Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Victim Kelly Brisson
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Monday, September 15, 2008
Custom Search
Monday, September 15, 2008
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits part 9, ...
- Saint Paul/ A citizen pleas with city council to h...
- Saint Paul/ 1863 Montana
- Saint Paul/ Fair Housing Lawsuit Update
- St. Paul / Property tax up, but many will pay less
- F... you, you little prick!
- Sacramento/ Taxpayer tab for destroying man's prop...
- RNC GONE WILD/ Martin Owings Reporting
- Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits part 8, ...
- Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Vi...
26 Comments:
There is copy errors
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
KELLY G. BRISSON IN
OPIlOSITION TO SUi\IMARY
JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Kelly G. Brisson, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
1. I am a resident of Minnesota.
2. I was born and raised in Saint Paul. In 2001, I purchased my first home at 297
Burgess, in Saint Paul. This was a duplex, two story home.
3. I bought my home to fix up and to rent out one floor to help me with my living
expenses and for investment purposes. I had purchased the duplex on a contract for
deed. I lived in the upper floor unit of this home.
4. My duplex rental property was located near the inner City of St. Paul. My tenants
were Hispanics and a White disabled male on Social Security Disability and receiving
Section 8 rental subsidies. See Exhibit "1", attached hereto, List of my former
property address, census tract, and map location in St. Paul.
5. In the spring of 2003, I started to rent to Leo Sider, who was disabled, receiving
Social Security Disability payments and was eligible to receive Section 8 housing
assistance from the PHA. Mr. Sider applied to Section to live in my main floor rental
unit.
6. As part of Mr. Sider's application to rcnt from mc and receive public assistance,
housing inspectors from PHA completed a Section 8 inspection of Brisson's duplex
on April 3, 2003. The inspectors conducted the inspection using the Housing Quality
Standards and detcrmined that four items needed correction and attention and Brisson
immediately made the repairs. Exhihit "2" attached hereto, 20076-77.
7. On April 14,2003, PHA inspectors re-inspected my duplcx and issued approval to me
under Section 8. See Exhihit "3" attached hereto 20078-79. Mr. Sider moved into
the main floor rental unit.
8. During the next several months I continued to work on improving my home and
rental property. Part of the renovation process included repairing certain portions of
the roof that had been damaged by squirrels. Construction debris collected on the
ground. In the summer of 2003, Defendant Lisa Martin issued me two criminal
2
citations for claimed roof, paint and trash code violations on my property.
9. I had been a victim of identity theft and an unauthorized person ran up electric bills in
his name with the utility company. As a result, the electricity to my upstairs unit was
suspended. However, the power was still connected and available in the lower unit
that Mr. Sider occupied.
10. When Andy Dawkins and Martin learned of the electricity suspension, Martin and
Dawkins prepared a written Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated July
15, 2003, of my entire duplex, claiming the home as "Unfit For Human Habitation"
and forwarded the Notice and Order to Brisson through the mail. Exhibit "4"
attached hereto, STP0811-R13.
II. The written Notice stated that the condemnation was based upon a "principal
violation" of "Lack of Electricity" in the home and that this condition constituted a
"material endangerment". This was false as there was electricity to the lower unit.
12. In the July 15, 2003, Notice of Condemnation, Martin and Dawkins also cited eleven
items that they stated were code violations on the exterior of my home that PHA and
the Section 8 inspection had not required me to attend to as part of the Housing
Quality Standards.
13. Dawkins and Martin falsely stated in their written order of July 15, 2003, that the
windows and screens were missing, defective or in a state of disrepair. The windows
and screens were on the home and were in fine shape except that I still needed to add
window casing trim to the newly installed windows. Martin and Dawkins also falsely
stated that there were missing or defective handrails and guardrails. In fact, only one
handrail/guardrail was temporarily detached to allow building materials to be brought
3
into the home for improvements.
14. As a result of the wrongful condemnation of both the upper and lower units of my
duplex, 1and my disabled tenant were forced from our home.
15. 1 filed a legislative appeal of this Condemnation Order with the City. The City
legislative hearing ofl1cer, and later, the City Council, denied my appeal. Exhibit "5"
attached hereto, STP 0807-809.
