Custom Search

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Victim Mark E. Meysembourg

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

posted by Bob at Sunday, September 07, 2008

15 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

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 FLORIDA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
MARK E. MEYSEMnOURG
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Mark E. Meysembourg, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as
follows:
I. I am currently a resident of the State of Florida, residing at **** Monette
Road, Riverview, Florida. I moved to Florida from Minnesota in January
2004. My last residence in Minnesota was at 772 East Cook, in Saint Paul
where I lived for seven years.
2. I was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota in 1951 and graduated li'OIll Cretin High
School 1969. I attended Dunwoody Industrial Institute in Minneapolis for
machine shop training and Saint Paul Vocational Institute for tool and die
making. I served in the United States Army from 1969 to 1972 and received a
honorable discharge. In 1994, I graduated li'OIll Concordia College with a
Business Degree.
3. In 1976, I started in the business of providing rental housing in the City of
Saint Paul. Between 1997 and 2004, I lived in Saint Paul and owned rental
properties in the City. I lived at 772 Cook in the City which when I bought it
was a rundown duplex. I completed remodeled that home. My home at 772
Cook was within short walking distance from 4 of 5 rental homes I owned. My
rental homes consisted of four duplex homes and one single family home.
4. My single family and duplex rental homes were located in the neighborhoods
adjacent to the City'S inner core, where based upon my personal observations
over many years, there has been a large concentration of older housing stock.
See Exhibit No.1 attached hereto, a list my rental homes I owned during 2002
through 2004 by property address and census traet and maps showing the
2
location of each of my rental homes during 2002 through 2004 and Sweeps
Maps from NHPI of St. Paul
5. The tenant market for my residential rental properties would be considered
Class C - properties for low income individuals that have minimal amenities,
but are safe and decent affordable housing. My rents were below market as I
focused on providing housing primarily to low-income.
6. All of my rental homes were in the neighborhoods where based upon my
personal observations, there is and has been a heavy concentration of
minorities since I began providing low-income individuals and families with
housing.
7. During the period of approximately 2002 through 2004, about fifty (50)
percent of my tenants were African-Americans and Hispanics and mixed race
couples. See Exhibit No.2 attached hereto. Defendants' counsel incorrectly
stated that I did not provide the identity of my tenants' race but simply said I
would update my Answers to Interrogatories. See Exhibit No.3 attached
hereto, selected pages from my answers to Interrogatories - please see pages 89
- in November 2004, I listed the race of my tenants and made disclosure.
Historically, 70 percent of my tenants were African-Americans and Hispanics,
and mixed race couples.
8. Since starting my rental business in 1976, I lived in the City of St. Paul and
White Bear Lake. I made an average of 2 visits on a weekly basis to my rental
properties in the City. During that same period, many days I would spend
3
many hours at my rental properties looking for exterior issues like trash and
grafliti, etc. and working on my properties. I also responded to my tenants'
requests for repairs or other assistance, meeting with potential renters and at
times meeting with, talking with neighbors, meeting with City inspectors,
obtaining permits from City Hall, dealing with contractors on improvement or
repair issues, traveling between my rental homes, to and from hardware and
home improvement and to and from City Hall.
9. In maintaining my older rental homes, I incurred significant expenses
including from tenant caused damages that were rarely reimbursed to me.
10. I have never received any direct resources from the City or federal government
to help me with my low-income rental business except when I rented to
Section 8 tenants. I did not receive any financial assistance from the City or
federal government to assist me in renovations or repairs to my older rental
properties. No one from the city, including the inspectors, has ever identified
for me any programs that would provide me with resources that I needed to
continue to provide affordable housing in the City during 2002 through 2004.
From the fall of 2002 and continuing thereafter, I received no assistance from
the City to help me meet the City's heightened code enforcement standards.
11. I attempted to screen tenants and deal with behavior issues without having city
resources. During the time I owned rental properties, the City demanded that I
and other landlords screen potential tenants more effectively. The Police
Department would provide me with the minimal information reports and
4
records to provide any better screening. I would travel to the St. Paul Police
Station and make a request for the summaries they offered.
12. Many of my former tenants were good tenants and did not caused complaints
from neighbors or others. I believe in giving everyone a fair opportunity to
