Custom Search

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Democrat Political Stratgist Chuck Repke Spins Housing Issue's

Please click onto the comments for a "Movement of the Bowels" from Saint Paul Issues and Forums".

posted by Bob at Saturday, April 14, 2007

6 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

From: Chuck Repke Date: 2007-04-14 07:31 (UTC) Short link

Bill, my friend. The City does not hold any landlord "accountable for the
actions of their tenants." They hold property owners responsible for their
properties. If you or I can't manage our properties than we can get fined.
What actions we choose to take with those people who we invite onto our
properties or contract out our land rights to of our own free will, is up to us
and not up to the City. But, if the property has reached such a state of
disrepair that the City deems that the removal of the refuse that once was a
living facility will improve the overall value of the property and they abate
the property of that refuse and we will get a bill for it assessed to our
taxes.

The government may from time to time rehab, remodel or remove a PHA building.
Are you suggesting that they first wait until the City writes them up? This is
the silliness of the property rights group. Because PHA doesn't let there
buildings get into that state of disrepair that the City does the demo, then it
must follow that the City wouldn't write up PHA for a code violation. It makes
no sense.

PHA repairs its own buildings and the City could and I hope would inspect them
like any other building. The difference is that the owners of properties that
end up in housing court or in front of the City council don't repair their
buildings in a timely manner. About 95% of the rental properties in Saint Paul
never end up in front of the City Council, yet we hear this constant whine that
the City is picking on the jerks who won't take care of their properties.

You know better Bill - you have managed properties as well as anyone. These
issues are no different here or in Mpls or in the burbs.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke
▶
-----Original Message-----
From: bjc ( at ) cullenhomes.com
To: stpaul-issues ( at ) forums.e-democracy.org
Sent: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [SPIF] A genuine offer to our elected officials


I visited St. Paul PHA this morning. The very nice gentleman I spoke with
at the front desk on third floor told me that St. Paul PHA has no rental
criteria except a maximum income requirement.

Now, I question if that is accurate, because the documentation he gave me
said under Eligibility: "To be eligible for an apartment in a hi-rise
building, an individual must meet specific income guidelines and screening
criteria." So I am not sure what to believe...

Regardless, this raises an obvious question:

Is a screening criteria based ONLY on income "sufficient rental criteria?"

If it is NOT sufficient, then is the board and executives of PHA held to the
same standard as private landlords? IE, does the city fine, imprison the
principles and ultimately bulldoze PHA properties that have occupant
behavior problems?

If it IS sufficient, then I suspect every landlord in the city has
sufficient rental criteria. So, why would the city hold ANY landlords
accountable for the actions of tenants since they all pass the standard set
by our government?

So... Does PHA do "sufficient screening?"

My $500 offer is still on the table. All I want is an official "best
practices" rental screening criteria from our Mayor, City Council or
District Council executive directors. Easy money.

Best Regards, Bill Cullen
Former St. Paul Landlord
Former President of St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords

Bill Cullen
East Side Small Business Owner
More info: Info about Bill Cullen:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/billcullen

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6cOAgM5pDfj2oezmtqQLC


More info about St. Paul Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues

E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules

12:07 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

If you are a new reader here please read the Racketeering lawsuits & homeless & Hunger report to the right of the screen on the front page. Our elected officials are responsible for making women and children, the elderly and handicap homeless through a rigours code enforcement policy that is alleged to of been beneficial to a number of people within City government.

Ya know Chuck the difference between you and I is. You have some very deep self interest for defending these issues for the City and I speak from the heart.

Your SPIN is easily dismissed in the public arena. And has been repeatedly over the last year and a half. One needs only to attend a neighborhood meeting when Bill M. and I of the Watchdog are present to see the reaction of the citizens of this City.

I challenge you and other City officials to an organized public debate on the CAPITOL LAWN"! You invite the greatest minds this City has to offer in support of your SPIN.
SO far, we have demoralized you and others who have opposed us on this issue. "Ya can't argue with the truth.

1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BEST PRACTICES:

1. Don't rent to someone if they have ANY criminal convictions in their past.

2. Don't rent to someone if they have "Evictions" on their record.

3. Don't rent to someone if they have less than perfect credit.

4. Don't tent to someone if they pay their rent late.

5. Don't rent to someone if their culture or behavior is such that it falls within the meaning of the city's nusiance laws which the city itself defines as follows:

c. This is a City ordinance that says no property owner shall allow a nuisance. There is a very long definition of what is a nuisance. Suffice it to say a nuisance is anything that bothers or annoys more than just one neighbor. If the nuisance activity continues, after the property owner receives a notice to discontinue the unacceptable behavior, we charge a misdemeanor.

As a side note to #5, this would just be common sense because if you do rent to these types of people, you will wind up being the criminal, not the tenant.

6. Don't rent to anyone who has been a vctim of domestic abuse. The "domestic abuse" incidents these people become invloved in almost always turn into disurbances which then fall under the city's nusiance laws.

7.Don't rent to anyone that does not have an income which is at least 3 times the amount of rent being charged....ie, $3,000.00 per month for a $1,000.00 per month apartment.

8. No students of any type. They party too much and take up all the parking on the street.

9. Don't rent to anyone with a good family structure and a large family. Too many family members coming and going will be construed as drug activity.

10. Don't rent to anyone who drives an older car which could and often is subject to repairs making it in-operable for periods of time until the owner can save the money needed for the repair.

Have any of the people reading these "Best Practices" ever fallen into any of these categories?

Perhaps when you were younger and starting out in life?

How would your life be different today if you were prevented from having one of the basic necessities of life such as a roof over your head.

Although the city of St Paul doesn't come right out and quote these "Best Practices," these are the things they enforce upon landlords not only through their politically correct "regulations" and "politial agendas," but also through their "Enforcers" such as the Police Department, Fire Department, LIEP and NHPI offices.

I believe these are a good share of the "Best Practices" Mr. Cullen is talking about.

While these gutless wonders on the City Council will not ever come out and say they agree with these "Best Practices," they are exactly the ones being enforced through inuendos, bureaucratic regulations, targeting and threats of other illegal actions and demolitions of the homes these above types of people live in.

Perhaps one of the City Council memebrs would like to come here and say they DO NOT believe in any or some of the above "Best Practices."

Who's first? How about you Lantry since you've got the biggest mouth of the whole bunch?

We'll be waiting to hear from you.

3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck:

Are you trying to blow every bit of credibility you have.

Everyone knows that the behavior and actions of the tenant or owner is what brings the city inspections department to the house in the first place. It has nothing to do with the house or getting the house fixed up. If that were the case, the city would look like Beverly Hills by now after 5 years of the city's Nazi style inspection tactics.

How is the owner supposed to manage his property when the city is looking over his shoulder 24/7 and trying to micro manage what the owner is doing?

Get a grip buddy!

4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reepke makes the comment

What actions we choose to take with those people who we invite onto our
properties or contract out our land rights to of our own free will, is up to us
and not up to the City.


The question I would like to ask Repke is who the hell are we supposed to rent to in some of these areas where the only people who are willing to rent there are the very same people that the city does not want renting there?

White middle class people with good jobs and cars are NOT looking to rent houses in Frogtown and the East Side.

4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck ya making me dizzy!

1:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home