A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL: Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Victim's Joe Collins and Tom Gallagher

Custom Search

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Victim's Joe Collins and Tom Gallagher

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

95 Comments:

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 MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
JOSEPH J. COLLINS, SR.
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Joseph J. Collins, Sf., being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
EXHIBIT 76
1. I am a resident of Shakopee, Minnesota, and have resided there for 4 years,
having previously resided in Eagan, Minnesota for 3 years. I am married and
have 2 children.
2. I was born and raised in Saint Paul, Minnesota and graduated from South St.
Paul High School in 1994. I received my Major Appliance and Refrigeration
certificate from St. Paul Technical College in 1997. In 1998, I started in the
business of providing rental housing in the City of St. Paul. Between 1998 and
2002, I lived in St. Paul and owned rental properties in the City.
3. I am co-owner of Dadder's Properties, LLC, with Thomas J. Gallagher.
Dadder's Properties, LLC is the owner of three subsidiary limited liability
companies, Dadder's Holdings, Dadder's Enterprises, and Dadder's Estates,
LLC. Our rental portfolio is diversified among these subsidiary limited
liability companies owned by Dadder's Properties, LLC.
4. Our office is located at 461 West Maryland in St. Paul, inside one of our multiunit
rental properties, Princeton Place Apartments. We chose to office in St.Paul to be closer to our rental properties and the St. Paul communities in which
we were raised and where we work. I am an active owner in Dadder's
Properties, LLC, and work from the 461 Maryland offices on a daily basis.
5. Our single family and duplex rental homes were located in neighborhoods
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,
Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories, which is a list of the rental
2
EXHIBIT 76
properties I owned during 2002 through 2006 by property address; Exhibit No.
2 attached hereto, a list of my properties including year built and census tract;
and Exhibit No.3 attached hereto, a map showing the location of each of my
rental properties during 2002 through 2006.
6. At the height of our business, we owned 44 investment properties, 29 of which
provided single family and duplex residential housing, and 9 multi-unit
buildings, which in sum consisted of approximately 200 residential rental units.
7. The tenant market for my residential rental properties would be considered
Class C - properties that have minimal amenities for low income individuals,
but are safe and decent affordable housing. My rents were below market as I
focused on providing housing primarily to low-income.
8. Most of our 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. See Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 attached hereto, described above; and also
Exhibit No. 3 attached hereto, a map showing the location of these properties
and the respective percentage of minority population throughout S1. Paul's
census tracts.
9. Our tenant base had a majority of people of color and included Section 8
recipients. During the period of approxilnately 2002 through 2005, about
Eighty percent (80%) of my tenants were African-American and mixed race
couples. Approximately 10 of the 29 tenants have or did receive federal rent
3
EXHIBIT 76
subsidies under the Section 8 program. In each of our rental properties that
housed Section 8 tenants, we passed the PHA inspection before being approved
for receipt of Section 8 rent subsidies. Approximately 19 of the 29 tenants
were members of a protected class. See attached Exhibit 1.
10. Since starting my rental business in 1998, I have worked on a daily basis in the
City of St. Paul. During that same period, many days I would spend many
hours at my rental properties looking for exterior issues like trash and graffiti,
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.
11. I attempted to screen tenants and deal with behavior issues without having city
provided resources. During the time I owned rental properties, the City
demanded that I and other landlords screen potential tenants more effectively.
12. Many of my former tenants were good tenants and did not cause 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 continue 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
4
EXHIBIT 76
department to 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 very difficult to get the city, through its police
and City Attorneys, to hold any ofmy tenants accountable for their nuisance or
criminal behavior - the police won't arrest or the tenant will not be charged.
15. When I have attempted to take action against my tenants for their nuisance
behavior or other breaches of the lease, including chronic non-payment of rent,
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services ("SMRLS") often attempted to
stop me from enforcing my rights. SMRLS may also attempt to convince the
tenant to sue me to get all of their money back if they claim the property is not
up to code, and suggest the tenant sue under a TRA, when the actual housing
code issues are related to tenant caused damage.
16. Starting in 2002, we experienced increased code enforcement activity on my
rental portfolio, which included exterior and interior inspections, city orders,
shortening of timelines for fixing any claimed deficiency, charging of fees for
excessive use of city services when deficiencies should have been called all at
once, interference with our ability to comply by delayed notices so that we
couldn't get orders remedied, and sending mailings to the wrong or old
addresses.
17. Between 2002 and 2005, the City claimed it was applying its higher standard
consistently across the City. During this period, the City code inspectors under
5
EXHIBIT 76
Dawkins conducted code sweeps in the neighborhoods of my low-income