16. The week of August 4, 2003, 1 received a letter from Section 8 welcoming me as a
new owner to the St. Paul Section 8 program. Exhibit "6" attached hereto, 20073.
PHA told me "Owners are an important part of the success of this program and we
want you experience to be a positive one"
17. On August 7, 2003, Martin again inspected my home. On August 12,2003, Dawkins
and Martin prepared and issued a Revised Notice of Condemnation that again listed
the "Lack of Electricity" and cleven other violations listed on the July 15, 2003,
Notice of Condemnation. Exhibit "7" attached hereto, STP0795-98. Again, Dawkins
and Martin forwarded this written Notice and Order to me by mail.
18. Martin and Dawkins also listcd on the Revised Notice twelve additional interior code
violations claimed to have been discovered during tvlartin's interior inspection on
August 7, 2003. The Reviscd Notice included a total of 24 items and stated that due
to the amount of violations, Code Enforcement required a "Code Compliance"
Certificate before the condemnation was lifted.
19. Many of the items listed by Martin and Dawkins as violations on the August 12,
2003, Revised Notice of Condemnation were false. They falsely listed the lack of
electricity to the building when in fact only the upstairs unit was disconnected.
4
Martin and Dawkins falsely stated that the home was "Lacking deadbolt door locks"
on entry doors. Every entry door did have deadbolt locks at the time of Martin's
inspection and at all times before and after that. The only exception was that a
deadbolt lock on one door had been knocked loose from the door after being hit with
building materials; the new replacement deadbolt lock for that door was located right
next to the door ready to be put back into place. Inspector Martin observed all this.
20. In the August 12, 2003, Revised Notice of Condemnation, tvfartin and Dawkins also
falsely stated that the windows and screens were missing, defective or in a state of
disrepair. This continued to be false as the windows were new and screens were fine.
I was going to be adding window casing trim to the newly installed windows OIice a
different inspector had approved the installation of the windows. Martin knew of that
pre-inspection requirement. Martin and Dawkins also falsely stated that the front
storm doors were in disrepair. I had replaced all three screen and storm doors,
including the front storm door.
21. Some of the violations that Martin and Dawkins listed in the August 12, 2003,
Revised Notice were duplicates of other violations listed in the same written Notice
of Condemnation, but listed as separate numbers, and r..·ftutin and Dawkins duplicated
these items in their effort to inflate the number of claimed violations so they could try
to justify their demand that I go through a full "code compliance" on my duplex.
22. Because of the condemnation by said Defendants of home and my rental unit, I was
not allowed to live in my own home and my disabled tenant had to leave his home
following the July 15, 2003, condemnation and order to vacate. I lived out of my
tnlck following the July 2003, condemnation and order to vacate.
5
23. After the July 2003, Notice of Condemnation, I called Dawkins to tell him that my
home should not have been condemned. I infomled Dawkins that the lower unit did
have electricity and explained the false items listed in the Notice. I asked Dawkins to
come out to look at my home to see for himself. Dawkins refused. I attempted many
times to talk to Dawkins by phone but Dawkins would not take my calls.
24. Through Martin's and Dawkins' illegal condemnation of my entire home, they were
able to deny me the rental income I needed from my tenant to pay contract for deed
payments and repairs and to maintain my investment in his property.
25. After I received the August 12, 2003, Notice of Condemnation I filed another
legislative appeal with the City. On August 26, 2003, I attended the legislative appeal
hearing. I informed the hearing ofiicer that my home had passed a PHA Section 8
inspection just months before the harassment inspections by Martin and Dawkins, and
I described to the hearing ofiicer the true condition of my duplex. The hearing onicer
issued a decision in my favor and reversed the condemnation on my duplex. One of
the City's inspectors present at the hearing stated that I really did not need a "code
compliance" on my home.
26. On September 2, 2003, the Council upheld the hearing ofiicer's decision and the
Condemnation was officially removed from my home. On September 22, 2003, I
received a letter by mail from Dawkins stating that the condemnation was lifted
because the City had determined that the conditions causing the condemnation and
Order to Vacate, had been corrected. Exhibit "8" attached hereto, 20120.
