Custom Search

Friday, September 05, 2008

Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Victim Steve Johnson

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

posted by Bob at Friday, September 05, 2008

12 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

There maybe copy errors

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintins,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plainti I1s,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) 55.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
STEVEN R. JOHNSON
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Steven R. Johnson, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
I. I am a resident of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. I have resided there since
2005, having previously resided in Eagan, Minnesota since 200 I. I am married
and have 3 children.
2. I was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota and attended Johnson High
School. I took the Kansas State Business Course correspondence in 1982. In
1984 thm 1985 I attended the 916 Vocational school for carpentry.
3. I have been in the real estate business since 1995. During 2002 through 2006,
I owned and managed many rental properties in Saint Paul.
4. About 90% of my tenants during 2002 through 2006 were African-Americans,
American Indians, Hispanics, mixed race couples, those receiving Social
Security Disability and Section 8 housing voucher assistance from the federal
government.
5. During this same period, I received many referral tenants from Project Hope, a
partially HUD funded housing advocacy group. Many of my tenants had
children.
6. My rental properties were located in the inner core area of the City. See
Exhibit"A", a listing of my former rental properties by address with Census
Tract numbers, Census Tract infoffilation. city maps and sweeps maps. Most
of my rental properties were located in areas with a high percentage of people
of color.
7. I owned and managed my properties with assistance from my family members
and employees.
2
8. I made significant investments of time and money into most of the 48 rental
properties that I owned in Saint Paul during 1997 through 2006. Sec Exhibit
"8" attached hereto, "Repairs, Remodel, Improvement and / or Renovation"
9. I have owned numerous rental properties in Saint Paul that were occupied by
tenants with Section 8 vouchers. I recall that I had almost 60 Section 8 tcnants
over the period I owned rental properties in the City of Saint Paul.
10. Undcr the Federal Section 8 program, the Saint Paul Public Housing Agency
(PHA) managed the application, inspection and payment process for the tenant
and for me as a Section 8 landlord. Each time a tenant applied to rent one of
my rental units, I infonncd the applicant that I did take Section 8 vouchers as I
wanted to do my part in providing low-income subsidized housing for the less
fortunatc.
11. PHA would arrange for a third party Section 8 housing inspector to schedule
an inspection of the apartment unit that was going to be subject to the voucher.
Once the inspcction was completed I would immediately work on corrccting
any items the Section 8 inspector notcd needed to be corrccted. The housing
standards that PIIA and its Section 8 inspector used for every inspection were
the Housing Quality Standard (lIQS) under HUD regulations. I understood that
the HQS housing standard was a reasonable housing standard designed to
encourage provision of decent and safe housing but not to set the standards to
high to discourage landlords and real estate investors from agreeing to provide
privately owned, low-income rental stock for public subsidies.
3
12. During early 2003, I became very concerned about what 1 perceived to be the
City of Saint Paul's application of a very high code enforcement standard to
my rental properties including to my Section 8 inspected and approved rental
units. The City's higher standard required me to incur substantial amounts of
extra fees, costs, unnecessary repairs, even renovations, that were not required
by PHA, its Section 8 inspectors, or the federal government.
13. Starting in early 2003, I noticed that the City inspectors were trying very hard
to get properties in my rental portfolio omine either through very questionable
condemnations with no notice ahead of time to repair and with no opportunity
to make repairs that led to the condemnation so that I could take actions to
have tenants reoccupy the rental property or have individuals who were
waiting for affordable housing occupy my properties.
14.1l1e City inspectors seemed to coordinate their inspections of my portfolio so
that I was constantly running from one property to the other to put out the fire
so to speak because of a code order or orders that had been written up on my
properties. Frequently, when I or my employees investigated the notice of
violation, we found that the claimed violation was actually not true - after
many untrue claims in City code orders I determined that the City and its
inspectors were purposefully harassing me through actions. When I received
an order, had it investigated, and found the City's claims were untrue, I knew
that I had to appeal the orders in order not to let the City "build a file" against
me that Director Andy Dawkins and others could then use against me to take