rental properties. 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 oflny properties.
18. Starting in the fall of 2002 and continuing through 2005, the City's increased
code enforcement activity directed at our rental portfolio interfered with our
ability to attend to our rental business and prohibited us from working to
prepare unoccupied rental homes for re-rental, to communicate with the many
individuals who were seeking housing, and to monitor our other rental
properties.
19. 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.
20. Before we realized the city implemented a heavy handed code enforcement
policy and shortened the timelines for addressing issues - we attempted to
respond to orders and address issues - this increased burden took a substantial
amount of time. Instead of getting rental properties ready for turnover, our
business was forced to spend more time addressing targeting by the City for
heightened standard orders - which allowed less time turning over units or
other tenant issues. In an effort to meet the city's elevated standard, my
business partner Tom Gallagher and I made more visits to our properties to
check and confirm the allegations of the code enforcement officers and to take
6
EXHIBIT 76
care of the issues cited in the orders. The more orders we received, the more
time intensive it became. It became clear that the increase in orders from the
City would mean more time and funding required attending to those orders,
attending administrative hearings, and City induced court actions.
21. After the City began targeting and applying a heightened code standard, in an
attempt to save our business from the heightened code enforcement and to save
our tenants, my business partner Tom Gallagher met with Andy Dawkins at his
office on White Bear Avenue to discuss the targeting of my properties and the
threat to revoke the rental registration on one of our properties.
22.Dadder's Enterprises, LLC purchased 1522/1524 Carroll in March of 2003.
Both tenants were members of a protected class and received Section 8
assistance. Shortly after renovating the property, including a new roof, paint,
and refinished hardwood floors, PHA conducted a Section 8 Housing Quality
Standards ("HQS") inspection of the property and approved the 1522/1524
Carroll property for Section 8 payments. A protected class, Section 8 tenant
moved in.
23. On March 23, 2005, Defendant Senty, supervised by Magner and Dawkins,
illegally and without sufficient cause posted a "Vacant Building" placard on
the property located at 1522/1524 Carroll. However, this property was in fact
occupied by tenants until the end of February 2005, when Dadder's sold the
rental property to co-Plaintiff Allison. See Exhibit No.4.
24. My business partner Torn Gallagher spoke with Senty and also met with
7
EXHIBIT 76
Dawkins on April 1, 2005 to inquire why Senty had posted the home "vacant."
Gallagher informed Senty that the home was in fact occupied by tenants and
that the posting was wrong. Gallagher had copies of a signed lease and bank
deposit slips for paid rent.
25. Gallagher was forced to file an appeal through the City Council legislative
hearing process of Senty's vacant building posting on what was now Allison's
recently acquired rental property (although 1522/1524 Carroll was sold to
Allison, Dadder's continued to receive paperwork from the City).
26. Gallagher attended the appeal of the Vacant Building designation of 1522/1524
Carroll, and produced signed leases and rent deposit slips to legislative hearing
officer Marcia Moermond as evidence that 1522/1524 Carroll was in fact
occupied and was not vacant. See Exhibit No.5.
27. After waiting for several weeks for the decision of the legislative hearing
officer (during which time the property relnained empty), the legislative
hearing officer refused to overturn the "vacant" posting on appeal because the
Section 8 lease which Gallagher produced expired in January 2005. However,
the tenant in the upstairs unit remained in the building until approximately
February of 2005, and we moved the tenants from the 1st floor (Tony & Tonya
Tama) to another rental property at 1368 Pleasant Avenue, where they still
reside today.
28. The sale to Allison took place on February 28, 2005, and the Vacant Building
Designation too place on March 23, 2005. After having owned rental
8
EXHIBIT 76
properties in the City for over 10 years, it is still unclear to me how the vacant
building code applies to rental properties that are being turned over or are
being cleaned and restored for the next tenant.
29. Defendant Senty ignored the obvious occupancy of the home and posted the
rental property as vacant. We later learned at Defendant Senty's deposition
that he made his determination without an interior inspection by looking
through the second story windows while standing on the ground, and based
that determination on the fact that he could not see any blinds or window
coverings. See Exhibit No.6.
30.Because of the Vacant Building posting and order prohibiting occupancy of
1522/1524 Carroll, Allison was forced to deal with a SMRLS pressured TRA
action by the tenants, Leo and Angelic Holden, remove his tenants, and submit
to a lengthy City required Code Compliance because of the Vacant Building
designation, all after Dadder's had already rehabbed the property and passed
the Section 8 inspection. See Exhibit No.7. I believe that if we hadn't sold
the property to Allison just weeks prior to the Vacant Building designation, we
would have been forced to remove our tenants and submit to the City's lengthy
and expensive Code Compliance. In an effort to assist Allison and in response
to the TRA against him, Dadder's agreed to move the Holden's to a different
affordable rental property owned by Dadder's.
31. Many of the claimed code deficiencies at the 1522/1524 Carroll rental property
are due to the tenant's behavior. For example, the property had been cited on
9
EXHIBIT 76
more than one occasion because the tenant left the service door to the garage
open. See Exhibit No.8.