live in the City. As long as my tenants met their obligations to me under the
lease and did not cause problems they could continued to live in my properties.
13. If one of my tenants became a problem, once I was notified of the problem, I
would work to resolve the issue including working with the City police
department to effective address claimed criminal behavior. When presented
with solid evidence of criminal or nuisance behavior of one of my tenants, I
would take action to commence lawful eviction proceeding in the local court
system.
14. Over the years, I have found it almost impossible to get the city, through its
police and City Attorneys, to hold any of my tenants accountable for their
nuisance or criminal behavior - the police won't arrest or the tenant will not be
charged.
15. Between 2002 and 2004, the City claimed it was applying its higher standard
consistently across the City. During this period, the City code inspectors under
Dawkins conducted code sweeps in the neighborhoods of my low-income
rental properties. See Exhibit No.1, Sweeps Maps for 2003 and 2004. In
order to ensure that I was not in violation of the higher standards, I had to take
significant efforts to increase the monitoring and maintenance of my
5
properties.
16. Starting in the fall of 2002 and continuing through 2004, the City's increased
code enforcement activity directed at my rental portfolio interfered with my
ability to attend to my rental business and prohibited me from working to
prepare unoccupied rental homes for re-rental, to communicate with the many
individuals who were seeking housing, and to monitor my other rental
properties.
17. Instead of being able to handle the normal needs of my rental business, I was
forced to spend more time addressing the correction orders and condemnation
and code compliance on my 970 Euclid property, and attending administrative
hearings to challenge the merits of the orders, and City induced court action.
18. Prior to the late fall of 2002, I had always been responsive to City inspections
and repair orders on my rental properties and my relationship with inspectors
had been good.
19. Defendants Andy Dawkins, Lisa Martin, Steve Magner and Officer Dean
Koehnen were directly involved in enforcement of the City's heightened code
standards to my rental properties and subsequent condemnation of my property
located at 970 Euclid Street during the period of November 2002 through
Febmary 2003.
20. On or about November 15, 2002, Martin and Koehnen, conducted an interior
inspection of my 970 Euclid rental property. Martin and Koehnen did not have
an administrative search warrant or my tenants' consent. No emergency
6
existed justifying the entry by City inspectors into the rental units of my
tenants. I never received notice from the City that the City was going to
conduct an inspection.
21. As a result of the inspection, Martin and Koehnen prepared and mailed to me a
Correction Notice dated November 15, 2002, containing false claims of code
violations. This Correction Order was also mailed to both tenants of my 970
Euclid duplex. Claimed code violation item number 4 (lacking deadbolt door
locks) and item number 7 (leaking plumbing) were false and item number 12
(roof is deteriorated, defective, or in a state of disrepair) was also false as the
roof had been partially replaced two years before and was not in need of
further repair. See Exhibit No.4, attached hereto, STP 1307 to 1309.
22. I filed a legislative appeal with the City detailing the claimed code violations
listed by Martin that were false. Sce Exhibit No.5, attachcd hereto, 0030982.
I attended the hearing on my appcal. At the hearing, my tenants testified on
my behalf. Officer Koehnen appeared at the hearing and was initially in a
seated position in the hearing room but when the first of my tenants started to
testify, Koehnen stood up and stepped into the isle in direct line with the
tenant, spread his feet, folded his arms and glared at each tenant, all in an
attempt I believe to intimidate my tenant witnesses. Koehnen continued this
intimating conduct through the testimony of my tenants. Frank Steinhauser
and his attorney were in attendance at my appeal hearing. My legislative
appeal was denied. Sec Exhibit No.6, attached hereto, STP 015121 - STP
7
015123, City Notes of the Property Code Enforcement Hearing, December 10,
2002. See also Exhibit No.7, attached hereto, Transcription of audio tape of
Legislative Hearing on December 10, 2002 (15 pages). My tenants in both
units of 970 Euclid told the City hearing officer that when presented with a city
inspector and police officer at their doors, they felt like they had no choice but
to let them inside because of the City employees' persistence and being told by
the City employees that they had to come inside. One tenant told the City
hearing officer that the inspector and officer "budged their way in". The City
inspector was Lisa Martin and the Police Officer was Officer Koehnen. See
Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7.
23. Martin obtained an administrative search warrant and on December 31, 2002,
conducted a second interior inspection of my 970 Euclid rental property.
24. In a second Correction Notice dated January 2, 2003, mailed to me, Martin
again listed the false items from the first Correction Order, including the lack
of deadbolt locks and restated false statement of the deteriorating roof. The
