St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Kenneth Krahn
208. Kenneth Krahn, a St. Paul landlord, learned what it was like to be on the receiving
end of Defendants’ aggressive code enforcement program. Krahn has worked with Project Hope
for many years assisting less fortunate people to find permanent housing within the .City.
209. A City housing inspector informed Krahn in the Summer of 2002 that the City
wanted to review his tenant screening process to determine who he was renting to. The inspector
stated that the City did not want him renting to people assisted by Project Hope, as they were
“bottom of the barrel” and not desirable. “We don’t want you renting to them,” the inspector
said, referring to Project Hope clients. These or similar statements were repeated again by the
same inspector in the Summer of 2003.
210. On or about June 13,2003, Krahn learned that the City’s code inspectors
had arrived at his rental duplex unit at 263 LaPond after a complaint from certain single family
home owners that rats were coming from his property. Martin and Koehnen were involved in
the inspection of Krahn’s duplex. Krahn’s tenants refused to make complaints against him as
they had not been having problems with rats.
211. Upon Krahn’s investigation, his apartment manager and Krahn learned that there
were rats all around the neighborhood and that the actual source of the rats was not Krahn’s
duplex but rather the City’s sewer system and that the rats had been coming out of the sewer that
the City had opened for repair just down the street from Krahn’s duplex.
6 0.212. Dawkins called Krahn and told him that Dawkins was thinking about taking
Krahn to court over the rat problem in Krahn’s duplex. Dawkins told Krahn that because of the
rat infestation, the building would be condemned and that Krahn would be responsible for
putting all of his tenants into a hotel. Dawkins then asked Krahn if he wanted to be present if the
matter went to court. Krahn replied, “Yes”. Dawkins asked Krahn if he wanted to go to court on
the issue, to which Krahn replied, “No”. Dawkins then added, “As of right now, nothing is set,
but I have to talk to the inspectors because they are the one’s pushing for it to go to court.”
Dawkins told Krahn that the law did not require the City to notify him of the City’s court action
against Krahn on the property, but that the law only required that the City attempt to notify the
landlord.
2 13. Following this phone conversation, Krahn contacted his attorney and informed
him of the facts. Krahn later determined that at the time he had talked to Dawkins, Dawkins had
already scheduled a tenant remedies action hearing against Krahn in Court.
214. The City subsequently dismissed the tenant’s remedy action against Krahn.
215. Krahn has stated that Community Stabilization Project (“CSP”) worked together
with the City inspectors and Dawkins in an effort to illegally condemn Krahn’s duplex. On the
morning of the court hearing, CSP personnel came over to the duplex in four cars and attempted
once again to convince Krahn’s tenants to move out and join the City’s court action against
Krahn over the rats. Krahn has stated that personnel from CSP were pushing the whole thing,
61.telling the tenants that they could get Krahn to put them up in a hotel if they joined the case.
2 16. Even though Krahn’s tenants refused to bring court claims against Krahn,
nevertheless Dawkins with the assistance of Attorney Dolan, named Krahn’s tenants as party
plaintiffs in the TRA filed in court. The failure of the City and CSP to obtain the approval of
Krahn’s tenants to join the TRA lawsuit against Krahn is confirmed in a June 18,2003, letter to
the tenants from a private attorney assisting CSP. Krahn concluded from this letter that at no
time did his tenants consent to be added to the City’s malicious suit against him and yet the City
and CSP added Krahn’s tenants’ names to the pleadings.
217. Around the time ofthe action by the City and CSP against Krahn’s duplex,
CSP personnel went door to door on three other properties Krahn owned attempting to get
Krahn’s tenants in those apartments to go against him through court actions, promising tenants
that CSP could get them lots of money from Krahn. There were no complaints against these
buildings at the time.
end of Defendants’ aggressive code enforcement program. Krahn has worked with Project Hope
for many years assisting less fortunate people to find permanent housing within the .City.
209. A City housing inspector informed Krahn in the Summer of 2002 that the City
wanted to review his tenant screening process to determine who he was renting to. The inspector
stated that the City did not want him renting to people assisted by Project Hope, as they were
“bottom of the barrel” and not desirable. “We don’t want you renting to them,” the inspector
said, referring to Project Hope clients. These or similar statements were repeated again by the
same inspector in the Summer of 2003.