32. Dawkins, Magner, Senty and others used the vacant building procedure as
leverage against us and Allison to illegally remove the grandfathering
protections of their older building under Minnesota law and to force them into
having a code compliance inspection and certification process on the
1522/1524 Carroll property.
33. Upon review of the property file, we discovered a letter written by Defendant
inspector Joel Essling, whereby he recorded his observations of the conduct
with respect to the property located at 1522/1524 Carroll. It appears from the
letter that inspector Essling acknowledges the property was occupied prior to
my purchase, citing documentation provided by Dadder's. See Exhibit No.9.
34. By declaring the 1522/1524 Carroll property vacant, and illegally removing the
grandfathering protections of older City homes and buildings and demanding
full "Code Compliance Inspections and Certificates" before allowing the
property to be occupied, Defendants ensured that the property would not be
available for affordable rent once again to low income minority tenants.
35. Dadder's purchased 1595 Van Buren in 2003 as a rental property. At the time
of purchase, 1595 Van Buren was listed and registered with the City as a
building with four units to be rented. Three of the units were occupied by
protected class members. We continued the registration and paying taxes on
the four unit building.
10
EXHIBIT 76
36. The property located at 1595 Van Buren had been issued a Certificate of
Occupancy, as another fire inspector had inspected the same address in the
spring of 2004 and granted the Certificate with no deficiencies. The building
received it's Certificate of Occupancy as well in October of 2002 and
November of 2005. See Exhibit No. 10.
37. In June of 2004, Fire Prevention Inspector Urmann made a "Re-Inspection of
Referral" of the property located at 1595 Van Buren, and then prepared and
mailed to us two Deficiency lists dated June 24, 2004, both of which noted
"deficiencies" to be corrected on or after June 24, 2004 and June 28, 2004,
respectively. See Exhibit No. 11. The deficiency lists contained 31 numbered
deficiencies.Urmann claimed that one of the units was illegal and could not
be rented as a separate unit. Also among the 31 deficiencies, Urmann claimed
that the unit must have a central fire alarm installed.
38. As a direct result of said Defendants' wrongful conduct directed against us, we
have sustained expenses and damages in the form of loss of rent after June
2004 as well as inspections, repairs and other expenses.
39. The property located at 1595 Van Buren was sold to Mr. Jamie Phelps. Mr.
Phelps continued to have problems with the inspector and attempted to meet
their demands. Eventually, the property was designated as a vacant building
by the City. See Exhibit No. 12. I believe that if I hadn't sold the property
under the pressures of the City's heightened code enforcement, we would have
11
EXHIBIT 76
ended up with this vacant building and subjected to the City's lengthy and
expensive Code Compliance.
40. Dadder's purchased multi-unit adjacent apartment buildings including one
located at 467 Maryland in approximately March of 2005. There are four (4)
apartment buildings consisting of 110 units. At that time and thereafter, these
properties were almost exclusively occupied by protected class members and a
significant percentage of the units received Section 8 or other government
assistance. At the time of purchase, the buildings had Certificates of
Occupancy and had maintained their certificates every two years dating back to
the construction of these properties in the 1960's.
41. On March 28, 2005, one of Urmann's fire inspectors, James Thomas,
conducted an inspection of 467 Maryland and issued a letter dated March 28,
2005, with 10 code deficiencies. In fact, this rental property located at 467
Maryland had been issued a Certificate of Occupancy in all prior years. See
Exhibit No. 13.
42. One of the claimed deficiencies was that a smoke detector needed to be located
outside each sleeping area. The existing placement of smoke detectors had
passed inspection for over thirty years. Upon speaking with Urmann, he
claimed that the new code required a smoke detector in each bedroom. When
asked whether or not an older building must comply with the new code,
Urmann stated that it did. Defendant City has granted PHA preferential
treatment under similar circumstances by deferments of City fire safety
12
EXHIBIT 76
requirements on PHA rental properties.
43. As a direct result of said Defendants' conduct directed against us, we have
been forced to incur significant expense in time, labor and materials in order to
comply with the claimed deficiencies and the installation of the additional
equipment in 110 units.
44. Dadder's Enterprises, LLC purchased 643 Watson in January 2003. One ofthe
two tenants was in a protected class and received government assistance.
Dadder's proceeded with the rehabilitation of the property by obtaining a
building permit and posting a $2,000.00 performance deposit on March 21,
2003. Dadder's filed a Vacant Building Registration Form on May 13, 2003,
and informed James Seeger, Code Compliance Inspector, via letter dated
September 23, 2003, that Dadder's had completed their repairs. Dadder's
spent approximately $70,000.00 rehabilitating 643 Watson, including a new
roof, new cedar siding, trash removal, new sheetrock, new paint, new
electrical, new fixtures, new doors, new cabinets, new appliances and
refinished hardwood floors, thereby completing all tasks itemized in the prior
owner's inspection report from 2001. See Exhibit No. 14.
45. On October 23, 2003, a Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration for 643
Watson was issued to Thomas J. Gallagher by Maynard Vinge, Code
Enforcement Programs Supervisor. On January 21, 2004, Gallagher was sent
and paid for a Rental Registration Renewal for 643 Watson. See Exhibit No.
15.
13
EXHIBIT 76
46. In April 2004, Gallagher discovered that employees of the city were contacting
his tenants informing them of the City's interest in suing Gallagher, Collins and
