all about respecting freedom of speech, but that does not include the posting of notes by those who send in nasty and vulgar comments.
Please don't send in personal attacks for they will not be posted. Stay focused on the issues, that is what is important.
This website is set up to represent the tenants of 10801 and bring awareness and education to very important issues facing our society. We welcome debating on the topics that are posted.
Although insignificant when it compares to the injustice served with the billboard issues of the building, several tenants have additional questions and recommendations to Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801.
Since the legal team for 10801 follows this blog closely, we suggest that you pass this information to the owners. If we get a response from Lois or Joe Agapay, we will post it. BTW -- It would be an honor to hear from Frank Rahban himself - That would be a treat! Our email is 10801takesigndown@gmail.com.
Questions from the tenants:
When are the windows going to be washed? Comments made include filthy, dirty and disgusting. We know they have not been washed for over 3 years and Lois has informed us that they are supposed to be washed every year. What gives?
How about the pigeon problem in the garage?It's not really the pigeons, it's what the pigeons leave behind as they do their business on the parked vehicles. Is there anything you intend to do about this problem?
Recommendations from the tenants:
Modernize the building. The automatic doors for the lobby and the garage and the video survellance on each floor have been a good addition, but we suggest more can be done and in the long run will save you money. Several tenants have recommend key cards that could be used to access the building and the elevator. Most modern buildings have this -- how about something like this for 10801? This could also replace the guard that just usually sits around all day -- especially on Sunday.
Access to the building on "holidays" and after hours. Many have complained that the building closes down for all major holidays. What if you don't celebrate Easter? Why not close the building for Passover? Also, some folks work on holidays or may just need to pick something up at the office. Why should the building be shut down? If someone is a tenant, shouldn't they have the right to access the building on a "holiday"? The same goes for after hours. Why does the building have to shut down? What if a legal team needs to work on a case through the night or something important needs to be picked up? These building rules are ridiculous and need to be changed. If there were key cards this problem could be handled easily.
Digital Display Boards are an eyesore. They destroy the natural beauty of California. I personally like the look of steel, glass, and cement in the cities. Most of the buildings are cool, but not the signs. Where did the advertising industry get the idea they had the right to use every ounce of public and private space for ads? They're talking about using outer space for advertising now. No, I'm not making that up.
There is a myth about advertising, that it reduces the cost of things. Just the opposite is true. It drives the cost of everything up. High prices are largely due to the cost of marketing and advertising.Mike Sirkin, Jan. 20, 2009 8:57 PM
I can't believe that anyone would think that it is ok to post an ad over a tenant's window. I would think that a big part of renting an office space would be to have a window. Otherwise why not rent a storage space?It is a testament to how brainwashed the public is that anyone would think that an ad is cool. It's so sad. Wake up people, the advertisers are laughing at you all the way to the bank, and they probably don't even use the products they are selling to you because they know what crap it is.Comment #19, left at 02/05/09 04:44 PM.
How can anyone "support supergraphics"? Unless, I suppose, your living is made by the use of them. In which case-tough. Hopefully your day will be over soon and you'll be forced to pay up your fines and penalties, as well as take down these things spoiling the place.
I love how on one hand it's deemed trivial and ridiculous to protest this ugly and ILLEGAL (for a reason, namely quality of living) sign blight, but on the other hand some "supporters" also protest how terribly important to our failing economy having these monstrosities everywhere is. In any case, it's neither silly nor futile to protest and fight for retaining some quality of urban life in L.A. Ignoring illegal supergraphic signs all over large buildings, making companies richer isn't going to end hunger or war or help poor people, either. And remember, the fire department hates them too: they're unsafe for inhabitants of the buildings in case of a disaster. "Supporters"? Come on.Comment #41, left at 04/07/09 02:27 PM.
Yes, L.A. is a major metropolitan city, but that doesn't mean our streets -- especially those in and near residential neighborhoods -- need to look like they have been taken over by advertisers and movie companies who see urban blight merely as an insignificant sidebar issue vs. their desire to profit off someone else's quality of life.Comment #18, left at 04/06/09 01:00 PM.
I'm glad these huge signs are coming down. I don't want to see them. When I watch TV, I turn the channel when the commercials come on. When those building signs are so big, it's hard to just look away. Why do some people like having products forced down their throats with base advertising? Is that your idea of aesthetic beauty?Comment #26, left at 02/05/09 11:46 PM.
Of course no one would ever imagine putting a blown up tarp on a building like this. That is a statement we should ponder.
How about this quote from Coochicoos - Designs for Modern Parenting: "If you happen to be in Kansas City, as a resident or tourist, then pay a visit because I believe exposing young minds to great architecture affects them in powerful and emotional ways unlike any other creative expression."
Well what about feeding the older minds? Below are some examples of great architecture, both old and new. Enjoy!
Kansas City, MO.: When the massive Beaux Art Nelson-Atkins’ Building opened in 1933, newspapers nationwide reported visitors “amazed,” “gasping at its innovations and marveling at its luxury.” See more here.
Below you will find the additional buildings that were added. The Bloch Building has been called a process unfolding, a magical response to the landscape and to the original building. The design by Steven Holl Architects was chosen for its unique solution to the Museum’s problem: how to provide more space without compromising the original 1933 Nelson-Atkins Building. See an TIME article here.