27. After the condemnation was lifted, my tenant and I were able to occupy the duplex at
297 Burgess Street for almost one month.
6
28. On October 3, 2003, a search warrant was requested by law enforcement authorities
seeking to find a "meth" lab on the premises of my home. The search warrant was
not executed until six days later on October 9, 2003, when a law enforcement raid
was made of my home.
29. Early in the morning of October 9, 2003, law enforcement ofticers, without
announcing their presence or authority in violation of the express terms of the search
warrant, suddenly broke down my door with a battering ram and immediately shot me
and my dogs with a fire extinguisher. I had been asleep immediately before the raid.
I was informed by law enforcement officers that I was being arrested for two
outstanding housing court warrants that had been issued by Martin in June and July
2003. I was arrested and held in jail for a day and a half, and then released from
custody. I was not charged with any crime related to the warrant.
30. Upon my release from custody and return to my home, I discovered that on October
9, 2003, the day law enforcement oflicers had raided and destroyed his home, City
inspectors had inspected my upstairs unit. I discovered that the law enforcement
oflicers had broken my entry door and had also torn out all of my smoke detectors in
the upstairs unit; the detectors were still there, but were hanging by their wires from
the ceiling. The ofticers had also punched large holes in my upper floor walls,
damaged the unit's plumbing, damaged my furniture and had thrown furniture all
around the unit, and caused other damage to the unit.
31. At no time was I involved with illegal drug manufacturing that would give the
government any reason to suspect me and provide probable cause to obtain a search
warrant to raid my home. I was not arrested for illegal drugs, nor charged for drug
7
possession or illegal drug manufacturing.
32. On October 14, 2003, I once again received from Dawkins through the mail a written
Notice of Condemnation of his home. Exhibit "9" attached hereto, STP078I , 783.
Five code deficiencies were listed as the basis for condemnation; each of the five
were directly caused by law enforcement officers during their raid. The Notice stated
that my duplex could not be occupied and that the building must be vacated by
October 9, 2003, the day of the raid.
33. The Condemnation Notice of October 14, 2003, stated that "nue to the alllount of
deficiencies, a Code COlllllliallce Inspection will he required before a Il lncl1nl
Lift will be issucd."
34. 1 once again filed a legislative appeal. This time, my appeal was denied. Exhibit
"10" attached hereto, SP 1170, 1178-80.
35. After 1was illegally kicked out of my home by the City, 1 stopped by my home to get
my mail and found a letter and other documents from the City addressed to me and
David Johnson who 1 was buying the home from on a contract for deed. The City, in
its letters told me I had to register my home with the City as a "Vacant Building," pay
a vacant building fee of $200.00 every year. Exhibit" 11" attached hereto, 20128131,20133-
136.
36. 1 then appealed to the City Council and was denied the right to go back to living in
my home. Exhibit" 12" attached hereto, STP 1170, 1178-80.
37. 1 appeal then to the City Council. My attorney pointed out to the Council that the
damage listed in the October 14, 2003, Notice was a result of law enforcement
conduct and that the damage listed related only to the upstairs unit, not the Section 8
8
approved rental unit on the main floor. The Council denied my appeal and the
condemnation of the entire duplex was affirmed. Exhibit "12" attached hereto.
38. After I lost rental income from my tenant, I was unable to afford to pay for the full
"code compliance" that Defendants wrongfully dcmanded in ordcr to again occupy
and rent my duplex homc. I was forced to sell my duplex home as I could not make
the payments on the contract for deed or pay for other expenses on the duplex without
rental income. I also lost thousands of dollars expended in rcmodeling and repairing
my home in order to meet the dcmands of Dcfendants, and I lost my investmcnt in the
property including equity I had built up through my hard work. I also incurred
increased living costs due to loss of my duplex home, as well as attorney's fees, as a
direct result of how Dawkins, Martin and others constantly interfered with my rental
property.
39. I made significant efforts to meet Defendants' demands and expcnded my own funds
and borrowed funds for demanded repairs and to make payments to my tenant to help
him with housing expenses.
40. Although numerous other properties in the City had serious code violations, including
in my neighborhood which Defendants' ignored, Dcfendants selcctively targeted me
and tenant with the City's heightened code standard that was much higher than
Section 8's standard.