4
action to revoke my rental registration. All of my properties were, as best I
recall, timely registered with the City under its rental registration program. To
register all of my rental properties cost me a substantial sum of money every
year and placed pressure on the cash flow of my low-income subsidized rental
business. The City also conducted sweeps in areas where I owned rental
properties and this also meant that I and my family and employees had to take
significant amounts of time to provide extra close monitoring of all of our
properties in sweep areas. Sweeps also raised the costs of my business.
15. Two of my properties, one I was selling on a contract for deed to my son, and
the other that I was renting to a disabled tenant and his girlfriend, were targeted
by City inspectors under the direction of Andy Dawkins and Mayor Kelly, and
closed down thereby prohibiting any occupancy. I have detailed these actions
below. The inspectors took the actions against the two properties without any
basis under the City's code and then repeatedly demanded that I apply for a
"Code Compliance Inspection," pay the extra fees, hire contractors, and
renovate these properties to current codes all in violation of the Minnesota
State Building Code· that provides legal protections for older homes and
buildings to be subject to the codes that existed at the time the structure was
built or time it was renovated or use was changed. The City would not provide
me with the building permits until I agreed to the City's illegal demands to
give up my grandfathering rights through consent to a "Code Compliance".
The City's actions forced me to keep one of the two properties unoccupied at a
5
time when in short order under Section 8's HQS, I would have been able to
provide a family waiting for housing with a safe, decent rental home. The
City's unjustified and illegal actions in this regard, deeply upset me and my
family and caused us much stress.
16. When the City applied its higher code standards to rental properties in the City
in 2002 and thereafter, and increased the enforcement of that higher standards,
my costs went up right away from note only having to deal with any and all
orders isslIed on my properties, but because after a short while, the City'S
inspectors had us going in so many directions with inspections, re-inspeetions,
appeals of orders, monitoring, meetings with Code officials and employees and
others, that we had no time to run the normal aITairs of our rental business,
such as work on unoccupied units to get them ready for re-rental, interviewing
and screening potential tenants, and the host of other important tasks of owning
and managing low-income rental properties.
17. During the entire time I owned rental properties in Saint Paul, no one from the
City, whether it was an inspector, or other employee, or official, ever infonned
me of resources to assist me in providing aITordable housing in the City to the
thousands who were on the waiting lists.
18. When I started to received numerous City code correction notices,
condemnations and vacant building notices, and demands for Code
Compliances, I looked around the City to see if I was the only landlord
receiving this special attention treatment and to see if the claims of Dawkins
6
and others were true as claimed - that the City and its inspectors were applying
the City code consistently. I discovered that in many blocks of the City where
more expensive homes were located, that I could drive down any of those
streets and alleys and observe code violations based upon my experience and
my brother's having been a Section 8 inspector. I started to take pictures
during my drives between my rental properties and then took pictures in other
areas of town over an extended period of time. It was clear to me that the City
was not enforcing its heightened code standards in the predominately White
occupied areas of town. I could drive down the same blocks and alleys month
after month and not see one change. If the City was issuing an initial order, the
owner was being given extensions or there was no effort to gain compliance
with the codes related to extemal violations.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit "e", is a 45 page listing of photographs} took of
City homes during 2004 and 2005. These pictures show the average condition
of homes in Saint Paul and demonstrate that homes across the City have many
code violations under the City's higher standard than HQS. To try and meet
the City's higher standard forced me out of the business of providing
affordable housing in the City of Saint Paul.
20.} started to question why the City and its inspectors were issuing so many
orders on my properties. I had numerous in person meetings with Lisa Martin
and Dean Keohnen and communications with Andy Dawkins about the orders
between 2003 through 2005. When I asked repeatedly why the City and
7
inspectors were commg after my properties, Martin and Keohnen would
frequenlly reply with derogatory tenns to describe my Black tenants, calling
them "trouble makers," "out of towners," Hlow life tenants," Hbottom of the
barrel," undesirable tenants, and HThe black plague come like roaches." I was
deeply offended by these derogatory names and racist attitudes. Since most of
my tenants were Black Americans, it was clear what Martin and Keohnen