Can residential renters take advantage of this lax billboard/signage ban? $600 for 15 days essentially covers half the rent for a 1-bd apartment.Comment #6, left at 02/25/09 01:03 AM
At first the Coalition for 10801 was solely representing the tenants for the injustice brought on by the greedy actions of Frank Rahban and his partners and the other cohorts in this story -- World Wide Rush, Lois Agapay and Pepsico, Inc. We will let CBS and Dr. Phil off the hook since they quickly removed their illegal advertising from the building after it went up.
BTW -- Pepsico, Inc. is Tropicana, and they erred when they did not respond to our pleas for help and concern over their illegal advertising. Pepsico initially may have been unaware of the dangers of their advertising, but not to even respond to numerous calls and letters -- utterly shameful! And their recent supergraphics' campaign around the westside -- an insult to put it mildly. That's their corporate responsibility -- in-your-face all-over-the-place advertising.
We do give them credit for one thing -- several tenants that wrote in received some discount coupons for their next purchase of orange juice. Hmm, how come we didn't get any? We suggest you take a look at all the companies that Pepsico owns and avoid them.
Oh, getting back on track -- Our story got really ugly when only after a month of journaling the building events on this blog, the owners hand delivered a "default notice and a 30 day to cure" to Dr. Graff to inform him that he was in violation of his lease. The sequence of legal letters and comments can be reviewed by clicking here. To make a long story short, Dr. Allan was singled out. We suggest you ask Joe Agapay how many other offices have been served with a default notice of this kind? My guess is zero. Not to rehash the issue, I'm prepared to answer any questions the public may have. Just send in a qualified comment and I will answer it.
In addition to our rant, more 3rd party validation is on it's way. KCET has had a keen interest with our activities here. The show SoCal Connected brings local issues to the public and is set to air a 4th documentary on the signage problems in L.A. The heart of this story will feature how some citizens of Los Angeles are affected by this issue. From our understanding, we will play a big part in this documentary that will include the protest at Rahban's estate.
To get you up to speed, we suggest that you view previous episodes that can be found on the Internet. We have linked it for your convenience (it's already referenced in the "related links" section on the left bar):
World Wide Rush and the Sherman Oaks Galleria's "who me?" attitude is despicable. "We don't know what happened," Defevere said. "We think someone did it by mistake."
Really? How many legit midnight landscapers are there? I just wish the local government had some teeth. comment from Comment #2, left at 02/24/09 02:40 PM.
"Let's cover the windows of the city councilmans offices at city hall... let's drape a banners over the city attorneys offices... and let's erect a digital billboard in the mayors office!" comment from: Comment #42, left at 04/07/09 11:48 PM.
Here's a comment that was found on the article that really articulates the issue:
It's too easy to oversimplify this issue... It isn't about whether you like or dislike signs. It is about our City having laws and people breaking them or abiding by them. The regulation of signs is a very complicated issue, made even more so complicated in our City because the City leaders have found it convenient to grant EXCEPTIONS to the rules (which the outdoor advertising industry has then used to go to the courts to stop any reasonable enforcement). Those commenting need to understand that Hollywood has been granted "sign district" status by the City. That venture has allowed much of what is seen there (although illegal signs have still been erected in that area by sign companies). The Hollywood sign ordinance was granted because the powers that be felt/feel that Hollywood is a unique entertainment area and that there should be an ability to have signage there. The truth is that despite a city moratorium passed by the City Council in December, many illegal signs have been installed. Why? Because the penalties for those that break the law are a small inconvenience and so minimal as to be a joke... $ 100 for a sign earning $ 10,000 or more a month? If you or I as residents did something against City code, we would be cited. All the billboard protesters want is for the City to enforce the law. We have had a ban on new outdoor advertising signage since 2002... but you would never know it. The outdoor advertising industry is among the most litigious; they challenge laws passed in almost every municipality seeking to delay enforcement. Some of Rahban's buildings are protected by an injunction and they ignore the Dec. moratorium that should take precedence over all signs and buildings.
Most important is the fact that the City is now considering a new ordinance to govern how signs will be regulated in the future. Much is at stake and one can only imagine the level of industry lobbying that will take place. At one recent City Planning Commission hearing on the proposal, FIVE attorneys from one prestigious/powerful law firm each got up to claim their one (or two?) minute chance at the mike to address the Commission. Who speaks for the public? How can the public have a fair shake at these hearings? Who can afford to take off 3/4 of a day from work to attend these hearings? Who has the access to meet with each of the City Council members to plead their case? I can tell you who and that is the industry to be regulated. I say BRAVO to those citizens who spend their time attending these meetings, to those citizens who call their Council offices when they see illegal signs erected, to those residents who take photos of illegal installations, to those who go to their neighborhood councils to raise the issue, who spend their time making signs and protesting. It may not be one of the most important issue in the world given the miserable state the world is in, but it is a local issue of importance and concern and the new law that will be passed will set the stage for future enforcement...or the lack of enforcement. We'll see what happens. All should keep a watch and thank those who give their time to do so. Comment #30, left at 04/06/09 05:10 PM.