January 2, 2003, Corrcction Order was also mailed to both tenants of my
duplex. See Exhibit No.8, attached hereto, STP 1304 - 1306.
25. Thereafter, I filed a formal complaint against the City claiming that my rights
had been violated.
26.0n or about February 3, 2003, Martin, Koehnen and Steve Magner, Martin's
and Koehnen's supervisor, conducted a third inspection of my 970 Euclid
rental property again without advance notice to me, and without a search
8
warrant or any other valid basis. I was working in the upper unit of my duplex
but left to buy some paint. \Vhen I returned, I found Martin, Koehnen and
Magner inside my home in the basement conducting an illegal inspection. They
saw me and came up from the basement and confronted me. I did not provide
my consent to this third inspection and attempted to assert my rights. During
this third inspection, Magner informed me that there was a missing safety
valve on one of the boilers in my duplex. I pointed out that his assertion was
false as the boilers had been serviced the previous year. After a shouting
match ensued, the City employees left.
27. The next day, Dawkins, Martin, Magner and Koehnen retaliated against me as
Dawkins issued a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated February
3, 2003 (listing Martin as the inspector) and mailed this Notice to one of the
occupants of 970 Euclid Street and to former owner in Anchorage, Alaska.
Sec Exhibit No.9, attached hereto, STP 1299 to 1301.
28. Dawkins and Martin claimed in this written Condemnation Notice that the west
side boiler lacked a pressure relief value and as such this condition constituted
"material endangerment" justifying immediate condemnation of the duplex.
This was falsely stated by Martin and Dawkins in order to justify the
retaliatory emergency condemnation by Dawkins and Martin of my building.
Martin and Dawkins intended the false claims and condemnation to forcibly
remove my tenants, including my protected class tenants, and thereby cause
further damages to me and my tenants.
9
29. In the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated February 3, 2003
Dawkins and Martin also falsely stated that the "roof' was "deteriorated" and
the lack of deadbolt locks. The roof was not deteriorated and there were
deadbolt locks in compliance with the Codes.
30.1 again filed a legislative appeal. Exhibit No. 10, attached hereto, 0031011.
During this hearing on February 25, 2003, I presented evidence to the City
hearing officer that the claim by Dawkins and Martin of the lack of a boiler
safety relief valve was false. The City's hearing officer refused to look at my
evidence and once again denied my appeal. See Exhibit No. 11, attached
hereto, Transcription of audio tape of Legislative Hearing on February 25,
2003 (8 pages).
31. On or about March 13, 2003, Assistant City Attorney Dolan, a member of
PPU, prepared a written tenants remedies court complaint against me on behalf
of the City. None of my tenants joined the City's action against me. The
Complaint included a fact statement that the duplex boiler "lacks a pressure
relief valve." This false claimed violation was listed first in a list of items that
Martin, Dawkins and Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dol1an claimed needed
repair in my 970 Euclid rental home. The City's Complaint, sworn
Verification and City inspection documentation were mailed to me.
32. During the court proceeding, Martin and Magner, along with Attorney Dolan,
falsely represented to me that the "code compliance" inspection they were
demanding as a part of the settlement of the City's action against me, was to be
10
"as built," and as such, the building would not have to be completely brought
to current code. This false statement was made to fraudulently induce me to
settle. See Exhibit No. 12, attached hereto, Transcript of Proceedings, March
27, 2003, pages 3 and 4, where the agreement to a "Codc COlllpliance" "as
built" was read into the court record. Assistant City Attorncy, Maurcen
Dolan, a member of the City's code enforcement Problem Property Unit,
statcd, "Just so the record is clear, Counsel asked the inspector, 'Are vou
going to be requiring him to bring it up to the 2003 code?' The response was,
'No. This building is not a newlv built building. It will be expected to be
compliant as it was built the veal' it was built." page 4 (emphasis added).
33. The following week, during my conversation with the City's License,
Inspection and Environment Protection ("L1EP") office, I was informed that
once the City's LIEP inspectors were involved on my property, there was no
such thing as "as built" code compliance, but rather LIEP only conducted
"code compliance" inspections to present or current codes, which required all
major systems in a rental building to be brought up to current code
requirements, thereby removing grand-fathering protections of state law. I was
shocked by this disclosure.
34. I was unable to withdraw from my end of the settlement agreement and
Dawkins, Martin and Dolan required me to bring my 970 Euclid building up to
current code, eliminating the grand-fathering protection for my building under
previous building codes. I later learned why I received no judicial relief from
11
such a clear fraud by the City. Andy Dawkins, the City Attorney, various
Assistant City Attorneys, and City Council President Dan Bostrum, had all had
