DISCUSSIONS ON POLITICS, CIVIL RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND ANYTHING THAT TICKLES OUR FANCY "HOST BOB JOHNSON" CONTACT Us at A_DEMOCRACY@YAHOO.COM Please stay on topic and no personal attacks.
posted by Bob at Saturday, September 27, 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
42 Comments:
There maybe copy errors.
II.
PLAINTIFFS’ EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING AND HAVE PRODUCED RECORD EVIDENCE TO RAISE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO BOTH “PROTECTED CLASS” AND “CLASS-OF-ONE” CLAIMS
The question before the court on a motion for summary judgment is whether the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc., 85 F.3d 1365 (8th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted). Where a defendant moves for dismissal of a § 1983 action on the basis of qualified immunity, the court has a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory, even if it is not advanced by the plaintiff. See Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1312 (8th Cir. 1997). The court may order
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 52 of 78
53
dismissal of a § 1983 case on the basis of immunity only if it appears beyond reasonable doubt that plaintiffs can prove no set of facts that would entitle them to relief. Id. at 1308.
A.
Plaintiffs have standing to bring equal protection claims
Defendants cite the case of Berry v. City of Little Rock, 904 F. Supp. 940 (E.D.Ark. 1995), in arguing that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring their equal protection claims. However, the Berry court determined that the landlords did have standing because the landlords suffered lost rental income and additional costs. Id. at 945. As in Berry, the Plaintiffs herein have standing to assert equal protection claims because the Plaintiffs suffered economic harm as a result of being targeted by the Defendants’ unequal code enforcement. lost rental income, increased expenses for upkeep of their properties, and reduced sale prices resulting from forced sales.
B.
“Protected class” equal protection claims
Defendants’ unequal enforcement of the city housing code resulted in a significant adverse effect on minority residents of Saint Paul, and there was a viable alternative that had been previously used by the Defendants that did not result in the disparate adverse effect. To make a prima facie case of a violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Plaintiffs must show that the Defendants’ conduct had a disparate impact on minorities compared to other non-minority residents of Saint Paul. See Darste-Webbe Tenant Ass’n Bd. v. St. Louis Housing Authority¸417 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2005). Defendants’ unequal code enforcement increased the cost of private landlords providing low-income housing in Saint Paul, with the
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 53 of 78
54
intended and actual result of removing low-income housing stock from the Saint Paul rental market. The reduction in low-income housing stock reduced the housing choices of low-income residents of Saint Paul and increased the likelihood that they would have no choice but to either live in PHA-owned housing or leave Saint Paul. The burden now shifts to the Defendants to demonstrate that their actions had a manifest relationship to legitimate, non-discriminatory policy objectives and that they were justifiable as being necessary to the attainment of legitimate, non-discriminatory objectives. Id. If the Defendants do so, the burden shifts back to the Plaintiffs to show that a viable alternative means is available to achieve those legitimate policy objectives without discriminatory effects. Id. The viable, The City had a non-discriminatory alternative in the PP2000 Program that had been previously used by the City before the Defendants implemented their plan to drive from the City the “undesirables.”
C.
“Class-of-one” equal protection claims
The record evidence supports the Plaintiffs’ “class-of-one” equal protection claims. “The purpose of a class-of-one claim is to secure every person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents. It is recognized law that a class-of-one claimant may prevail by showing she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Barstad v. Murray County, 420 F.3d 880, 884 (8th Cir. 2005). To prevail on a
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 54 of 78
55
class-of-one claim, a plaintiff must prove that it was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Id. at 887.
In the present case, the Defendants intentionally treated the Plaintiffs and other private owners of low-income housing differently than the PHA, which also owned low-income housing and who had the same characteristics that City claimed important for justifying its heavy-handed approach to Plaintiffs but not for PHA.
The evidence shows that the Defendants routinely closed code inspection files without action when it was determined that a property was PHA-owned and did no follow-up inspection. Plaintiffs set out the City’s preferential treatment of PHA above. The Defendants have not, and cannot, provide a rational basis for the preferential treatment of the PHA, which suffers from the same problems in its low-income housing as do the Plaintiffs.
Is this like the show must go on? Only in the case the trial must go on and the city must go down!
Good point, the city rids itself of low income housing stock consisting of private landlords offering affordable housing for the poor and PHA benefits.
To the citys benefit, they can segragate low income tenants and control them through the A Cop program.
Now that the low income people are segragated, they can demolish private landlords homes that were abated and build newer homes for which buisness owners and other city desireables will take over the properties, build more expensive homes / buisnesses and raise property values and taxes.