meant by the "black plague" comment.
21. I will now go through the some of the City code enforcement efforts against
my properties during 2003 through 2005.
22. On or about March 12, 2003, and continuing to present, City housing
inspectors and officials, including Andy Dawkins, Lisa Martin, Officer Dean
Koehnen, Michal Kalis, Paula Seely and Dick Lippert, along with Assistant
City Attorney Maureen Dolan and others, have harassed me and my tenants on
my rental properties in an effort to shut down my rental business, or force
change in ownership of my properties. Defendants actions have forced me to
sell off many of my rental properties through their coordinated efforts to apply
the City's heightened code enforcement standards to my low-income rental
properties that were during 2003 through 2005 occupied by 90% minorities,
primarily African-Americans and many Section 8 tenants.
23. Even though I had had no abnormal history of code violations during my
ownership of rental properties prior to 2003, commencing on or about March
12, 2003, most of my rental properties were selectively targeted by Defendants
8
for application of the City's heightened code enforcement standards.
24. Defendants have repeatedly harassed me by selectively enforcing the City
heightened housing standards in a very strict and petty manner against me,
while at the same time looking the other way on serious housing code
violations at numerous adjacent properties not owned by me.
25. On January 30, 2003, Defendant Kalis, supervised by Dawkins, commenced
the illegal harassment against me by posting a "Vacant Building" sign on my
occupied property located at 469 Whitall Street. This property was in fact
occupied by my son, Kevin as was his home. Kalis ignored the obvious
occupancy of the home and posted the home as vacant thereby forcing my son
to leave his home in the middle of winter. This home had originally been
purchased by me to place into my low-income rental inventory but when my
son needed a place to live, he agreed to buy the property on a contract for deed
and fix up the property to become a rental property.
26.0n or about February 1,2003, I called Kalis to inquire why he had posted the
home "vacant". I infonned Kalis that the home was in fact occupied by my son
and that the posting was wrong. Kalis responded, "Too bad." I asked how I
could have the vacant building posting removed? Kalis told me, "In order to
get the vacant building posting removed I would have to comply to a full code
compliance. I asked him what that meant as I had no prior experience or
knowledge of "full code compliance". Kalis answered that I would need a
complete an upgrade of the home to current building standards in order to
9
reoccupy the home. Kalis refused to give me any further information or clarify
what I needed to do.
27. I was forced to file an appeal of Kalis' vacant building posting through the City
Council legislative hearing process. Following my successful appeal, on
february 10,2003, the City rescinded the "Vacant Building" status.
28. Inspector Martin at the direction of her supervisor Steve Magner and Dawkins,
retaliated against me for my challenge to their authority and illegally placarded
my home without basis and for my appeal. This retaliation was carried out
against me by Martin conducting an exterior inspection of 469 Whitall and
thereafter issuing and mailed me a Correction Notice dated February 10, 2003.
Martin infomled me that she would re-inspect the home on february 24, 2003,
and that the Code "deficiencies" must be corrected by that time or a criminal
summons could be issued.
29. On February 1,9, 2003, before the February 24, 2003, re-inspection deadline,
Martin made a second inspection, and then prepared and mailed to me and the
occupant a Revised Correction Notice dated February 21, 2003, that noted
additional "deficiencies" to be corrected by the original February 24, 2003,
deadline.
30. About one month later, Inspector Richard Lippert and Dawkins prepared and
mailed to me and the occupant a "Notice of Condemnation As Unfit For
Human Habitation And Order To Vacate" dated March 31, 2003, wherein
Lippert and Dawkins deliberately and maliciously condemned my 469 Whitall
10
home for no valid reason. Although the Notice was dated March 31, 2003, it
ordered that my home vacated hy March 28, 2003, three days earlier. Lippert
and Dawkins made the same demand as Kalis two months earlier that a full
code compliance be completed on my home before it could be reoccupied.
31. The March 31, 2003, Notice of Condemnation on my home was based solely
on a slight cracking in three joists on the porch. I already knew of this problem
as I had previously discussed the repair with other City inspectors who
informed him that it wa<; a minor repair. Based solely upon this minor problem,
the condemnation and order to vacate the property prohibited my son and his
girl friend and her two children from reoccupying their home.
32. Magner, Lippert, Kalis, Martin and Koehnen, and other inspectors from the
City, under the supervision of Dawkins, continued to selectively target me and
my business and tenants by condemning a second rental property that I had
purchased in December 2002. This property was located at 941 Cypress Street.
I leased this home to David Lindorf who was disabled, confined to a wheelchair