Google Analytics tracks the numbers, and thanks to you, we've reached over the 5,000 visit mark. Below are the top 10 states viewing the blog. This is just in the United States -- we have readership all over the world.
This country/territory sent 5,091 visits via 47 regions
At face value, the grassroots signage protest at Frank Rabhan's estate was an unanimous success-- along with a pleasant surprise!
How much of an impact will it have on city government? We'll wait and see.
Roughly 40 folks banded together to get out of bed early Sunday morning on the 5th of April to meet at 251 N. Bristol Ave, L.A. 90049 and troop with signs and slogans up and down the block where Frank Rabhan lives - an individual that has brought quite a lot of attention to himself due to his blatant disregard for public safety at one of his office buildings at 10801 National Blvd. He has also angered city officials and surrounding neighborhoods by supergraphics both at his National building as well as his building at Overland and Pico. To top it off, he used technicalities in the lease to "evict" (force out) Dr. Allan from his building where he practiced there for over 16 years.
If you're new to this saga, we suggest you first read "For New Comers - Start Here" located on the left side bar of this blog.
The idea of this protest has been floating the thought waves for some time now, and it was amazing to see how quickly it came together. Knowing that the KCET camera crew and other media outlets would be there gave us the motivation to go for it! The protest was born out of frustration with the fact that citizens of Los Angeles have been dealt a crummy hand when it comes to the out-of-control billboard and supergraphics' issues that plague the city. The bungled dealings and closed door decisions by city government that has placed the signage regulatory mechanisms on it's heels, leads us to believe that the mayor and city council really don't care what most citizens think.
Below is a closing statement made at the protest by Barbara Broide that poses some great questions and messages to our city government, building owners and the sign industry about the signage problems in L.A.
BARBARA BROIDE DELIVERS A COMPELLING MESSAGE TO THE FRANK RAHBAN, L.A. CITY COUNCIL, THE MEDIA AND THE SUPPORTERS AT THE FOOT OF FRANK RABHAN'S MANSION. A MUST LISTEN!
Oh... And The Surprise? Well, we had no idea whether or not Frank Rahban would be home, but nearing the close of the protest -- with a thundering exit, his slick Mercedes throttled out the gated entry, handed Karen Foshay of KCET a document and raced down the quiet residential street at speeds way beyond the speed limit.
WE BELIEVE FRANK WAS STUNNED TO SEE OUR PROTEST. HERE'S FRANK'S GETAWAY CAUGHT ON FILM PLUS SOME REACTION FROM THE CROWD.
"As stated in the article, those huge billboards and advertisements are part of the of Paris cityscape. It would be like demanding all of the billboards should be taken down in Times Square. They are part of the urban landscape, and if people don't want to see them they should move. You don't go to NYC expecting to see cows."
Hmm, that's actually not a bad idea. Here's my response:
And regarding the Paris landscape, it's really up to the city and residents what they feel is important. Do you know what they did in Sao Paulo? They banned virtually all ads from the city. Click here to see what happened in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Since that time 70% have approved of this ban.
NY and Paris can have their visual pollution; L.A.'s got my vote to shut it down. Bring in some nice trees and sculpture.
Here's a great quote I came across on that news story about Sao Paulo...
The recent Federal Court ruling against the City of Los Angeles has forced the City Attorney's office to regroup their efforts in combating supergraphics'. Sources tell us they are are still working on a solution. As a result, the arraignment in the criminal case was continued to May 13th.
Am I looking for a fight? Am I looking for a lawsuit? Absolutely not!
Of course we received a letter back from Mr. Agapay. At this point, I am not posting any more letters, unless I am sued. Then the public can follow every word of this case -- every step of the way. Hopefully you will decide this is not in your best interest.
National Investment company is now threatening to sue me for derogatory and defamatory comments.
Whoa -- wait a minute. Let's back things up and let's clean the slate. Let's refocus.
This blog was not designed as a forum for bashing anyone. For proof of what I am saying here, you can visit a previous post - Clean up of blog underway. This post was in response to an inflammatory letter from Paul Fisher, attorney for World Wide Rush. I acknowledged that some comments may have went over board and I apologized and overhauled the entire blog. I went through every post and took out any item I thought was too edgy. I even told Paul publicly to call or write to me if there was anything in the blog that was upsetting.
I did this because I took him seriously and did not want to deal with getting sued. I have not heard from Paul since, so I imagine that we are okay in this department.
BTW -- The items I removed were not specific to World Wide Rush. They were any item that I thought was over the top and too edgy including numerous items concerning Frank Rahban and National Investment Company. I removed all personal items regarding Frank such as business address and phone numbers. I monitor all the comments that come in. Do I post all of them? Absolutely not. There are a lot of nasty and mean people out there. I received Frank's personal home address, cell numbers, etc. and did I post them. Absolutely not. I don't want to provide information that could harm or harass any person. If I posted all that public info, it would set fuel for people to harass Frank. That is not my intention now and was never my intention.
Just as with Paul Fisher, do I take Joe Agapay's letter to sue seriously? Absolutely.
So I am asking Joe to send a letter to my attorney referencing any derogatory or defaming comments that I've said about Frank Rahban and NIC. Yes, I mean that. I will address them and remove them or reword any item if necessary.