Dadder's for housing tenants in a condemned building. On April 9, 2004, a
Correction Notice was issued by Defendant Magner for illegal occupancy of a
Registered Vacant Building (after the city issued and collected funds for a
Certificate of Rental Dwelling Registration dated October 23, 2003) and for
lack of proper ground cover and for the removal of all concrete ruble, brush,
wood, piles of dirt or rubble. The April 9, 2004, Correction Notice was
prepared by Magner and was attached as Exhibit #5 to the Verified Tenant
Remedies Action ("TRA ") Complaint. See Exhibit No. 16.
47. The City had labeled 643 Watson property as a "problem property," on May
24, 2004, but on June 16, 2004 disposed of the "problem property case"
because there were "not enough police issues." See Exhibit No. 17.
48. On or about April 29, 2004, Dawkins directed the commencement of a TRA
suit on Dadder's rental property located at 643 Watson. Dawkins was assisted
by Magner and Attorney Dolan. In the Verified Tenant Remedies Action
Complaint dated April 29, 2004, Dawkins verified that the allegations of the
Complaint were true and accurate. Dawkins claimed in Paragraph No.6 that
the code violations had not yet been remedied. This was false as the entire
property had been renovated and the 2001 inspection report completed before
the City commenced the TRA action. I was informed that although the
property had been completely renovated, it would not be removed from the
14
EXHIBIT 76
condemned and vacant housing list because the pnor owner did not pull
permits for the work done before Dadder's purchased the building. We were
forced to incur expenses in excess of $10,000.00 to tear down and rebuild
already new sheetrock, and to incur expenses on city permits and city
inspections for heating, plumbing and electrical work done by the prior owner
of the building.
49. The tenant in the lower level of 643 Watson did not join the TRA, and the
tenant in the upper unit repeatedly told me, and informed opposing counsel
from SMRLS at the TRA hearing, that she did not want to join the action, nor
did she want to be removed from her newly relnodeled rental unit. We were
forced to retain an attorney to protect our interests in Ramsey County District
Court during the period of April 2004 through May 2004.
50. In connection with the alleged violations at 643 Watson, a prior Correction
Notice dated November 13, 2003 was issued to us for illegal occupancy of a
building (again, after the issuance of a Certificate of Rental Dwelling
Registration dated October 23, 2003), followed by a citation dated December
17, 2003 and a warrant for my arrest. Part of the settlelnent of the TRA was a
fine, removal of warrant and an Agreement to Suspend Prosecution against
me.
51. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by
Magner, Dawkins and the City directed against us, we lost revenue and rental
income and incurred expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other
15
EXHIBIT 76
expenses.
52. Defendants' discriminatory and illegal code enforcement activity against
Dadder's and the other Plaintiffs continues to this day. Code enforcement
officers prepared and mailed to Dadder's written Correction Orders and
Summary Abatement Orders on their rental properties wherein they made
petty, malicious and false statements about claimed code violations; many of
the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by the code enforcement
officers to Dadder's were false and calculated to make the Dadder's properties
look bad. See Exhibit No. 18.
53. Due to the volume of false and petty orders issued by Defendants, and due to
the behavior and items used by tenants which a landlord cannot control (yard
furniture, kiddy pools and birds nesting), we attempted but could not keep up
with the City's requirements and therefore incurred many reinspection fees and
excessive consumption invoices.
54. As a direct result of the constant discrimination and illegal code enforcement
treatment and racketeering activity directed at us by said Defendants, all at the
direction or with the approval of Dawkins and Kelly, we were injured in our
rental business and incurred unnecessary expenses, fees and lost profits and
were thereafter forced to sell more than 20 of our real estate investment
properties in the City. Other impacted rental property owners were forced to
sell properties as well.
55. Defendant Dawkins owns at least two properties in the City that have been
16
EXHIBIT 76
consistently in a state of disrepair and in senous violation of City Code.
Moreover, certain city inspectors own rental properties in the City and these
inspectors are recipients of preferential code enforcement treatment even
though their properties have multiple code violations.
56. Because of the shocking experience with City code enforcement methods
under Dawkins, the petty conduct by Dawkins and the inspectors, the large
amount of expenses I was forced to incur in a very small amount of time, the
losses of rental incolne I suffered, 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, we were forced to
sell all but five (5) single family and duplex rental properties in the City in
order to avoid financial disaster.
57. We incurred significant expenses from those sales transactions that I would
have not incurred but for the City's "forced sale" policy.
58. The city's heightened code standards and increased code enforcement against
me, my rental homes and tenants during 2002 through 2005, was a barrier to
my ability to provide affordable 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.
59. We continued to receive calls from prospective tenants looking for affordable
housing in the City of Saint Paul during 2002 through 2005 and during the
period we were in the process of selling the last of our rental homes to save our
17
EXHIBIT 76
investments.
60. We also suffered increased tax burdens due to quick sales, and we incurred
substantial expenses m unnecessary repairs, and through permit and code
compliance fees.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 8-22-2008