9
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: August 22t 2008
Subscribed and swom to before me
this 220d day of Augustt 2008.
William P. Weihrauch
Notary Public
Seems like this womans problems started with ex-cel energy and the citys cooperation with ex-cel of using shutoffs as a pre-text for condeming homes.
Remember the IPAD case I mentioned a few weeks ago ? And how the city attorney was concerned how citizens were trying to access the names of those shut off by ex-cel ?
Well,there you go.
It's clear that the city and ex-cel are partners in this scheme to rid the city of anyone the city feels threatens its self serving agenda at the expance of those trying to have part of the american dream of owning a home and making a living.
Jeff Matiatos
The best solution to avoid difficulties with the city of St.Paul is to just get out of St.Paul!
I love this one: "Martin and Dawkins falsely stated that the home was "Lacking deadbolt door locks" on entry doors. Every entry door did have deadbolt locks at the time of Martin's inspection and at all times before and after that. The only exception was that a deadbolt lock on one door had been knocked loose from the door after being hit with building materials; the new replacement deadbolt lock for that door was located right next to the door ready to be put back into place."
They all had deadbolts except for the one that didn't... hmmm so that is a false accusation then to say that the one that didn't have a deadbolt, didn't have a deadbolt and sooner or later she was going to fix it.
Or this one, "Martin and Dawkins also falsely stated that there were missing or defective handrails and guardrails. In fact, only one handrail/guardrail was temporarily detached"
So, all of the handrails were there except for the one that wasn't... and that of course means that the City is making false accusations when it says that a handrail is missing.
Do people read these things?
Twice in her own deposition she says... everything that the city said was true but if you look through my eyes and you knew what I intended to do then the City was lying...
Help me.
I can't believe any of you people think that anywhere in this mess is any kind of a case against the City.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Kelly Brisson is a Male!
Chuck, are blind or do you just pick and choose what you want to read so you can comfort yourself serving pathetic alliance with the city bafoons !
Mr.Brisson says the cops raided his home and created a situation re authorizing condemnation after brissiopn had just defeated the first attempted condemnation !
Seems retatiatory to me and that once Dawkins learned of the first condemnation order being vacated, he called out the pigs to feed.
You are a bafoon just like the rest of your kind.
Jeff Matiatos
Jeff I was just pointing out what any judge would read when he looked at this.
The plaintiff continues to agree that the conditions existed as the City said they did, they just think that they are so special that the City was picking on them when they wrote them up.
Was the handrail missing? YES Was the deadbolt broken? YES
Well quit whining and fix them and don't expect the Federal Court system to think that it is a GD conspiracy that the City building inspector noticed those things and wrote you up for them.
None of this crap of evidence of anything against the law.
You need power on... get the power on. You need locks... get locks.
It does say something about this country and the "victim" mentality that has take over it. Its not my fault that the railing wasn't attached, its the City's fault because they didn't ask me where I put the railing...
What a joke...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
So your saying Chuck that broken locks and handrails justify condemnation ?
Get real !
Were talking about a broad policy of illegal condemnation tactics that are widespread in this city.
Using the cops to intimidate and violate citizens is inexcusable.
Chuck,
How do you defend the punitive and unreasonable nature of the code compliance? Making people spend huge amounts of money for little things. It doesn't make sense unless there is an agenda.
Jeff its says... "The Reviscd Notice included a total of 24 items and stated that due to the amount of violations, Code Enforcement required a "Code Compliance" Certificate before the condemnation was lifted."
I have no idea what those violations were. But Brisson chooses to bring up the handrail and the locks as examples of how the City made up stuff. Well... if those 2 are the 2 of 24 that the City was fudging on, then I don't think the guy has much of a bitch.
...and he sure as shit isn't going to pull on the heart strings of the court. And I am sorry for thinking Kelly was a woman, and I hate to sound sexist, but I thought that maybe that was why they were using this lame sob story was to get some woman in tears over, I was going to put the hand rail back on, they should have asked me where I put it...judge they were mean to me. I mean they went looking in the smoke detectors for drugs and didn't hang them back up those mean police men...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Hey DFL Chuck Repke apparantly your an Obama Supporter, Suing the Republican Party in Michigan, that Voters, in Forclosure do not have a residence?