So for the record, in the nicest way possible, these are some honest feelings I have at this moment:
I feel I was singled out and "forced out" of the place I practiced in for the past 16 years. The timing is too suspect. I had two leases previously with NIC and therefore I was responsible for the rent. When I applied for those two leases, did I have to submit any financial information? No. Mind you, when you have a lease, you are responsible for that contract period. For the last 3.5 years, I've been without a lease and have been paying the doctors in the suite and the doctors were responsible for the lease payment. Now NIC is saying that they were unaware I was a subtenant until they heard it on this blog. Let's just say that is true. So what? After all these years, why now would you demand my financial information to determine if I am acceptable? If you don't have a bone to pick with me, why the formality? Isn't a perfect 16 year track record and even a recommendation letter from your wife enough to satisfy your requirements for authorization? Am I really unauthorized, or is this about retaliation? We believe it is.
I direct your attention to the press conference that was held at the foot of 10801. Click here to see the complete conference on video. I direct your attention to what L.A. Fire Department Chief Fry had to say: "They are looking more at profit then at safety of their residents inside". Can't you see why everyone is so upset with you? When the Los Angeles Fire Department issued fire code violations and pleaded with you to take down your sign, did you? No. In fact when the first sign contract expired, you put up another one. Then the LAFD cited you again with fire code violations and put the building on a fire watch. The only reason that sign came down (after 6 days) was becasue of all the negative press Dr. Phil received. If that's not the case, please let me know.
What I am stating is nothing more than what Chief Fry has said, "Frank Rahban and NIC care more about money earned vs. the welfare of the 10801 tenants. That's why I stated the blog -- "for safety and justice". If Frank Rahban and NIC are not concerned about the safety and welfare of their tenants, then I was out to start a coalition and I did. There were many of us in the building concerned about our safety and welfare. We were the ones in the building, not you.
Once again, the purpose of this blog is to be a coalition for 10801 tenant safety and justice, not a bashing site to anyone.
an education takes place. It explains the phrase that comes to mind when we think about these oversized tarps that are draped over buildings and structures -- "Enough is enough".
"Enough is enough" is our inner voice telling us what is right and what is good. But how do we put words to paper as a law or ordinance? This will forever be a challenge coupled with the fact that not everyone will see the supergraphics as an ad method gone too far -- But most do. That's why they are outlawing them in the new city ordinance.
All of this attention to this issue is fantastic. Part of the problems here has to do with lack of awareness and education. That's what makes the above article so great.
Get educated. Find out the difference between the Hollywood sign and a pair of knockers that are barely covered pitching a product. There's a huge difference.
In a previous post, we refer to the beauty of architecture in London. There is an education here too! Putting up supergraphics is a sign of disrespect. You would never wrap a tarp around a piece of sculpture or your home? Well, I take that back -- for a price anything can happen. It's called selling out. If one wants to do that on a personal level -- that we can live with -- but when it effects us as a community -- "Enough is enough".
How can Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801 National kick a doctor out of his office -- a thriving practice he has maintained in the same building for over 16 years? Let's take a closer look so you can understand.
I've given you my suggestions and now you can be the judge. I've decided to reveal a series of legal letters that will help the public understand this injustice. There is unfinished business regarding this story and the truth needs to be told and the owners need to be exposed for their unscrupulous behavior. For the record -- I refuse to play the victim and am not looking for sympathy. The owners were not right to do such a thing, and with this post I can set the record straight and reprimand and expose the folks responsible for these actions.
MAIN TREATING ROOM AT SUITE 580 - Now Empty.
Retaliation is the only basis for this "eviction" (forced out) and furthermore, the wrong message was sent to the public and the tenants of 10801. The retaliation was in response to this very blog. See left side bar for more details.
Oh yes, we welcome any comments from NIC -- and we will gladly post them. We are looking for a formal apology along with reinstatement to have my office back. Right now Dr. Graff has two empty rooms on account of the owner's actions – and you know it’s not easy filling office space in this current economy.
Media outlets should contact our email address - 10801takesigndown@gmail.com -- We would greatly appreciate help in getting this story out and help direct traffic to this site.
Also you can contact my attorney Kevin P. Hall by clicking on his name. I've given him permission to speak with the media regarding this case.
Here are 7 letters with comments to help explain this unreal series of events. (A signed PDF is available for all of these letters on request)
===========================
Letter #1:
February 16, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff
Notice of Default
NOTICE OF DEFAULT And THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO CURE
Via Hand Delivery
February 16, 2009
TO: ANDREW C. GRAFF, D.C.
10801 National Blvd. Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED within thirty (30) days after this notice is served upon you either to:
a. Cure the breach by you of Section 10 of the January 5, 2004 Lease you have with National Investment Company ("NIC") , as amended by First Addendum date May 1, 2008, for the premises, consisting of business accommodations, said premises are known and described as 10801 National Boulevard, Suite 580, Los Angeles, California 90064, of which you hold possession. Your breach consists of the unauthorized subleasing by you of all or a portion of the premises to David Allan, D.C.; or
b. To surrender and deliver up possession of said premises to NIC.; or
c. Remove your unauthorized subtenant and his property from the premises. If you fail to do so, legal proceedings will be commenced against you to recover possession of said premises with such other damages as may be allowed by law.