private meetings with the Chief Judge of the Court to gain assurances of
support - a "buy-in" Dawkins called it, for all City positions against rental
property owners, and the City had been allowed by the Court to "judge shop"
for the right referee to properly handle the City's civil actions. The City went
further and had at a least one private meeting with Referee Yanish - who was
also "trained" by Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan, who was not only
the City's prosecutor against me, but also a member of the City's Problem
Property Unit with Lisa Martin, Officer Dean Koehnen and Steve Magner. As
one can see from the record, Referee Yanish made no disclosures to me of this
special conflict - and neither did Maureen Dolan.
35. As a result of the City's increased code standards, including the code
compliance, removal of my grandfathering protections for my older rental
property and the false claimed code violations, I lost rents from my 970 Euclid
rental home for over one year, was required to incur tens of thousands of
dollars in extra expense to meet the LIEP "code compliance inspection and
certification" process including to meet "current codes".
36. As part of LIEP's full code compliance inspection process on my 970 Euclid
duplex, LIEP did not require any repairs to the roof, the deadbolt locks
remained on the doors as before the November 15, 2002, inspection, and the
boilers' pressure relief valves that were in existence at all times during 2002
12
and 2003 were unmodified by the LIEP inspection process. Sec Exhibit No.
13, attached hereto, City Code Compliance Inspection report from the City's
LIEP office dated April 22, 2003. This proves that Dawkins, Magner, Martin
and Koehnen were falsely claiming that certain code violations existed at my
970 Euclid rental property, and that actually the claimed code violations were
not serious to the point that they justified condemnation of my property and
dislocation of my tenants from their rental home and the further prohibition
against my re-rental of my duplex for many months while my contractors
performed the work to meet the City's heightened code standards. See Exhibit
No. 14 (also marked Exhibit "23"), and 15, attached hereto, 0030098 and
0030099.
37. My contractors finally completed the demanded repairs and renovations and I
was provided by the City a "Certificate of Code Compliance" on January 16,
2004. See Exhibits 16 and 17, attached hereto, 0030104 and 0030106.
38. Because of the shocking experience with City code enforcement methods
under Dawkins, the lying by inspectors Martin and Magner, Koehnen, and
Dawkins, the treatment by the City's Attorneys, and the Ramsey County
District Court, the large amount of expenses I was forced to incur in a very
small amount of time, the losses of rental income I suffered due to the
condemnation, and the heightened code standards and increased enforcement
of those heightened code standards in the areas I owned rental properties, and
all the emotional stress this caused, I was forced to sell all of his rental
13
properties in the City in order to avoid financial disaster.
39. I incurred significant expenses from those sales transactions that I would have
not incurred but for the City's "forced sale" policy.
40. The city's heightened code standards and increased code enforcement against
me, my rental homes and tenants during 2002 through 2004, was a barrier to
my ability to provide afTordable housing to my minority and low-income
tenants and to other "protected class" individuals that were seeking affordable
housing in the City during that time period.
41. I continued to receive calls from prospective tenants looking for affordable
housing in the City of Saint Paul during 2002 through 2004 and during the
period I was in the process of selling the last of my rental homes to save my
investments.
42. While I attempted to minimize my losses, I also suffered increased tax burdens
due to quick sales, and I incurred substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs,
and through permit and code compl iance fees.
43.ln about 1999, I notified the City inspections department, Harold Robinson, of
a complaint I had with a property located at 97 \Vest Sycamore that was in
significant disrepair. Thereafter, I continued to file complaints against the
property due to its serious state of disrepair. In 2003 and 2004, I continued to
file complaints against that property. See Exhibit No. 18, attached hereto,
0032904-908, my 10-20-04 letter to Inspector Robinson; three pages of black
and white photographs of the subject property; Complaint Report sheets, two
14
pagcs, 0032912-13; my follow-up Icttcr to Inspcctor Robinson of 11-24-04,
0032914-17; City Corrcction Noticcs to 97 Sycamorc from 200 I, 1999 and
2004, 0032918-21; and St. Paul's Pcrmit Onlinc printout for subjcct propcrty,
two pagcs. It was clcar to me that evcn though thc City issued ordcrs to corrcct
dcl1ciencies, thc City ncver took any action to cnforce those orders but Ict the
building fail into further disrepair ovcr an cxtcnded pcriod of time, dcspitc my
complaints while targeting my low-incomc rcntal duplex at 970 Euclid which
was in far bettcr condition.
FunTIlEn YOUR AFFIANT SAYTII NOT.
Datcd: August 22, 2008
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 220d day of August, 2008.
Jordan Brightwell
Notary Public
Undcr Scal
15
sl Mark E. Mcysembourg
Mark E. Meysembourg