210. On or about June 13,2003, Krahn learned that the City’s code inspectors
had arrived at his rental duplex unit at 263 LaPond after a complaint from certain single family
home owners that rats were coming from his property. Martin and Koehnen were involved in
the inspection of Krahn’s duplex. Krahn’s tenants refused to make complaints against him as
they had not been having problems with rats.
211. Upon Krahn’s investigation, his apartment manager and Krahn learned that there
were rats all around the neighborhood and that the actual source of the rats was not Krahn’s
duplex but rather the City’s sewer system and that the rats had been coming out of the sewer that
the City had opened for repair just down the street from Krahn’s duplex.
6 0.212. Dawkins called Krahn and told him that Dawkins was thinking about taking
Krahn to court over the rat problem in Krahn’s duplex. Dawkins told Krahn that because of the
rat infestation, the building would be condemned and that Krahn would be responsible for
putting all of his tenants into a hotel. Dawkins then asked Krahn if he wanted to be present if the
matter went to court. Krahn replied, “Yes”. Dawkins asked Krahn if he wanted to go to court on
the issue, to which Krahn replied, “No”. Dawkins then added, “As of right now, nothing is set,
but I have to talk to the inspectors because they are the one’s pushing for it to go to court.”
Dawkins told Krahn that the law did not require the City to notify him of the City’s court action
against Krahn on the property, but that the law only required that the City attempt to notify the
landlord.
2 13. Following this phone conversation, Krahn contacted his attorney and informed
him of the facts. Krahn later determined that at the time he had talked to Dawkins, Dawkins had
already scheduled a tenant remedies action hearing against Krahn in Court.
214. The City subsequently dismissed the tenant’s remedy action against Krahn.
215. Krahn has stated that Community Stabilization Project (“CSP”) worked together
with the City inspectors and Dawkins in an effort to illegally condemn Krahn’s duplex. On the
morning of the court hearing, CSP personnel came over to the duplex in four cars and attempted
once again to convince Krahn’s tenants to move out and join the City’s court action against
Krahn over the rats. Krahn has stated that personnel from CSP were pushing the whole thing,
61.telling the tenants that they could get Krahn to put them up in a hotel if they joined the case.
2 16. Even though Krahn’s tenants refused to bring court claims against Krahn,
nevertheless Dawkins with the assistance of Attorney Dolan, named Krahn’s tenants as party
plaintiffs in the TRA filed in court. The failure of the City and CSP to obtain the approval of
Krahn’s tenants to join the TRA lawsuit against Krahn is confirmed in a June 18,2003, letter to
the tenants from a private attorney assisting CSP. Krahn concluded from this letter that at no
time did his tenants consent to be added to the City’s malicious suit against him and yet the City
and CSP added Krahn’s tenants’ names to the pleadings.
217. Around the time ofthe action by the City and CSP against Krahn’s duplex,
CSP personnel went door to door on three other properties Krahn owned attempting to get
Krahn’s tenants in those apartments to go against him through court actions, promising tenants
that CSP could get them lots of money from Krahn. There were no complaints against these
buildings at the time.
posted by Bob at Wednesday, November 08, 2006
4 Comments:
And what have we here? Another guy saying the same old story, but supposedly it's just allegations right? Even with the existence of the letter from the Attorney concerning the lawsuit that was brought with false plaintiffs and false evidence....nothing more than mere allegations! No investigation, no one re-assigned, no one suspended or fired, just keep doing what they have always been doing right?
This sounds like denial to me. The city has a problem.
It seems people are speaking of the German SS of housing in St. Paul.
Instead of being branded Jewish, these renters are branded "bottom of of the barrel" and a landlord is requested not to rent to certain people by a City official.
Maybe we could just put a tatoo on the forehead of people the City deems undesirable to rent to, this would help landlords with the tenant application process.
Perhaps the city could authorize the landlords to brand the renters with the tatoo when they do not behave in a way that the city finds acceptable.
There is a trial coming and also an election. I think the "brownshirt" tactics by these city officials is going to come to an end. Maybe we will have "Republicans" running the city after the next election. Maybe the newspaper will finaly find the guts to start reporting on what is going on in the city
Post a Comment
<< Home