Saint Paul Racketeering Law Suit #3 continued

172. In comparison to the adverse code enforcement operations conducted against Plaintiffs and other similar private rental property owners, Defendants provided preferential code enforcement treatment to PHA with its owned and managed low income rental properties, which included minimal code enforcement oversight, no adverse threat consequences to PHA as a result of code deficiencies in PHA properties, PHA tenant behavior problems, PHA rental property vacancies, and in other matters similar to private rental property owners.

173. Defendant Dawkins owns at least two properties in the City that have been consistently in a state of disrepair and in serious violation of City Code. Moreover, certain city inspectors own rental properties in the City and these inspectors are recipients of preferential code enforcement treatment even though their properties have multiple code violations.
City and Its Officials and Employees Benefit From Illegal Schemes

174. Gallagher met with Dawkins in Dawkins’ office to discuss code enforcement issues. Gallagher noticed a chart on Dawkins’ wall with a goal to raise $200,000.00 in fees from excessive consumption fines of City property owners. Dawkins explained his goal chart to Gallagher and Collins upon a second visit to his office when he was questioned about the motive and validity of such a chart.

175. As a result of the illegal code enforcement operations and racketeering activity of Dawkins, Magner, and other city officials and employees, Plaintiffs have been forced to sell many of their rental properties (some of them to Allison), as well as the other plaintiffs, brought on by the City’s attempt to circumvent the grandfathering protections due to the placement of properties into condemnation or on the vacant housing list. Plaintiffs and other property owners will be forced to expend tens of thousands of dollars per property in
38
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 17 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 38 of 77

bringing the home up to modern code instead of being able to make repairs and then immediately re-renting or selling the home.

176. Defendant City has benefited from these illegal schemes against Plaintiffs and other rental property owners, through fees triggered by the condemnations, vacant building registration, "full code compliance" inspections and certification process, excessive consumption fees, permit fees and other fees. Defendant City also benefited through receipt of grant funds for bringing TRA suits against Gallagher, Collins and Dadder’s and other property owners. Magner, Cassidy, Essling, Schiller, Yannarelly, Senty, Singerhouse, Booker, Urmann, Dawkins, Kelly and other officials and employees have also benefited personally in their positions of employment with the City.

177. Following the receipt of the Assessment Notices, Summary Abatement Orders, Correction Orders, Vehicle Abatement Orders, Excessive Consumption Invoices, and others, Gallagher often has called the inspectors and Dawkins to protest the assessment of fees and to explain the false code violations that had led to the assessments. Most of the time, Gallagher is informed by the inspector and Dawkins that if he fails to make the payment, his rental registration will be revoked. In fact, Gallagher and Dadder’s had their rental registration’s revoked on rental properties located at 250 Duke and 551 Michigan. Gallagher was forced to make payment to the City in the amount of $400.00 after Gallagher met with Dawkins in order to keep his rental registration and continue his rental business at 250 Duke and 551 Michigan.

178. Dawkins, Magner and others working for the City targeted Plaintiffs as part of an illegal scheme to hold City landlords responsible for all adverse tenant behavior, including tenant caused damage to rental properties in the City, all in an effort to extort property and other
39
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 17 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 39 of 77

rights from landlords to the benefit of the City and to Dawkins, Magner and others personally. Conversely, Defendants do not target PHA for the same type of tenant behavior and damage issues, but instead directly hold tenants of PHA rental properties responsible for their actions.

179. Defendants and other City officials and employees have had knowledge of the existence of these continued fraudulent schemes being operated by NHPI as set forth herein and Defendants and certain other officials and employees encouraged this pattern of illegal code enforcement and racketeering activity to continue within the City on a continuing basis since Kelly placed Dawkins in control of the NHPI department in late 2002.

180. Due to the racketeering activity and illegal and discriminatory code enforcement operations directed against them, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages including loss of rental income, profits, and investments in multiple rental buildings. Additionally, Plaintiffs damages include anticipated losses from forced sales of their rental properties, unnecessary repairs, excessive fees and charges, expenditures to protect their interests, payment of attorney's fees, costs and disbursements and other damages. The damages suffered by the Plaintiffs are substantial, ongoing in nature and are increasing daily.
Other Property Owners Subject to Discrimination and Racketeering Activity

181. Frank Steinhauser, Mark Meysembourg, Kelly Brisson, Sandra Harrilal, Bee Vue, Steven Johnson and others, former and current City property owners renting to “protected class” tenants, were subjected during the period 2002 through 2005, to discrimination and racketeering activity similar to what Plaintiff’s experienced, including false allegations of code deficiencies, illegal condemnations and code compliance inspections, City lawsuits, and Paragraph 186 (herein) predicate acts. As a result, they were injured and lost or sold their 40
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 17 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 40 of 77

rental properties in the City.