MATTHEW A ENGEL
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1-31-2011; 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Well jump on in here Repke and tell us how you know these guys and how bad they are. Wasn't there a "Collins clan" in the Capone family?; 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't know him at all but sounds like the classic case of the young guy who bit off more than he could chew.

Started his rental business as a 22 year old in 1998 and by the time he is 28 he has over 230 rental units in over 30 locations.

That's a heck of an accomplishment, but sure sounds like he was over his head trying hold it all together.

So, of course its not his fault that he can't manage all of that, its the City's fault... and its not his fault that some of his tenents use TRA as a way to force him to keep up his properties up, its the City's fault. And it wasn't that the City was getting tougher on all code enforcement, the City was doing illegal code enforcement targeting his minority tenents (who were causing all of his problems in another arguement of his...).

Rough life...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...: The attorneys for these plaintiffs see dollar signs and continue to stretch these landlords out for every dollar they have.
I am sure when this is all said and done, plaintiffs attorneys will be partners in owning whatever properties are left to help pay the attorneys fees.
To bad !

City employee; 9:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Repke these guys are a class act and are still in business offering housing for tenants all across the City.There a real success story and would be a lot further if the city didn't target them.

I think these guys have a website of all their properties.Does anyone know it?Then Chuck can see if there slumlords or not.

So when is it bad that a young man starts a business at 22 and creates a large business?This guy should be Mayor.; 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Repke,

What is there something wrong with wanting to make it big on your own? I forgot, you are in the "non profit" side of the world. Nothing really matters to you with reguards to spending, profit, etc..... Why don't you and your big mouth lover Dave go walk hand in hand along 7th street and protest something!; 10:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Didn't take long to find these guysChuck. When you look at theri avaolable property, it looks as if they have some pretty nice places. A lot of wish we could be in this far over our heads. I think you're jealous Chuck. Check em out at the link below.

http://www.rentyournewapartment.com/; 12:34 AM
Anonymous said...: After going to the site and looking at the pictures of the different places it really clears things up for me about what Chuck and the city think is not good enough. I'm glad I don't rent apartments! My place I live in doesn't look as good as these. How about your place Chcuk?; 2:40 AM
Anonymous said...: WOW......nice digs! I'll live in any of those places any day of the weeek.; 6:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Not only are they nice places it looks like they have maintanance requests over email.Slumlords and people who don't want to fix their properties don't run their business like this.

Yeah Joe Collins and Tom Gallagher really got in over their heads.Their slogan even says thats bricks alone don't build a community good property owners and great residents do.

Shut these guys down.

Jim; 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, looks like he got his act together in the last four years. Good for him!

I don't know him, don't know the issues that got him in front of the City, nor what has changed to get in the position now that he appears to be able to do what he wasn't able to do 4-6 years ago.

All I know is that there isn't a world wide conspiracy being run out of City Hall trying to put selected landlords out of business and obviously this guy appears to be doing fine now!

I just try to point out where the issue may be personal responsibility and perspective instead of secret agents and international conspiracies.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck these guys are lucky and so is the city that they are still in business.Looks like the city has an asset with these guys and should do what ever they can to keep them.Maybe you should go to their office and let them help you run your non-profits.

I just wonder how many good properties they'd own if it wasn't for the city trying to put them out of business.It looks like the city did a real dis-service for tenants in St.Paul.

Brad; 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck, the city's on the path to self-defeat, landlords or not. If anything, the landlords are helping them to stave off bigger collaspe.; 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: On a sad note one of these owners daughter was diagnosed with brain cancer about 2 years ago.I've heard she's in remission and back to school.So in the last 4 years this guy has been through a lot with his business and his family.Not only is he a good business man but one hell of a father!!I'm a St.Paulite and happy to have him making or community better.

Brian H; 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: My heart goes out to him. A close family just lost a child to brain cancer after four years of remission.

I am volunteering to do some lobbying at the capitol for personalized license plates to both increase the visibility of childhood cancer and try and raise some money for research.