and receiving Social Security Disability Income assistance, and his
girlfriend, and Debbie Doolittle.
33. In February 2003, Dawkins' NHPI commenced harassment against my 941
Cypress tenant by repeatedly citing the disabled tenant with Vehicle
Abatement Orders and Summary Abatement Orders, and by issuing a criminal
misdemeanor housing code citation to my tenant.
II
34. Said Defendants were able to condemn my 941 Cypress rental property on
March 13, 2003, after a questionable warrant and police "drug raid" into the
home. Lippert and Dawkins promptly condemned my rental home as part of
the alleged "drug raid" forcing Mr. Lindorf and Ms. Doolittle from their home.
35. As part of the condemnation of 941 Cypress property, Lippert and Dawkins
prepared and mailed to me a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate
dated March 13, 2003 , see Exhibit "0". The sole basis for the condemnation
of was listed as "excessive storage of combustible materials "throughout" the
home. Lippert and Dawkins falsely and maliciously statcd the condition of the
home. The tenant was simply repairing his snow blower in his kitchen. Instead
of allowing the tenant to remove his snow blower and gas can from his kitchen,
Lippert and Dawkins took the most drastic action in condemning the property
and prohibiting anyone from living in the home.
36. Subsequently, I received in the mail from Martin a Correction Notice dated
January 16, 2004, rcgarding my rental property located at 606 Edmund
Avenue, that listed the claimed code violations following Martin and Officer
Koehnen's inspection of the property on January 15, 2004. Prior to conducting
that inspection, and in order to gain access to the interior of the home, Martin
and Koehnen falsely infonned the tenant that I had sent them to conduct the
inspection. Whcn the tenant would not invite Martin and Koehnen inside,
Martin and Keohnen forced their way into the rental unit to conduct the
inspection.
12
37. Martin's January 16, 2004, Correction Notice ("Notice") contained twelve (12)
claimed code violations of which live (5) were false. Martin's claims regarding
the toilet scat, cabinets, carpet, roof and sanitation (Items 5, 6, 9, II, and 12)
were deliberately false and those claimed code violations did not in fact exist,
see Exhibit "E".
38. Martin and Koehnen had personally been present, witnessed and inspected the
606 Edmund property in June 2003, when they, with no prior notice, came to
the property uninvited. At that time, I was almost completed with an extensive
renovation of the home which included the items specifically listed in the later
Notice from Martin.. Martin and Koehnen personally toured the premises,
including the interior, and expressed amazement of the quality of the materials
and workmanship and time and effort being expended by me and my crew on
renovation.
39. Kalis issued a citation to me on my 469 Whitall rental property on May 19,
2004, with a Summary Abatement Order ordering me to cut and remove tall
grass, weeds and rank plant growth. Kalis mailed the Summary Abatement
Order to me on May 20, 2004. The lawn at 469 Whitall was not over the eight
inch limit for grass height under the City's code. Kalis' claims were false.
40. Kalis again cited my 469 Whitall Street property on July 9, 2004, with a
Summary Abatement Order ordering me to cut and remove tall grass, weeds
and rank plant growth. Kalis mailed the Summary Abatement Order to me on
July 13, 2004. My son had cut the grass at 469 Whitall on July 7, 2004, and
13
once again the 1a\\11 was well under the code limit. Kalis' claims were false and
maliciously made in concert with the other Defendants and designed to
increase my costs and frustration with the City.
41. Kalis cited my 483 Sherburne Ave. single family rental property on October I,
2004, with a Summary Abatement Order mailed to me and ordering me to cut
and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth. The lawn at 483
Sherburne was not over the limit for grass height under the code but was in fact
3-4 inches in height on October 6, 2004, when I again cut the grass. Kalis'
claims were falsely made in concert with the other Defendants to increase my
costs and discourage me from continuing to provide low-income AfricanAmericans
with housing in the City.
42. Paula Seeley participated in enforcing the City's heightened code enforcement
standards against my low-income rental properties while she and other
inspectors provided PHA with preferential treatment under a working
relationship with PIIA and its inspectors. Seeley repeatedly issuing false
citations on my properties in order to harass me and increase my costs and
discourage me from continuing to rent to African-American tenants.
43. On March 23, 2004, Seeley issued a Correction Order which she mailed to me
on March 24, 2004, stating that I was in violation of the City Code for a
tenant's vehicle parked on an unapproved surface. Seeley ordered the vehicle
to be removed from the grass. The Vehicle was not parked on the grass but
14
rather was parked on a fully code compliant gravel surface on top of an older
cement garage noor.
44. Seeley also issued a Vehicle Abatement Order for my 483 Sherburne Ave.
property and mailed this Order to me on April 2, 2004, claiming that an
automobile owned by my tenant was parked on grass, an unapproved parking