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY DECLARES AND GIVES NOTICE that Section 10 of the aforesaid Lease has been breached in that David Allan has stated orally and in writing throughout the blog he commenced publishing and disseminating to the public on January 14, 2009, that David Allan is a subtenant in the premises. The consent or approval of such sub-tenant has never been applied for by you nor granted by NIC or any agent of NIC and David Allan is therefore an illegal subtenant. If you wish to cure this breach by seeking the consent of NIC, you must submit to NIC within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this notice, your written request for the right to sublease to David Allan with a description of the nature of the proposed subtenant's business to be conducted on the premises, a current balance sheet and profit an loss statement for and signed by David Allan together with the written consent and authorization of David Allan for NIC to obtain a credit report on him, and a copy of the proposed sublease terms under which your proposed subtenant would occupy the premises should NIC give its consent to such sublease.
Upon timely submission to NIC of your written request and the additional materials listed about, before commencing its review thereof, pursuant to Section 23 of the aforesaid Lease you will be required to pay NIC such reasonable fee as NIC establishes for reviewing or preparing documents and /or credit reports applicable thereto.
NIC is mindful of its contractual and statutory obligations to not unreasonably withhold approval of your proposed subtenant. Therefore in order to assist NIC in making a reasonable and thorough analysis of whether approval of your proposed subtenant should be granted, the greater the detail provided in his current financial statements, the more likely it will be that NIC will be able to make an informed and fair decision. Conversely if no or only sketchy financial information is provided it would be less likely that NIC will be in position to consent to your proposed subtenant as NIC, through no fault of its own, will not have been provided sufficient information to make an informed decision and would therefore have a reasonable basis for withholding its consent.
Should you fail to timely cure the breach of Section 10 of the Lease, NIC WILL DECLARE A FORFEITURE of the Lease under which you hold possession of said premises, and will proceed to commence legal action for recovery of possession of said premises and for all monies due and owing under the terms of Sections 23 and 26 of said Lease.
February 16, 2009
NATIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY
By: JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., INC.
A Professional Corporation
10801 National Blvd., Suite 400Los Angeles, CA90064 jma@agapay.com
Off 310-470-1700
FAX 310-470-2602
Comments: This letter shocked both Dr. Graff and myself and many others that have the same office sharing arrangement in the building. The biggest shock the fact that they were asking for my financial records. Mind you, I'm not even on the lease or responsible to pay the owners directly. Keep in mind that in two previous leases with the owners, I was never asked to supply them with my financial records. Now they want detailed records to prove I'm authorized? It was clear that the owners were not happy with my blog and wanted to seek retaliation and found a sly technical way to put the squeeze on Dr. Graff to force me out.
Since Dr. Graff did not want to deal with a lawsuit, we decided it would be best for me to move out and he requested a two week extension to make it easier on him so he could have more time to find another occupant. That brings us to the next letter.
===========================
Letter #2
March 12, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff
Continued Occupancy by Unauthorized Subtenant
JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., APC
Attorneys at Law
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, California 90064-4184
Telephone (310) 470-1700
Fax (310) 470-2602
E-mail: jma@agapay.com
March 12, 2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064
Re: Continued Occupancy by Unauthorized Subtenant
Dear Dr. Graff:
Please be advised that your March 9, 2009 memorandum to National Investment Company ("NIC") is not in compliance with the terms of your written lease of Suite 580 in general, nor does it constitute an authorized modification or satisfaction, partial or otherwise, of the NOTICE OF DEFAULT And THIRTY-DAY NOTICE TO CURE ("Notice") that was dated and served upon you on February 16, 2009.
Your rights and obligations concerning occupancy of Suite 580 are clearly set forth in the written lease and the application of those obligations to the unauthorized occupancy of your suite by David Allan is specifically addressed in the Notice.
You have recently made an oral request for an extension or delay of the 30-day time frame in which the Notice must be complied with in order to avoid institution of legal proceeding under the lease terms. There is no legal basis for such a request, and NIC is satisfied it has, under the Notice terms, given appropriate and adequate time for you to either cure or commence the process of curing your default relating to the unauthorized subtenancy of David Allan.
Your failure to timely cure your default under the lease will result in legal proceedings being instituted against you without further notice and at your further costs.
Sincerely,
Joe M. Agapay, Jr.
JMA:nb
cc: National Investment Company
Comments: This refusal not to give us a few more weeks was a pivotal point in this legal saga. I sought legal counsel and found an excellent attorney -- Kevin P. Hall. Dr. Graff sent a letter to the owners to give him permission to have Dr. Allan as a subtenant. That brings us to letter #3.
======================
Letter #3
March 16, 2009; Graff letter to Agapay
RE: Notice of Default
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Blvd.
Suite 580
Los Angeles, CA 90064
March 16, 2009
BY HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Joe M. Agapay, Jr., APC
Attorney at Law
10801 National Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Re: Notice of Default
Dear Mr. Agapay:
In response to the notice of default that I received, I would like to address some points raised by the request that Dr. Allan leave the premises.