Sounds like the city benefits to.
Any responce Chuck ?
Jeff Matiatos
A better plan, off topic but;
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America
in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'(WDID).
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about
301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person
18+ as a 'We Deserve It Dividend'. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every
individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means
that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket
A husband and wife has $595,000.00. What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans? What a great boost to new grads.
Put away money for college - it'll be there.
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs
Buy a new car - create jobs.
Invest in the market - capital drives growth.
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves.
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and
every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth, let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ('vote buy' ) economic
incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout,
let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the
real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.' But can you imagine
the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use
the $85 Billion 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC. And remember, The WDID
plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
My kindest personal regards...
Chuck and Eric are probably lunching right now trying to figure out what excuses there are for how plaintiffs prevailed.
Face it Chuck and Eric, shits hitting the fan and if I were you, I would rather be the one turning the fan than standing in front of it.
Something in your hair that smells ?
Hey 12:39 this is not the judges decision its part of the plaintiffs arguements. Soon to be part of the judges decision!
The title of this post makes it appear that plaintiffs have prevailed ?
Shits still hitting the fan, watch
out Chuck and Eric !
All of this, just to be heard by a jury. No wonder there are not thousands more lawsuits. However, once the groundwork has been laid, the rush for a lawyer will be on. This is one of the times the city should have settled right away.
I doubt this Shoemaker attorney will get anywhere with his mindset and cracker jack law degree.
Russ
If one takes the time to do the tedious reading, it appears the groundwork has already been laid! What this Summary Judgement actually appears to be is a roadmap showing where all the evidence is for all the others victims of the city code enforcement. All they need is to get an attorney who'll probably take the case for free and keep 2 thirds of the settlement.....or should I say hundreds of settlements? How many people do you think the city has screwed over with their illegal acts since this whole thing started Chuck? I agree with the previous poster.....city should have settled this before the roadmap to riches was made public by the landlords.
OK folks lets try it this way...
All multi-family rental units get inspections from the City.
Most MF rental units house low income tenents.
Most MF rental units pass the inspections.
Most MF rental uits have minority tenents.
These Landlords don't pass the inspection. Their properties are substandard. They contend most of their residents are minorities.
They believe that the City's desire to force them to repair their properties hinders minority members from living in their substand housing. They believe and want the court to find that minority members would rather live in substandard housing than repaired housing and since minority members are being forced to live in good housing the court should give them money and allow them to house minority members in substandard housing.
Sorry folks.
The case is over and summary judgement should come soon.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Part 11? What happened to the first 10 parts?
I am glad the judge understood the equal protection argument (I said after the hearing that the judge appeared to understand the equal protection argument the best). This argument is very tangible and I think jurors will understand how reprehensible it is for ANY government body to hold the private sector to a HIGHER standard than they hold themselves to.
I wish the court better understood the other issues, but this might be all that is required. Good job LLs.
So, off to court now, or will there be a few more years of legal wranglin'?
Bill Cullen.
The next thing that happens Bill is that the court comes back and awards summary judgement in favor of the City.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
You have all the bases covered Chuck but you're wrong. The city fabricated inspection reports to look like the housing was substandard when it wasn't. There's a lot of leeway between what's substandard and what a tenant can afford. You know it and the city knows it. They create a list of phony repairs so horendus that the increased rent needed to bring the property up to the city perfect code is too much and not affordable any longer.
How the hell do you know what these guys believe Chuck? You don't know even one of them! I do and I've seen the evidence. It shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the city has done exactly what the landlords say they have done. BUT.....it doesn't make any difference Chuck. You know why? No matter who wind or loses this skirmish, the other side is going to take it to an appeals court and there is where the law will be applied according to the facts and evidence, not some home town Judge giving the city the benifet of the doubt and that's goinbg to be a huge problem for your city buddies in more ways than one Chuckie. Meanwhile more lanldords are going to continue to bring lawsuits against the city. How many of those lawsuits do think they can fight before they havve to change course and start following the law? I don't think you're going to liking the ending of these lawsuits Chuck.
"The next thing that happens Bill is that the court comes back and awards summary judgement in favor of the City."
And the step after that will be the appeals court who will reverse and rule for the landlords. Then it'll go to trial with a hundred other hungry landlords (and their Attorneys)looking on.....and preparing. I agree with Henry the previous poster. The city should have settled this before it progressed this far.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It's simple. The city has created heaven on earth for bureaucrats. And this is the most objectionable kind of bureaucrats.