There are a lot a families that cancer strikes their children.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: I stopped by one of their properties last year when Eric called them slumlords.I went to the office where I was greeted by a nice professional young women.One of the owners came out and shook my hand.I don't know which one it was,but very friendly and pleasant.The apartments were adorable.
I remember this property some years ago when it was a dump.These two guys have really made an improvement in 2 or 3 years.These are the landlords we want to stay in St.Paul not be chased out.

Linda; 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: "I don't know him, don't know the issues that got him in front of the City, nor what has changed to get in the position now that he appears to be able to do what he wasn't able to do 4-6 years ago."

I'll tell you what happened Chuck. This guy sued the city and St. Paul found out that they picked a fight with the wrong dude!; 6:14 PM
Anonymous said...: It doesn't look like anybody has anything bad to say about these guys.Wonder why?Eric do you know anything about these guys?

These guys seem like they run a good business.They must be sueing for a reason.Chuck they must have thrived since the city probably has left them alone during litigation.Look the city leaves you alone and you thrive.What a concept.

I'll be driving by these properties tomorrow to see if they look as good as the pictures.We all know how bad or good pictures can make a property look-right Dave?

Tim Ciani; 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah sure Ciani.....and if you see any violations , we'll expect them to show up here like Thune did. I'll also being driving by and looking just to make sure you are staying honest you snake in the grass.; 11:27 PM
Anonymous said...: These guys are welcome to own rentals next to me.Slumlords don't have websites.Whats the beef Chuck and Eric.Theres got to be something wrong.If not Chuck and Thune should have a round table and lunch with these guys to see what they can do for eachother.Obviously there an asset to the city.Why run them out?

Brian; 11:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Big slums advertised on the website for all to see. If these places aren't good enough , what is Repke? Maybe your city went after the worng people? Maybe the city has an agenda other than health and saftey?; 12:52 AM
Anonymous said...: The city should be embarassed to be getting sued by the Dadder's Boys.Sounds like 2 strong Irish lastnames that are our home grown business men.Also looks like they moved out of towm when they were targetedS
Sorry guys for the actions of my city.You both seem like stand up guys.

Michael; 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: That's a heck of an accomplishment, but sure sounds like he was over his head trying hold it all together.

Really?

They don't look "over their heads", from what I've seen.

Are they "over their heads", or is the city trying to push their heads under water?

Hey, looks like he got his act together in the last four years. Good for him!

Huge assumption on your part, Chuck; did they get it together in the past four years, or was their "act together" all along, and is the city trumping things up?

Oh, we know what you'll assume, Chuck; government never does anything wrong.

Seriously, Chuck - every single one of your assumptions in this particular thread has been shown to be erroneous.

What do you have to say about that?; 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: You don't get to this professional level in 4 years Chuck.It takes much longer to run operate and be organized like this company.Maybe you should have one of these guys help with your non-profits.

Travis Y.; 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Sounds like this company is sqeeky clean and singing the same tune as the previous plaintiffs.Hopefully the judge will see through the citys B.S.

Jim; 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: I know these 2 guys and they are so kind.They are great property owners that have big hearts.They created a this business out of nothing and are great for St.Paul.

They also heard they were on the blog and wanted me to say thanks to all that have suported them and believed in their cause.; 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck it sucks when you have nothing to spin,doesn't it?; 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...: These guys must be the real deal if Eric can't say shit about them.Eric doesn't like anybody but the city council.; 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck and Eric,

Your silence is, as they say, golden.

How many times have the two of you assumed that everyone who runs afoul of the city in any way must be some mindless reprobate who HAS to be screwing their tenants and MUST be trying to ditch their responsibilities?

You've had that accusation thrown back in your faces this time.

How many times before have you been wrong? How many of the other people slimed by this city AND the two of you have been perfectly fine landlords who ran afoul of an angry neighbor, a pissed-off tenant or a city official who had a grudge?

I don't know, but it'll be fun to find out, won't it?; 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Now that the personal profiles of these guys start to come out we hear nothing from Chuck and Eric, but for how long have we heard about how these guys exploit their tenants? How many times have Chuck and Eric said they know these guys and their properties? I knew one of them and knew that he was an OK landlord , but now when this stuff about the others comes out, it doesn,t add a lot of crediibiltiy to Chuck and Erics rantings over the past months. I looked at the website and it would be a step up for me to live in one of the apartments.; 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck didn't you say the people in the lawsuit didn't think,want or have the means to fix their properties?Now call me stupid if you want-Aren't these the type of rental owners we want?Or no rental owners at all?Or maybe it was the fact they did rent to african americans in neighborhoods that didn't want them.Slumlords can't clean up their act this quick.These guys look like they've ran a pretty good business with safety and quality theri top agenda.

You all who called these guys slumlords should be ashamed of yourselves and if I were these guys I'd be looking for a town who can appreciate good business owners.

A last thought Chuck.How many times has Dave talked with these guys about their concerns over code enforcement?How many times has Dave Thune talked with these guys about anything?How many times has any city council member talked to these guys?