surface. Seeley's claim was false, as the vehicle was actually parked on a
gravel surface on top of an older cement garage 110or.
45. On April 19, 2004, Seeley issued a Correction Order for my 483 Sherbunle
Ave property, which she mailed to me on April 20, 2004. Seeley claimed a
code violation existed for garbage and rubbish stored on property. When I
received the notice and conducted an inspection of the property, I found one
garbage bag in front of the 90 gallon trash container. At the same time, other
neighboring properties had excessive garbage and trash rubbish.
46. Dawkins mailed me an April 20, 2004, Excessive Consumption Notice billing
me $50.00 for the cost Seeley's inspection. The Notice stated that "Failure to
pay this bill will result in revocation of your registration."
47.1 filed a legislative appeal of Seeley's Correction Order dated April 19, 2004. I
along with my son and daughter and three of my tenants attended the appeal
hearing on May II, 2004. The City Council legislative hearing officer allowed
inspector Seeley to present her testimony of claimed trash but refused my offer
to present evidence that Seeley's claims of code violations were false.
15
48.1 received a St. Paul City Council Public Hearing Notice - Ratification of
Assessment, dated August 13, 2004, notifYing me that a hearing would be held
on September 22, 2004, to authorize a property assessment on 483 Sherburne
of the excessive consumption fce of $50.00 that Dawkins had levied, plus a
$20.00 service fee. I had not paid the Excessive Consumption fee of $50.00
levied by Dawkins on my 483 Sherburne property in protest over the false code
violations claims.
49. Following my receipt of the Assessment Notice, I called Dawkins to protest the
assessment of fcc and explained to Dawkins the false code violation citation
that had led to the nssessment. Dawkins informed me that if 1 failed to make
the payment, my rental registration would he revoked. 1 couldn't afford to lose
my rental registration and so 1 was forced to make payment to the City in the
amount of $70.00 in order to keep my rentnl registration and to continue my
rental business at 483 Sherburne Ave.
50. On or about February 16, 2005, Seeley issued a Correction Notice on my
property located at 483 Sherburne Ave., and mailed the Notice to me on
February 17, 2005, notifying me to eliminate the code violation of, "trash
container is overflowing and there is scattered trash on the ground and alley
area. Remove." 1 detennined that the claimed violation was without any basis
and in fact was completely false.
51. The properties surrounding and nearby 540 Charles, a duplex, had many
deficiencies and had no citations. On July 13, 2004, I was issued a citation for
16
excessive garbage and sanitation by the City of St. Paul. When I went to see
what the problems was, the only thing I found was a chair lefi by the garbage
container f()r disposal. Afier that I received another citation for minor garage
repairs, while other properties nearby had major repairs needed. On September
4, 2003 I received another citation for excessive garbage and sanitation, which
was only I bag of garbage next to the garbage container. On Octobcr 12, 2004
the City of St. Paul ordercd me to provide garbage service which had always
bcen providcd for the tenants. I sent all the proof and documcnts to the city.
The city ignorcd Illy documents and proof of service and on October 17, 2004
issued city garbage service through March 29, 2005, along with the service I
already had. I had sent several lctters to the city to have their garbage service
removed during this time.
52. On May 24, 2005 I attendcd the City Council Hearing to dispute the city
providcd garbage service. \Vhen I asked for proof of excessive garbage, the
city reduced the city provided garbage fees because of no evidence but would
not dismiss their fees completely. During the time that I owned 540 Charles, I
was also cited for illegal parking when the property always had "class 5"
gravel for a parking surface. 540 Charles was a Section 8 property that
occupied African-Americans families. On April 28, 2005 I sold the property
due to unduc city harassment.
53.0n June 14, 2004 I received a citation for gravel on the sidewalk at 405
Jessamine from a storm that caused floods and trees down all over the city.
17
had never had a problem with gravel before the storm. On August 9, 2005 1
received another citation for gravel on sidewalk caused by heavy rains. The
whole neighborhood had wash outs and flooded basements, trees down and
damaged homes. 1 was cited the day after the stann. 1 was cited for excessive
garbage many times due to the neighbors trash piled up, falling onto my
property. Between October 15, 2004 and October 22, 2004 1 disputed with
Dawkins about city provided garbage service. 405 Jessamine, triplex housed
Section 8 families of African-American decent. 1 tinally sold this property due
to illegal harassment by the city and inspectors.
54.1 received several violations for brush pile SE comer of yard by fence. This
violation was not our fault and plain to sec. The neighbor at 1062 Blair had cut
and trimmed trees and shmbs and pile them up in their yard, some of the bmsh
fell onto 1066 Blair. Joe Yannarelly, city inspector issued the citation to the