I just had the opportunity to accompany a group of people to look at a property that the has condemned and is currently putting the owner through hell. What I saw was a fairly well maintained property. Perfect? NO, but certainly very liveable. The things the city is citing as violations are petty and the correction list ordered by the city is written to make the property look like something it most certainly is not. I hope this person sues the city. If the city's action on this property is any indication of how they act on others, I wouldn't blame this person at all for suing the city. I think Mr. Repke should go out and look at some of these places he tries to paint as being so bad. There certainly are some very bad places, I don't dispute that, but they're not all as bad as they're portrayed to be. Looking at the property and looking at the correection orders, I find it hard to believe what I've seen with my own eyes.
Folks these were the arguements that the plaintiffs made in writing in response to the City's request for summary judgement. They still offer no evidence. No reason for the case to go forward. Like I said to believe that this is a fair houseing cases you have to believe that minority members would rather live in houses that fail inspections than pass inspection. That is the plaintiffs last stand. That is what this arguement is.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
You had better go back and read some of the things previous posted here Chuck. Theargument is not that people want to live in houses that fail inspections. The issue is that your city breaks the law and violates civil rights routinely. There's been plenty of evidence and you know it.
11:24 there is no evidence that the City breaks the law or people's civil rights, there are stories by individuals that the City was more strict with them than with someone else.
I believe that. That's life.
Last week end I broke the speed limit and didn't get tagged. What the land lords say is that the "equal protection" language in the constitution should therefore wipe out every speeding ticket that anyone else in the country got last week end.
The City tagged house A and it didn't tag house B and house B has the same or more wrong with it so, the owner of house A should get a large cash payment from the City because house B wasn't tagged.
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Not on this planet.
For the equal protection clause to kick in there has to be some reason why house A was singled out and house B was passed over that is identifiable. Not just random chance. The court knows that not all speeders will get cought and not all houses with problems will get tagged.
The only thing that these guys have in common is they are either unwilling or unable to repair their properties.
I have no evidence but from what I read here it sounds like these guys tell the City to kiss off and then get blown away when the City white gloves them. Wow, I wonder how that happens?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
Last week end I broke the speed limit and didn't get tagged. What the land lords say is that the "equal protection" language in the constitution should therefore wipe out every speeding ticket that anyone else in the country got last week end.
No, Chuck. To use your non-germane simile, the landlords are sayingthat the police have been actively targeting, say, freelance lobbyists, political insiders and party hacks for speeding tickets.
In this case, they're saying the city is singling out a class of property owners for unequal treatment, that there's a pattern - a "preponderance of evidence" - of this behavior, and that they've raised enough material facts of law to justify a trial.
What will the judge(s) decide? Good question. But your description of the situation is sorely lacking.
9:55 you said "In this case, they're saying the city is singling out a class of property owners for unequal treatment, that there's a pattern - a "preponderance of evidence" - of this behavior, and that they've raised enough material facts of law to justify a trial."
But what is the class of property owners? It isn't the private market because 90-95% of the private market owners either keep their property up to code or do the repairs as ordered. It isn't those with minority tennents because 90-95% of building with minority tennents keep their properties up to code or repair them when ordered. So what is the class of property owners?
Those who are either unwilling or unable to repair their properties. And, what we have in court are those who clearly have the where-with-all to do the repairs they simple don't want to.
I don't think the class of the "unwilling" will win an equal protection case.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I was in court when they were there Chuck and the judge said they had a equal protection case. I heard it and so did everyone else
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chuck,
I don't think there is any dispute that St. Paul holds PHA to a lower level of code than the private market. St. Paul is rather open about this.
The damaged class is not the plaintiffs, but rather the entire private housing market (landlords and owners). The plaintiffs are just the individuals that took up the case.
Since when did it become ok for government to hold the private sector to a higher standard than they hold themselves too? THAT is the issue. THAT sounds like equal protection to me.
Bill Cullen.
No Bill I don't think that is the case at all nor what has been said in court by the City.
First PHA inspections for section 8 have nothing to do with the city code and the city will and does do its own inspections.
Second the City still responds to complaints against PHA buildings and holds them to the same code. The only diference is that it doesn't press the same legal actions against PHA. It would if PHA refused to make the repairs, but PHA makes the repairs.
What your side argues it that the City should write up another level of government and threaten to take legal action against it if it doesn't comply rather than just telling it to do it and then following up to make sure it does.
The City still can and would condemn if PHA didn't make repairs. Saint Paul PHA is recognized nationwide as one of the best managed public housing properties in the country. That is just a fact.