I thought so.

Rick; 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: 12:37 has a good point.Shouldn't the concerns of these business men be checked on?They both look like they know how to run a business and should be taken serious.

Jim; 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob why did you put up such good model landlords?I thought Repke said this blog was about slumlords.This is boring,there obviously isn't any dirt on these guys if Repke and Eric don't shoot their mouths off.

These guys are pretty good huh Repke and Eric?come on just admit it.

Eric I think one of the pretty ladies you saw at one of the court hearings is one of these guys wife.Not only do they have nice property but nice looking ladies.; 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: twfnNothing wrong with the landlords at all! At least the ones suing the city. I know one of them and he told me that even the inspectors testified under oath that these were good landlords. The problem is racist neighborhoods and a city council that does their bidding for them. Qutie simply, St. Paul doesn't want black people living in the neighborhoods, so they go after landlords for behavior issues the tenant has. Too much work going after them with the Police, that costs money. Raking the landlords over the coals makes them money. Go figure.

As far as landlords talking to Thune or anyone else in the city, they tried. One of the guys suing tried desperately to sit down and talk to them. They said no, even when advised that they were going to get sued. They wanted to get sued. Their arrogance showed then and it shows now. They're still doing the same shit to people and there's going to be a lot more of these lawsuits in the future.; 5:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Rick,

Well, once they are suing the City the council isn't allowed to talk to them. But, for people who aren't suing the City, I am sure Thune talks to them if the property in quesion is in his ward.

For well over two years I have asked people to find one house that was demo'ed in Ward 2 that Thune didn't allow the owner an extension if they asked for it. to this point no one has come up with one.

A few months ago Bob posted a thank you because Thune had help someone he knew get more time, and you all went ape shit against Bob for saying anything decent about him.

You guys have your head up your whatever because you hate him over a bunch of other civil liberties issues.

The City has to totally convince Thune that no one has any interest in fixing a property before he OK's a demo of anything in Ward 2.

But think what you like and don't let the facts get in the way.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: "For well over two years I have asked people to find one house that was demo'ed in Ward 2 that Thune didn't allow the owner an extension if they asked for it. to this point no one has come up with one."

Hey Chuck....why don't you make it a little easier and ask for an address where the city demanded and coerced an illegal code compliance on the owner? I think ya might have better luck!; 2:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck every time I've seen any housing issue being discussed by the coucil Dave is sitting on his mouth and never says a word.Inaction is just much of a problem then bad action.You act like you understand that the council is unfair but Dave is the only one that gives extensions.What are you saying?That the other members are unfair?

Rick; 10:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Bottom line Chuck Repke is that someone on the council should have stood up for these guys.PERIOD!!!!!; 1:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck,

Dodging the issue as usual.

Your slurs against these landlords - calling them slumlords - have been debunked. Don't change the subject. Respond to the questions brought up about your defamation of Collins and Gallagher, if you please.

Or can you?; 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Why I haven't I commented?
Because I don't care that much. It affects me- not at all.

I haven't looked at these guys properties or their website, if what you say is true about them- great! Find more like them. I'll welcome them in town.

Linda seemed to kick off the flurry of lies that I called these guys slumlords- nope. Don't know them. As a matter of fact, I have been a little more specific on who I charge with that title like ol' Frankie S. and gave some areas where the rental property is junk.

I have also said for over two years now, some individuals may have cases of abuse but, they loose credibility when they group themselves with others who have tried to game the rental business for years. Those who signed on to RICO make my point.

If you've been reading my rantings you will also see that I know that sometimes neighbors act in the name of racism, and employees of the city have been known to as well.

In saying that and knowing that, I maintain as I did from day one, there is no conspiracy among the city and county and courts to remove low-income housing providers from the city of Saint Paul. Period. This RICO suit, in order to be correct, has to prove that there is.

So far, nothing.

I'm also not going to pat somebody on the back for doing what they're supposed to be doing(that's one of things wrong with our schools and society). If they maintain nice properties and are fair in the rental practices, isn't that what's expected?

Let's review for the Linda's and 'slow' people of the world:

1. There is no RICO- which is where all of this started.

2. Bad players are probably on city payroll- but its not the entire payroll or a significant amount or employees that could push an agenda of discrimination. There are probably individuals and individual incidents worth going after. RICO is not.

3. I'm not against going after bad players. I have said that over and over.

4. This blog is outliving its usefulness as the courts continue to strike down the suits.

I can't be more clear but, I'm positive some of you will be able to mix it up.

Eric; 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Whats funny Eric is you did call the Dadders guys slumlords with a property on Maryland.Do you remember this argument?Probably not due to the fact that your blinded by ignorants.You are one sided.You look up properties of Frank S. but are slow to check out a website that shows these guys are a great addition to St.Paul.You are quick to slam but slow to applaud good property owners.WHY?You show you true colors Eric.You are government man and thats it.