HOw about the now 2045 vacant buildings in St. Paul, Have these Voters lost their Right to VOTE
DSIand others out of OFFICE
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/obama-campaign-files-lawsuit-against-republicans-in-michigan/?nl=pol&emc=pola1
Brisson Complaint is well written, Sample Obama Voter Complaint with Forclosed/Vacant Homes Michigan?Through the mass, systematic “lose your home, lose your vote” challenge
process, Defendant Republicans are trying to do what federal law expressly prohibits state
election officials from doing (even if they were to do it in a neutral and non-discriminatory
fashion, which this is not): purge the voter rolls of voters on election day itself, thereby
infringing on their ability to cast a ballot for federal office.
3:37 and 3:43 you know if you guys knew anything you'd be dangerous.
IN MINNESOTA WE HAVE SAME DAY REGISTRATION.
Let me explain what that means. In Minnesota I can go up to my polling place where I live with either a valid ID or someone who would vouch for me and I can vote!
In Michigan they have a requirement for people to be registered to vote before election day. So, if you move in Sept or Oct you could lose your right to vote since you wouldn't be registered to vote in the precinct that you now live in.
What the Obama camp must be arguing is these are forced moves not choice moves and they should be allowed to vote in their old polling locations.
I have a surprise for you in some states you have to register which party you belong to and if you are an independent they don't let you vote in primaries, but in Minnesota we don't make you register by party and we let you register to vote on ELECTION DAY.
So, all of the folks at Dorthy Day or the Mission in Minnesota get to vote... even if they just got off of the bus.
So, if someone's was foreclosed on and lost their house or if someone lost their apartment because of having a rotten landlord they can still vote in Minnesota.
Sorry kids take your stuff somewhere else.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
You're so focused on the small stuff Chuck that you either don't or reefuse to see what's really going on. Sure there were a few temprary violations, no one is srguing that. Problem is that the city blows them all out of shape to make the place seem much worse than it is and then requires a "Code Compliance" based on the number of violations. First off the "Code Compliance" is illegal.....where does the ordinance say they can do it? Secondly, where does the code say anything about the number of violations required to trigger such an event? It doesn"t! What suprises me is that the renters in this city out up with this shit. Can you imagine a home owner screaming if the city did this to them or wanted to enter their homes every year to look around? I think the renters should organize and bring a class action lawsuit against the city for years of rights violations.
Chuck, you have a point, the judge would be concerned about WHY the locks and rails weren't on.
IF the case was about the code violations. But it is not. It is about the cities illegal codes and mob-like enforcment. Condemning a house over handrails?
I am not going to say you wold have made a good Nazi, Mr. Reppke. But they sure needed people like you around too.
OK - I am a guy who stands up for the little guy. I will die to protect your civil liberties but...
I can't see what these people have in common other than they didn't take care of their properties.
They aren't minorities, they don't house a larger percentage of minorities than people that didn't get their properties condemned.
The City may have been agressive with certain owners or certain houses, I will grant you that but why those houses?
Other than these people don't respond to communication or respond by threatening to go to court and create a non-workable situation I don't see what they have that would ever make it either a RICO case or a Fair Housing Case.
There is no great reward out there for being the biggest jerk or for going through life playing a victim.
You have to have some kind of a case.
Once again this one admits to all of the problems, challanges two as being mean and expects relief from the Federal Bench.
Its not my fault the dog ate my homework.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck said the city may have been aggressive with certain home owners
or certain houses.
Right on Chuck, thought you would never smell the coffee.
Whether or not these folks can properly state a claim for relief under any substantive law is one matter, but being able to come forward with evidence of discriminatory and malicious code enforcement is a matter that we are all interested in as citizens.
Even if some of these litigant homeowners cant prove their cases one way or the other, they will have made a statement that will for sure affect local elections and possibly cause the resignation of some of these Bafoons.
I would encourage folks to protest against these assholes on the sidewalks in front of their homes so that their neighbors will shun them and spread the word.