I do not believe that the office sharing arrangement that I have had with Dr. Allan, which the landlord and building representatives have known about for months, constitutes a sublease or breach of my lease. Furthermore, my relationship with Dr. Allan is similar to office sharing arrangements enjoyed by many other occupants of the building, who also share their offices with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landlord and its representatives. In fact, I am aware that Dr. Allan shared Suite 250 with Dr. Nancy Livingstone and Dr. Nelson Santos for approximately 3 years prior to his move into my office under the same sharing arrangement, i.e. without prior written approval from the landlord.
Be that as it may, I am hereby requesting that the landlord agree to the continued office sharing relationship I have had with Dr. Allan. Dr. Allan has practiced in this building for approximately 15 years. In fact we shared Suite 607 in 1996 for some years without any issues or consequences. For the time previously and now, he has been a responsible individual and an asset to have in the office. He maintains a current business and professional license as a Doctor of Chiropractic. His practice is thriving and relocation of his practice will no doubt cause him to suffer a substantial loss of patients and business. My own financial situation remains solid and I remain fully responsible for the rent for my office space.
Although Dr. Allan's relocation will result in a significant loss of cash flow for me, the building is not in any risk of default by me in the payment of rent.
In my conversation with Dr. Allan, we are certain that Lois Agapay, the building manager, has known and has been aware of Dr. Allan's arrangements for the last several years, since his name is on our door and in the locked directories in the garage and in the main lobby. I also understand that Dr. Allan had two different leases with the owners and has demonstrated his obligations to those leases without any consequences. Since I am fully responsible for the rent, singling him out at this time is unreasonable.
Therefore, I believe the refusal of the landlord to agree to Dr. Allan's continued sharing of space in the office can really only be attributed to seeking retaliation for the unrelated disputes that the landlord has with Dr. Allan concerning his blog. As you know, I have not had any part in the blog and therefore I believe it is also unfair to penalize me for your client's own separate and unrelated dispute with Dr. Allan.
Nevertheless, if the landlord insists on disrupting my relationship with Dr. Allan and to avoid legal proceedings against me, he will be prepared to leave within the 30 day period that the landlord has already declined to extend if he is not approved. In light of the information enclosed in this letter, I anticipate that the landlord will agree to my request. Please let me know if Dr. Allan is approved by tomorrow, Tuesday, March 17, 2009 or no later than Wednesday, since that is the 30th day from your initial notice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
cc: Dr. David Allan
Comments: From the beginning, we felt the owners were acting in bad faith and did not want and/or need to provide financial information to them. Dr. Graff and myself felt that any amount of financial documents were still going to result in a rejection. In a matter of hours we got a reply from Joe Agapay - Letter #4.
===========================
Letter #4
March 16, 2009; Agapay letter to Graff
Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default
JOE M. AGAPAY, JR., APC
Attorneys at Law
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, California90064-4184 Telephone (310) 470-1700
Fax (310) 470-2602
E-mail: jma@agapay.com
March 16, 2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064
Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default
Dear Dr. Graff:
We are in receipt of a letter of this date that appears to bear your signature. A copy was received mid-day via FAX and what appears to be an additional copy was hand delivered to my office by Dr. David Allan.
This letter commences with an inaccurate and an unwarranted accusatory charge. National Investment Company ("NIC") has made no "request that Dr. Allan leave the premises."
To the contrary, NIC has set out in detail the means by which you and Dr. Allan can, pursuant to the terms of your lease provide sufficient and justifiable information that would, in accordance with NIC's statutory and contractual obligations, compel NIC to not unreasonably withhold approval of Dr. Allan as a subtenant.
After setting forth numerous reasons why the author of this letter believes the "office sharing arrangement" between you and Dr. Allan does not constitute a breach of your lease with NIC the letter requests NIC to advise if Dr. Allan is approved (presumably as a subtenant). In promoting his chiropractic practice in his blog, Dr. Allan has made his subtenancy with you irrefutably clear.
No information of any nature has been received by NIC that would enable it to make a reasonably informed decision as to whether Dr. Allan is or is not an acceptable subtenant. Based on the history Dr. Allan has with NIC as a former tenant that resulted in NIC refusing to any longer enter into a lease with him, and in the absence of any current financial information on Dr. Allan, NIC must conclude Dr. Allan is an unacceptable subtenant.
If the terms of your lease and the cure provisions of the February 16, 2009 Notice of Default are not complied with as of March 18, 2009, an unlawful detainer complaint will be filed against you without any further notice.
Sincerely,
Joe M. Agapay, Jr.
JMA:nb
cc: National Investment Company
Comments: First, Dr. Graff did authorize the March 16, 2009 letter to Agapay and all the statements are true. The letter advised Agapay that Dr. Graff remains financially responsible and that Dr. Allan has a thriving practice. Agapay chose to ignore that info and falsely claimed that no info was provided. Furthermore, the owners have already concluded that "Dr. Allan is an unacceptable subtenant". It's clear that the owners are conducting this campaign as a way of retaliation against my blog and that no amount of additional info will persuade them otherwise.
This letter falsely claims that you made "no request that Dr. Allan leave the premises." Agapay did indeed demand the "removal" of Dr. Allan in the Notice of Default, which demanded that Graff "remove [my] unauthorized subtenant" or face a lawsuit.
Regarding the history of "Dr. Allan", I never applied for another lease with NIC -- So how did NIC refuse to lease to me? How can you possibly question my ability to respond when I have paid rent for 190 consecutive months without any problems.