9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

illegal searches.....fabricating evidence....and a city trying to cover it up

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Chuck, doesn't it seem totally unfair that a property is condemned for certain items and then the code compliance inspection reveals that there is nothing wrong with the items that were called in the condemnation. Smells to me!

1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again the hearing officer.

What is the hearing officer's qualifications to make decisions like this?

8:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is hard to read what in the heck he is saying but it sounds like he took it to court and settled that he would make the repairs and then wanted to back out of it.

He didn't dispute facts at the end only the City's ability to force him to bring it up to current code. So, it sounds like he is whining now that he didn't take it to the Supreme Court.

Again, what made him so special that the City had him on the list of very, very, very important people that the City decided to go after?

Grandiousity ain't it great?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What makes him so special Repke is that he had the hell violated out of his civil rights.

Of course he didn't sidpute the facts.....he thought the government was being honest with him, or they at least made a mistake. Then he finds out he was the victim of a con job.

Why are so many people saying the same thing about this Lisa Martin inspector Repke? Why do they only complain about the old NHPI and not the Fire inspectors?

Oh and by the way, the city didn't have the ability or more importantly the authority to make him bring it up to the current code as has been so dictated by Morris Verses Sax, so it looks to me like the city loses all the way around.

Perhaps you should come to the trial Repke and hear all the victims recite their stories one after another, and then the witnesses like the tenants that Eric always sticks up for who didn't want the city in their house in the first place.

What's funny is that I doubt very much if these guys are letting much of what they really know out of the bag, that'll come at the trial and I'm betting it's going to a hum dinger!

Will we see you there Chuck? Maybe we can have lunch?

9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the city cleverness, they have forced many people to go on the internet to vent, vett, and ecxhange information, the landlords have about 100X more heat seeking missiles than they would have had otherwise. For the city, it's going to be like Custer's last stand. They should start waving the white flag now, as well as ratting on the rats in the city, and hope the landlords will be kind to them.

10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank God Uncle Toms Gone!See Ya Eric!Stay away for good and you say you stand up for your people.You are a coward.

10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a little puzzeled by Eric's absence. For so long he has said show me some evidence and now when things start coming out that is real evidence and not just hot air, he evaporates into thin air. Maybe he's smart enough to read between the lines with some of this stuff......unlike Repke! Chuck thinks it's a slam dunk for the city.....case over....everyone high fiving each other. Happey days are here again right Chuck?

11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From what I've read so far, these people don't sound like victims to me. They sound like potential future millionaires. What does one do to get in on this....just buy a house and wait for code enforcement? Speedy replys would be greatly appreciated.

11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

Maybe you could do a thread about the qualifications of the hearing officer. I wonder if her qualification is that the caught thunes eye before she put on all that wait.

1:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sorry guys, but I think that the summary judgement should end up going the City's way in short order.

What is so funny is that you guys continue to claim that there are some great revelations that are going to come out in trial that will win this for you and that your attorney is holding that back.

Well, if he had anything he would have brought it out by now because it appears that you will lose the summary judgement and the case will be dismissed in the City's favor.

You don't have a case. You have a bunch of disjointed accusations that accuse the City of prejudice against these particular property owners but nothing that makes them similar to one another other than their either unwillingness or lack of ability to fix their properties.

The notion that this is a "Fair Housing" case when the actions of the City was designed to get people to repair, not demo property and most people that got tagged repaired their property is a total loser.

You fail on the initial assumption. You assume the City wants houses demo'ed when all of the facts are that most houses that are written up aren't demo'ed and even most that go vacant aren't demo'ed.

You have nothing.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come to the trial Rpke- Sept.12

2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's so shocking Chuck is that you and the people that run the city really don't think they are doing anything wrong! What they did to these people is no big deal....just do whatever works. There's no jury or judge anywhere in the landl that's going to go along with that. Your days of spinning are going to be over with teh ending of this trial, and you'll look like a fool forever.

9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NOTICE

Court hearing on city lawsuits

Friday 9-12-08

2 P.M. 300 S 4th St….courtroom 12W
Minneapolis, Mn.

Come and see what the real story is about these lawsuits. Hear the evidence for yourself. You’ll be surprised.

3:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home