wrong property. I called Yannarelly to explain, but he was not concemed on
who's fault the violation was. It stands cited. Even after the bmsh was cleaned
up on my property, the bmsh pile stayed at 1062 Blair for a year after. I finally
sold 1066 Blair below market value, just to get away from the haralisment.
These undue citations have caused my family much time away from their
families to look into the problems that might exist, just to find that they were
falsified statements.
55.At 67 Jessamine the city claimed I had mold on the property because ofa water
stained ceiling. 'Ine city ordered me to tear off the roof and replace the roof or
18
they would give an order to vacate, when the roof had at least 10 - 15 years
left. Once the roof was tom ofl: the inspector admitted that he found no mold
when he signed off on the completion. I later sold this building because the city
was making me put on expensive roof.'i when it was not necessary.
56.574 - 576 Bay, duplex, housed Section 8 families of African-American decent.
On January 7, 2005 I was given a false correction order for grartiti on the
garage. The garage never had any graffiti. It was freshly painted and in
excellent condition. I received citations for excessive garbage even though
there were 2 containers for garbage and a fenced in area, just for garbage. The
inspector had to pass the property across the alley, which had continuous
garbage and construction debris all along side of it. There were many
properties nearby that had many violations and were never enforced. Again, I
sold this building because I could not take the continuous harassment.
57. On January 5, 2005 I received a citation for expired tabs on a vehicle at 237
Forbes that was covered up with a protective car tarp because it was a collector
car. Down that same alley at 5 different properties all had unlicensed vehicles,
parked on illegal surfaces, some even up on blocks and they were still like that
for more than 6 months later. The tenant called the inspector to make
arrangements for no more citations to get his tabs renewed on his next pay
period. On January 26, 2005 a summary assessment was made by the
inspector. The tenant complied with updating the tabs before February 7, 2005,
but I received an excessive consumption fees. The tenants that resided at 237
19
Forbes were on disability social security income and of Hispanic and African
American decent. I sold this property because of the un fair treatment.
58. On December 12, 2004, Sunday atlernoon, at 954 Carroll the vacating tenants
removed personal belongings including furniture and disposing of items in the
backyard of the property. We were closely monitoring the situation of the
move out and noticed the debris carlyon Sunday evening. We immediately
loaded 2 truck loads of debris to haul away the next morning on December 13,
2004. We had completed disposal of all of the debris by 10:30 am. On
December 14,2004 I was cited by the city with a sanitation correction order by
Matt Dornfield. There was no debris anywhere on the property for the date of
the citation. During the 2 Y2 years of ownership, the property conditions in the
alley of other properties were never addressed by the city Le. long grass,
excessive garbage, broken windows, illegal parking, non running vehicle,
fences and garages falling down and deteriorated roof..<;, etc. While attending to
all of the illegal harassment directed at my properties, I had my family and
employees helping Ollt when we all should have been re-renting houses and
maintaining properties.
59. I received several citations for excessive garbage which was caused by the
neighborhood properties around 666 'I1lOmas. I received several citations for
illegal parking surface when I always had "class 5" gravel for parking. Most of
the properties down this alley never had legal parking surface, only dirt and
20
grass. A lot of the properties nearby didn't even have trash containers and the
condition oCthe alley never changed much.
60. I sold 371 Smith on January 31, 2005 and received a citation on April 22, 2005
for excessive garbage, even though I didn't own the property. I sent a copy of
the Warranty Deed to the City of St. Paul Inspections Department as proo[ On
May 3, 2005 I received an excessive consumption fee of $50.00 and was told
by the inspections department that if I didn't pay the fine that they would
revoke my rental registration license. I had to pay the fine, when I sent in the
check I sent in another copy of the warranty deed and explanation that I didn't
own the property and was never reimbursed by the city.
61. The tenants that were illegally kicked out of 941 Cypress, who were on
disability, transferred to 390 Sherburne, still being harassed at their new
location with vehicle abatement orders from Lisa Martin. On January 12, 2004
there were 3 cars located in the back parking on gravel. One of the vehicles
was having it's tire changed, due to a flat tire, but it was a running vehicle. l11e
other 2 vehicles were also running vehicles. Inspector Martin and Officer
Koehnen came to the property with no warning to have the vehicles towed with
a police escort of several squads. They towed the vehicles illegally when the
tenant and landlords stated that there was no reason to tow the vehicles. There
were many vehicles down the same alley that were inoperable and parked on