Joe Agapay may not be aware that I was planning to leave the building in 2005 when my last lease expired, but His wife Lois did. When I was planning to get another place in another building, I asked Lois for a letter of recommendation. That brings us to letter #5.
==============================
Letter #5
Lois Agapay (aka Lois Forshee) to Whom it may concern
Recommendation letter for Dr. Allan
Lois Forshee, Building Manager
10801 National Blvd Suite 601
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 475-5779
3-28-05
To Whom It May Concern:
Dr. David Allan Orenstein has been a tenant in our AIG / Sun America building for well over 10 years. I certainly do not mind offering my name as a viable reference because he has proven to be a good tenant and has always paid his rent on time. If you have any questions regarding this issue -- please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Lois Forshee
Comments: When I was planning to move in 2005 from the building, I got a recommendation letter from my residental landlord and one from my business landlord. In Agapay's last letter dated March 16, 2009, Joe was trying to discredit me, when in fact his wife has recommended me as a good tenant. You gotta love that one. FYI - David Allan Orenstein is my full name and my profile and contact info can be accessed on the left side bar of the home page.
=======================
Letter #6
March 18, 2009; Graff letter to Allan
Final letter from one friend and partner to another and refund
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
10801 National Boulevard Suite 580
Los Angeles CA 90064
phone (310) xxxx-xxxx
March 18, 2009
Re: February 16, 2009 Notice of Default
Dr. David Allan
10801 National Blvd., Suite 580
Los Angeles, California 90064
Dear Dr. Allan:
As you know, I fought very hard to keep you as a subtenant in my office. In spite of my efforts, NIC has informed me that it concluded that you are not an acceptable subtenant. They have further informed me that you must vacate the office no later than close of business on March 18, 2009 or I will be in default of my lease agreement and an unlawful detainer complaint will be filed against me.
Consequently, I have no choice but to demand that you vacate the premises on March 18, 2009. Enclosed is a check in the sum of $361.29 which represents the balance of the rent for the month of March.
I certainly regret this situation but I have done all that I can do to assist you. I wish you well in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Graff, D.C.
ACG/tm
Comments: Although we have a strong case against the owners, Graff's lease declares that the prevailing parties in a lawsuit will recover fees from the losing side. Since I was not on the lease, in the event we lose the case, he would be on the hook for the damages. It was not the risk he was willing to take and I can understand and respect his decision. That's why I moved out -- to protect my friend.
=========================
Letter #7
March 27, 2009; Kevin P. Hall to Agapay
RE: Dr. David Allan adv. National Investment Co., etc. et al
KULL•HALL LLP
1337 Ocean Avenue, Suite B
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (310) 451-6100
Fax: (310) 451-6033
www.kullhall.com
March 27, 2009
BY FAX 310.470.2602
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Joe M. Agapay, Esq.
10801 National Blvd. Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Re: Dr. David Allan adv. National Investment Co., etc. et al.
Dear Mr. Agapay:
We represent Dr. David Allan in connection with his wrongful eviction from Suite 580 in the building located at 10801 National Blvd., Los Angeles, CA90064 (the “Building”) and your client’s wrongful interference with his business relationship with Dr. Andrew Graff.
Dr. Allan has shared office space in the Building, with Dr. Graff and others, for approximately 15 years. Your client, the landlord National Investment Company (“landlord” or “NIC”), and your client’s agents and representatives, including you and your wife, Lois Agapay, who is an on-site manager for the landlord, have known about and consented to these office sharing arrangements during Dr. Allan’s lengthy tenure in the Building.
In January 2009, Dr. Allan started a blog about the unpermitted and unlawful supergraphic signs erected by the landlord on the sides of the Building. The signs are the subject of a 44-count criminal complaint against the landlord and its agents, including Lois Agapay, and others, in the action styled People of the State of California vs. World Wide Rush, etc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 9CA00023A. According to the criminal complaint, the supergraphic signs were erected by your client without required permits and in violation of various municipal code provisions and a City moratorium on off-site signs (Section 91.6201.1 et seq. of the Los Angeles Municipal Code). The supergraphic signs have also been cited by the Los Angeles Fire Department for other violations and they constitute hazards and a “clear danger” to public health and safety. According to the criminal complaint, the signs also violate the Outdoor Advertising Act codified in the Business and Professions Code, §§ 5200 et seq.
Concerned about the fire and building and safety code violations and the lack of information, input, or warning to occupants and visitors to the Building, Dr. Allan also helped to organize the public into the Coalition for 10801Tenant Safety and Justice (the “Coalition”). The purpose of the Coalition is to educate the public about the hazardous and unlawful conditions at the Building and help prepare occupants and visitors to the Building to deal with the threats to their health and safety.
Within one month of Dr. Allan’s organizing of the Coalition and the posting of his blog on the internet, you served a written Notice of Default and Thirty-Day Notice to Cure to Dr. Graff, falsely accusing him of being in breach of his lease and claiming that the landlord had not consented to his office arrangement with Dr. Allan, when in fact you, your wife and the landlord have known of and consented to their current arrangement and Dr. Allan’s office sharing arrangements with other workers in the Building. Your client’s knowledge and consent are evidenced by, among other things, the placement of Dr. Allan’s name and suite number on the lobby directory and name plate on the suite’s front door.