Jeff Matiatos
Today 17Sept08 We celebrate Constitution Day http://yedies.blogspot.com/
Chuck Please read our Constituion, which DSI has circumvented
Chuck and others today is Constitution Day go to www.mncourts.gov and read the cases yourselves. You may learn something
CALL FOR HELP:
I happened to see you have some info/knowledge on this case. Do you know who the attorney was for Sax Investments on this case? I would like to reach out to them.
I am caught up in the controversy of the 300 ft. Ordinance in Duluth. I live in MPLS, and bought my grandparents house in Kenwood as a vacation home in March 2007. By the time I found out about the ordinance it was too late to get grandfathered in for getting a rental license and I disagree about the grounds of this ordinance as it stands.
I applied for a license and was denied (9/11/08) based on this 300 ft. rule recently and they are saying my tenants must vacate within 30 days. I will appeal this on their next meeting Oct. 8th at City Hall. If I am not able to rent my house (which is up to code of what a rental requirements are in Duluth) then I face the real risk of having to sell my grandparents house or go bankrupt.
I need to send my appeal form in to arrive by this Friday for it to make it in time, so time is of the essence for me. Please help if you can. Thank you!
Regards,
Pete Mattson
5648 Grand Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55419
Mobile: 612.770.1508
You may have to get an injunction to prevent the city from taking adverse action against your property.
See Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
It is not that hard to file for an injunction on your own as i have done myself on many occasions with some success.
Go to minnesota court of appeals and get the standards of proof for injunction so that you know what it is you have to prove to get the injunction granted.
Good Luck
Jeff Matiatos
Jeff - that is what District Court is for. Anytime that the City is being arbitrary you have the opportunity to appeal the City Council's decisions to district court. There have been property owners that have gotten relief from the court when the City has been arbitrary.
What is so frustrating in reading the stuff here is the assumption that the City is some organized conspiracy out to get the poor defenseless land owners when the reality is that in many of these situations mistakes are made, or someone gets ticked off, or any number of very human things that will make one situation appear to have a disparity of treatment over another.
You are dealing with people, time and situation and just like mixing a Martini you aren't going to be able to get the same result every time.
I have seen the City staff make mistakes. I am a regular in front of the City's Board of Zoning, Appeals and Zoning committee to fight decisions that City staff have made. That doesn't make them evil or conspirators or bribed or in bed with whatever they supported that I opposed or they opposed that I supported, it just means they see things differently.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Thee's a big idfference in seeing things differently and ahving the toehr side act criminally. How would you like to go to one of your zonign hearings only to find out later that the city had "fixed" the eharing in their fvaor like they did with the courts when they were after the landlords? How would you like to find out afterwards that in addition to the correct information beofre the zoning people that the city had fabricated things that weere not true about your situation? You make the statement in one of your post that you stick up for the small guy.....what a joke. You stick up for the corrupt status quo of the city.
Chuck, your saying that you have seen the city make mistakes is just admitting that you are as human as the rest of us.
What is inhuman about you is that you are only capable of sometimes admitting that the city make mistakes and that the city of St.Paul Bafoons never do anything that resembles a corrupt or discriminatory act.
You have not read I am sure, as many court cases as I have that allege corruption by government in Minnesota.
Problem is,we have a media unlike that is unwilling to publish many of the critical cases of corruption.
Someone tell me if these RICO cases ever made the papers here ?
Immunity from prosecution and immunity from suit is almost always
plead by governments alleged to have been corrupt.
But the peons with the city here and at DSI are low level employees in government not entitled to common law official immunity should the plaintiffs make a showing of wilfull or malicious behavior.
It's hypocricy for this state to have a statewide smoking ban when Minnesota relies so much on the tax revenue from smokes.
Also, be mindful that the State of Minnesota purchased stock in the cigarette industry.
Shame on Minnesota.
Jeff Matiatos
Spelling Corrected URL Copy and paste entire URL sorry for e-error
http://yedies.blogspot.com/
Further quoted www.ademocracy.blogspot.com in www.twincities.com article "taken down" ?? BAIL OUT ST.PAUL??
Set up your own blogs to refer for backup forensic evidence. Great Job Bobby J
Chuck said: "I am a regular in front of the City's Board of Zoning, Appeals and Zoning committee to fight decisions that City staff have made."
Why doesn't the city have a Board of Housing Appeals any more?
Post a Comment
<< Home