dirt for 3 to 4 1110nths. I never noticed any harassment by inspectors towards
these owners or citations or even any change in the conditions that I continued
21
to observe on these properties. The tenants could only afford to get one of the
vehicles out of tow. They lost the other 2 vehicles to the city for illegally
towing them. Also on January 12, 2004 Martin proceeded to due code
correction compliance. We completed I, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of correction order by
February 7, 2004, at re-inspection, out of 7 items. Items 6 and 7 could not be
completed during winter months, they were paint and a porch to be tom down,
that there was nothing wrong with. Martin extended the time into spring for the
remaining 2 items, but assessed an excessive consumption charge for
additional inspections. I completed items 6 and 7 by early spring. Inspector
Martin passed the items on February 7, 2004, but cited additional items that
had already been passed at the prior re-inspection. She was very rude and
arrogant. Also in attendance of final inspection on February 7, 2004, were
Officer Koehnen, Andy Dawkins, and Assistant District Attorney Maureen
Dolan who were all harassing us until they ran into Channel 5 News in front of
the house. To this day, we have never received a correction notice completion.
At this time, many other properties had several violations that got worse
through the summer of 2004, with seeing no enforcement. During fall clean up,
we had bags of leaves on the side of the garage and received an abatement
order for leaves. The tenants moved out because of continued harassment and
no longer rent from me. The tenants were on Social Security income and one
was a disabled American Indian. I sold the property below market value,
because of the illegal targeting.
22
62. As a direct result of the Defendants application of heightened code
enforcement standards to my rental properties, my rental business incurred
signilicant financial burdens including lost of rental income, dramatic increase
in expenses, inability to attend to nomlal business matters because of all the
time and attention needed to defend my real estate investments and tenants
against coordinated actions by Dcfendants.
63. I was limited in my ability to properly and timely turnover my unoccupied
rental units to get them back onlinc for rental income due to the extra
monitoring and work I and my staff were required to undergo in order to meet
the City's heightened code enforcement standards. I incurred unnecessary
expenses, permit and inspection fees and suffered lost profits and further
income as a result of Dcfendants action against mc. I was forced to sell of
property afler property to cover the extra costs that were unnecessary needed in
my business to provide safe and decent housing to the needy in the City.
eventually lost all of my Saint Paul rental properties through forced sale in an
accelerated sale process.
64. I attendcd a St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords, (SPARL) with
Frank Steinhauser and my brother Ken Johnson. Mayor Kelly was the guest
speaker at this meeting. Mayor Kelly was addressing the crowd, stating how he
was going to force his way into rental properties using the inspection
department, as he spoke the crowd became outraged. Mayor Kelly continued
with a loader tone and stated, "we will get inside of the interiors of these
23
homes". My brother, Ken Johnson, stood up and asked Mayor Kelly "what if I
don't want you in my properties, and won't let you in?" The crowd cheered
Ken on. Mayor Kelly became outraged. Mayor Kelly stood up and leaning
towards the crowd, pointing his finger, with a loud and angry voice said "you
will comply!" My brother Ken said "no I won't." The crowd was cheering on
Ken with approval. Mayor Kelly made a few more comments to the crowd
about his new enforcement tactics. The crowd became even more enraged as
the meeting went on. It seemed to me, that Mayor Kelly had more to say, but
instead walked away.
65. Following the filing of the Steinhauser federal court Complaint on May 5,
2004, wherein I was identified as a witness and similarly injured property
owner who had potential claims against the City of Saint Paul and the
Steinhauser defendants, the individual Defendants eontinued illegal eode
enforcement aetions directed against my properties.
66. On June 24, 2004, City Attorney Dolan and Kalis applied for ex-parte
restraining orders against me and my brother for conduct that allegedly
occurred on May 24, 2004. When the Ramsey County District Court judge
reviewed the actual evidence, the restraining orders were dismissed as there
was no basis for the relief sought by said Defendants through Kalis. Dismissal
of the restraining orders occurred only after I and my brother were forced to
hire St. Paul attorney Thomas C. Plunkett, thereby incurring substantial
attomey's fees and costs in having our attorney obtain the necessary court
24
relief. I was in the process ofpreparing my federal claims against the City and
the Defendant herein during the time of this retaliation.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 8-22-2008
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This 22nd day ofAugust, 2008
Melanie Kathleen Bath
Notary Public
Under Seal
25
sl Steve R. Johnson