The reason why the diference is that the City has to use its legal authority to force compliance of private landlords. But, it doesn't need to take PHA to court to get it to comply, so it doesn't do the legal set up for a potential court action.
THERE IS ONLY ONE CODE AND IT IS THE STATE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE. The standards are the same, but you don't stick a gun to the side to your own head and say now comply self or I'll blow your brain out.
The equal protection holds no water if who the government isn't take legal action against is the government.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
You are out of your mind Chuck. PHA doesn't fix their property. Peopel have complained for 5 years why they lived with black mold in their house. PHA did nothing.....the occupant called NHPI and they closed the file. NHPI closes files on PHA with notations that they can't do anything because it's city owned! There's been may complaints like this.
When PHA does gas and electric work, the city doesn't inspect the work.
The city doesn't condemn PHA property.....NOT EVER.....nor have they ever ordered PHA to do a code compliance.
They do however not only take the above actions against the private sector property owners, but the assign a special Police force to PHA property because of the problem renters while at the same time they work overtime trying to close up the private sector landlord for the same problems.
And by the way Chuck, I was in Court and the city didn't say anything....the Judge told the city Attorney to sit down and let the landlords Attonrey talk for 90% of the time they were there. The Judge also said the landlords had an Equal Protection claim. You can spew all you want that this claim carries no water, but I think I'd prefer to believe what a Judge says about it.
How can you possibly think that the government can hold the private sector to a higher code than the government who owns and operates the same type of business?
"Saint Paul PHA is recognized nationwide as one of the best managed public housing properties in the country. That is just a fact."
The only fact Chuck is that they are "recognized." That doesn't mean they actually are and obviously they're not because they let their Public Housing renters live in mold. Mold is a helath saftey issue Chuck just in case you don't know.
Chuck didn't Eric even say PHA has shit hole housing? He did.
Jim
Look at the old Highland pool - the gray limestone building at Edgecombe and Montreal.
It is boarded up (without a blue sticker), and the tile roof is completely worn out with many obvious holes in it. Why doesn't the city hold itself to the same standards as the homeowners?
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!
8:44 - The City won't knock down historic buildings no matter who owns them with out special permission from god...
Remember when the City takes down a building it is through an abatement process where they are improving your land.
The City can't use the abatement process to go after an entity that doesn't pay abatements... themselves!
And, folks as I have said before in a summary judgement hearing the judge tries to get information to save the side that is losing. Of course he/she would say you have an equal protection claim/case that is one of the claims/cases in front of the judge! DUH!
The judge was trying to extract from the attorney any reason to not grant summary judgement...any evidence...any purpose to this thing???
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck said:
8:44 - The City won't knock down historic buildings no matter who owns them with out special permission from god...
chuck, they did knock down the historic house on Selby and bypassed historic regulations. They had permission from inspectors. Are you admitting the city considers inspectors to be God?
They sure inmproved that land over on 14 Jessamine didn't they Chuck?
while you guys are arguing, I'd like to point out to 12:31 (the off-topic AIG bailout post waaay up top) that you really need to check your math. $85 billion divided by 200 million is $425, not $425,000.
Did you previously work for the government, or sell mortgage derivatives?
Because the city is above their own laws. Look at Thune and his house.
"Look at the old Highland pool - the gray limestone building at Edgecombe and Montreal.
It is boarded up (without a blue sticker), and the tile roof is completely worn out with many obvious holes in it. Why doesn't the city hold itself to the same standards as the homeowners?
8:44 AM"
5:36;
Whatever the true figures would be its a much better plan for a bailout!
Hi All,
There is a PHA home directly across the street from me. The home has been vacant since late winter. The electric and gas hasn't been shut off.
PHA staff visit the home several times a week and sometimes everyday if contractors are at the home doing work.Someone from PHA comes and mows the grass often.
The home was occupied by PHA tenants. They moved out, the home had a for sale sign up for sometime. The for sale sign came down and heating contractors, drywall contractors, electrical contractors, plumbing contractors, window installers, insulation contractors, and every other contractor you can think of were in and out of this home over the last 3 months. There is no building permit displayed.
I wonder if these contractors are pulling permits for the work at this home. I was told by an interested party PHA pulled a permit for $350 worth of work and the work done surely is in the thousands of dollars.
Bob look the address up on the City permit site it should tell you and turn them in. The City needs the permit fees.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Well CHuck it looks like the praise you give to PHA for fixing their property is a little misplaced in light of Bob's report that when they sold their property accross the steet from him they needed every contractor under the sun to get it up to snuff. And the no permit thing......where have we heard that before?
Post a Comment
<< Home