You also threatened to sue Dr. Graff if he did not terminate his arrangements with Dr. Allan and your client subsequently changed the locks to the suite, effectively locking Dr. Allan out of his own office. Your threats to Dr. Graff unlawfully interfere with Dr. Allan’s existing and prospective economic relations with Dr. Graff and threaten both of their livelihoods. Your client’s threats and false accusations to Dr. Graff are a direct result of, and in retaliation for, Dr. Allan’s complaints about the unlawful and hazardous building and health and safety issues. Your client is also no doubt motivated to stifle public awareness, suppress organization of tenants and workers in the Building, and inhibit tenants, workers and members of the public from asserting their rights.
Dr. Allan is incurring the loss of patients, business, opportunities and other damages every day since he has been wrongfully evicted due to your client’s retaliation and interference with his office sharing arrangements with Dr. Graff. We urge you and your client to reconsider the unlawful and ill-advised eviction of Dr. Allan and demand that he be restored to his offices in Suite 580 in the Building. In the meantime, all of Dr. Allan’s rights, remedies, and claims against the landlord and all others acting in concert with the landlord are hereby reserved.
Please direct all future communications to our office and refrain from any communication with our client.
Very truly yours,
Kevin P. Hall
Comments: There you have it. Once again, no pity please for me. That's the last reason for taking this action. I refuse to play the victim and will never ever consider an emotional distress claim against the owners... Now damages for business losses, and exposing the owners for who they really are -- that's another story.
After you get through this introduction, see the other news items on this side bar. Also, the “Related Links” (also found on this side bar – just scroll down), has a wealth of articles on this subject including several that cover our story.
HERE'S SOME BACKGROUND TO THIS STORY:
This blog was set up on Jan. 14, 2009 -- the day the building owners and Frank Rahban of 10801 National Blvd, L.A., CA 90064 (This is where I practiced from 1993 to 2009), World Wide Rush (Sign company), and Tropicana (Division of Pepsico, Inc.), put up a monstrous supergraphic (vinyl sign) that completely covered one side of the 6 story building.
10801takesigndown.blogspot.com was set up to be a centralized place to inform the tenants of the latest news concerning their safety and to find a way to have this sign removed as soon as possible.
FLASH - Approximately one month after starting this blog (Feb. 16, 2009), the owners found a way to have Dr. Allan removed from his office. See a short documentary by KCET that explain what happened by clicking here.
PROTEST AT FRANK RAHBAN'S HOME IS A HUGE SUCCESS. CLICK ON PICTURE TO LEARN MORE.
HERE BABARA BROIDE EXPLAINS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROTEST
INSULT #1
HERE'S THE FIRST HOOT (HAZARDOUS-OVERSIZED-OBNOXIOUS-TARP) THE OWNERS AND WORLD WIDE RUSH SLAPPED UP. NOTICE NO TREES ARE BLOCKING IT'S VIEW.
TREES HACKED DOWN IN FRONT OF 10801
IF CALTRANS DIDN'T CHOP DOWN THESE TREES -- WHO DID? FOR BREAKING STORY CLICK ON THE IMAGE. COMPARE THIS PICTURE WITH THE INSULT #1 PHOTO ABOVE. SEE WHAT THE VIEW LOOKS LIKE NOW.
INSULT #2
HERE'S THE SECOND ONE -- BUT THIS ONLY LASTED 6 DAYS. UNLIKE PEPSICO, INC., CBS AND & DR. PHIL WERE SMART ENOUGH NOT TO BE INVOLVED WITH ADVERTISING THAT ENDANGERED THE PUBLIC.
Dr. David Allan, Spokesperson For The Coalition for 10801 Tenant Safety & Justice
You don't sign up to be an activist, sometimes it signs you up. This blog was started to take a stand against Frank Rahban and the owners of 10801 -- for their unconscionable actions against myself and the tenants of 10801. How do you stand up against big business that serves up injustice? This blog is retribution against the unjust actions of big business – the pen in mightier than the sword. My name is Dr. David Allan, D.C. and I've been working as a heath care provider for close to 30 years. Presently we are launching unique, patented, and exclusive anti-aging products and technologies that have HUGE potential in the marketplace. Our lead item can literally help stop the source of aging on the face – without surgery or injections. No matter what's your age, we can restore your elastin fiber contact in your face back to when you were 20 years old -- guaranteed (see My Website). Oh, and we create our income legally. The best way to reach us is through the blog email. Just Click on "View My Complete Profile" and you're on your way. We welcome your comments on the blog topics and inquiries about joining us in our anti-aging business.
on January 21st, 2009 @ 11:07 am 
Posts
Digital Display Boards are an eyesore. They destroy the natural beauty of California. I personally like the look of steel, glass, and cement in the cities. Most of the buildings are cool, but not the signs. Where did the advertising industry get the idea they had the right to use every ounce of public and private space for ads? They're talking about using outer space for advertising now. No, I'm not making that up.
There is a myth about advertising, that it reduces the cost of things. Just the opposite is true. It drives the cost of everything up. High prices are largely due to the cost of marketing and advertising. Mike Sirkin, Jan. 20, 2009 8:57 PM