10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More retaliation! Seems to be a common theme whenever reading about these lawsuits. I guess that's what the city does the best.

12:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy is super nice and the city destroyed his business and life.But no big deal Repke huh?You still get you government handouts you leech.

8:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You will comply" huh? Looks to me like these guys are the ones that going to make the city comply!

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You will comply!"

12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Outrageous behavior on behalf of the City. I just can't wait for the trial.

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another slumlord like Steinhauser.I wonder if this guy puts appliances in his apartments?

3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another Stalinist outrage. Looks like the same bunch, and Dawkins must have had an extremely high level of comprehension about the effects of sordid approach.

7:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's this about appliances? Is there a law that says a lanldord has to supply aplliances with a rental? Or is this just another part of the socialist idea thatr everything is supposed to be taken care of by someone else?

12:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'd think if your trying to help the poor minority affordable tenant you'd supply appliances.If they can barely pay rent how are they suposed to buy them?

8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are many social service agencies that give these folks vouchers so they can get applainances, furnitutre, beds, etc. That's why more times than not, they never take that stuff with them when they move because they can just go get some more for free.

10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This person owned a house on my block. He always took care of it, it was clean and no problems. Now that the city has forced him out of the business, the property has been an eyesore for years, the city cuts the grass and shovels the snow. Thee's trash dumped on the lot 24/7 and now they city is going to tear it down. They really helped out my neighborhood. It was the city who caused the blight and now everyone on the block has to pay more in propeprty tax because there's one less taxpayer on the block. Thanks a lot St. Paul!

10:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home