St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Mr. Bee Vue

Citv of St. Paul Policy and Practice of Discriminator-v Code Enforcement
201. Defendants’ discriminatory code enforcement policy, custom and/or pm&e as.set forth above, has existed in the City since at least March 2002, and continues in the City at the
present time.
202. As an example, City Council member Jay Benanav and Mayor Kelly were guest
’ speakers at a St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords meeting held on October 23,2003.
During this meeting with many St. Paul landlords, a question and answer period took place.
Council member Benanav, in response to a question from the audience, stated that when it comes
to housing code enforcement, “I don’t think any amount of aggressiveness is too aggressive.”
203. At this same meeting, a member of the-audience asked Defendant Kelly, “Why are
you coming into places when the tenant doesn’t want you there and citing minor things and just
condemning the buildings. I don’t think that is fair and what happens if I don’t let you into my
house?” In a loud and threatening voice, Defendant Mayor Kelly said, “You will comply.”
During this statement, Defendant Kelly used very aggressive body language including pointing
his finger at the landlord asking the question.
204. Other examples exist of this continuing discriminatory policy, custom and/or
practice in he City. Mr. Bee Vue, who came to the United States from Laos in 1979, has lived in
Minnesota since 1979. In 1996, Vue entered the real estate investment business in St. Paul. He
and his wife currently own 24 rental properties in St. Paul and rent seventy (70) percent of their
units to people of color. A member of the City’s PPU, Attorney Dolan, informed Mr. Vue
during a court proceeding that, “Personally, I don’t think you people deserve to be in this
5 8.country.” This statement made by Dolan was overheard by other landlords. Vue and others were
shocked by this statement made by a member of the City’s PPU.
205. Vues’ rental properties have also been consistently targeted during 2002
through present by Defendants, while adjacent rental and other properties with serious problems, ’
or properties with the same conditions as Vues’ buildings, are not targeted by Defendants for
code enforcement.
206. Since 2002, Mr. Vue has also been lied to by a City fire department inspector
assigned to his rental properties, and consistently treated in a very condescending manner by the
inspector during his contacts with the inspector. The inspector has told at least one other City
inspector to “just give Vue a condemnation notice” when the building had passed inspection and
only needed some minor repair.
207. In early 2003, Vue and his wife, were subject to a lawsuit commenced against
them by Dawkins on behalf of Defendant City for code enforcement. Vues’ tenant had caused
sanitation problems in Vues’ property for which Dawkins and his code enforcement officers
v&ted to hold the Vues responsible. After the suit was started, the Vues had a meeting with
Dawkins at which time they explained that the tenant was the cause of the sanitation problem.
Vues then asked Dawkins to dismiss the lawsuit. Dawkins stated that he and his department had
quotas which required that the City prosecute tenant remedy actions against landlords in the City
in order to obtain foundation grant money. Thereafter, the Vue’s were forced to agree to a full
59.current code compliance on the subject property