You act as any business that conducts itself as good shouldn't get a good job as you slam the others.What have you done for ST.Paul?You say you work on the Eastside but it still looks like crap.Are you to blame?These guys have taken run down properties and made them livable again for many needy families of St.Paul.Many of your race.They don't discriminate and they are equal.But thats expected right Eric?Why don't you face it these guys are good and what they have done should be acknowledged!

Why don't you put some pictures of your house up like the two gentleman from Dadders have ad we'll see who is investing in this City.

Linda; 7:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Whats funny Eric is you did call the Dadders guys slumlords with a property on Maryland.Do you remember this argument?Probably not due to the fact that your blinded by ignorants.You are one sided.You look up properties of Frank S. but are slow to check out a website that shows these guys are a great addition to St.Paul.

Yes, I do remember and afterwards you'll see that I admitted I was wrong about THAT property. BTW, you meant 'ignorance' not 'ignorants'.
ONE SIDED?!?!?!?
I'm the only one who posts on here that was open to being wrong and admitting when its so. You and your rabid comrades are the ones who come on here everyday and bitch about the city and the poor landlords. Not once have you admitted that some of them are the problem. Not once have any of you said it. You act like all of this ran down property is none existent.

You are quick to slam but slow to applaud good property owners.WHY?

Because its what's expected and should be what we as a society expect. When I cut and edge my lawn, I don't look for a standing ovation. If I go into a restaurant and the glasses are clean and no pest are running around, I'm not going to stand up and applaud. I may if the food and service is good too. Maybe.

You show you true colors Eric.You are government man and thats it.

Again, I have written over and over that its believable that there are some bad players among the ranks of city employees. What I have not done is go along with the mob mentality of RICO. Its impossible.

I'm don't work for the government or contract with the government. My offices are in Minneapolis.

You act as any business that conducts itself as good shouldn't get a good job as you slam the others.

No. We have ordinances and regulations that businesses agree to follow before they are granted the right to do business in this town. The good makes money and the bad gets regulated and sanctioned.

What have you done for ST.Paul?

Since I've lived here, I bought a house, pay my taxes and volunteer for both city commissions and neighborhood organizations.

You say you work on the Eastside but it still looks like crap.Are you to blame?

Nope. Lots of reasons, including slumlords preying on the poor.

These guys have taken run down properties and made them livable again for many needy families of St.Paul.Many of your race.They don't discriminate and they are equal.But thats expected right Eric?

Yes, its expected if you want a business that makes money. I bet you are the kind that discourage kids from playing sports because you think everyone should be a winner and competition is bad.

Don't put your ass in front of your face Linda, these guys are not representative of the suit. It took several "Meet Joe Blow" posts by Bob until you found one who could possibly be living up to par.

Why don't you face it these guys are good and what they have done should be acknowledged!

Can you read, or do you excel at just yapping? Where am I beating these guys up on this thread? You boneheads put words in my mouth and then came back and debated those very words.

Why don't you put some pictures of your house up like the two gentleman from Dadders have ad we'll see who is investing in this City.

Because, my house is not the issue, condition of rental property in st paul and equality of enforcement is. Their property is the issue. But, if you want to make it fair, you'd have to put up the homes they live in, yours and then my home. I'm confident I won't come in last place.

Say goodnight Linda.

Eric; 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric how about the thug,ghetto,white trash that prey on landlords?Its also a problem.Theres enough blame to go around.

Sid; 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Thank you Linda.; 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Thank-you Dadders; 10:27 PM
Anonymous said...: So what Eric is saying is the next time you son or daughter comes home from school with all B's on theri report card just tell them thats what is expected.
In your world Eric when should someone be applauded for the business or work they have done?Or is the answer never because evrybody is expected to do something?

Where is your concern that these guys obviously have nice properties that are well kept with 80% to 90% occupied by African Americans that are being targeted.Any concern?Or should we just turn a blind eye because they didn't address the problem your way?

Rick; 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: "You say you work on the Eastside but it still looks like crap.Are you to blame?

Nope. Lots of reasons, including slumlords preying on the poor."

Isn't this an interesting comment. If ya live on the east side you can't leave your daughter home alone without her getting raped.....you can't walk on the streets without getting robbed or your head beat in with a baseball bat.....ya can't even walk home from a bar without getting raped and it all the fault of the landlord preying on the poor huih Eric? Criminals are preying on the citizens you dumb fuck and your DFL buddies who run the city do nothing about it except prey on the landlords cause they don't want to take the ehat about being accused of discrimination and you stick up for them and their ways like a beggar with your hand out so you can do some more political work for them. Your disgusting! One minute your running these guys down and then your saying sorry. You got a big mouth bud.....seems you ahve something to say about eberything you know nothing about/; 11:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Ya bastards call on me over and over to comment, then when I do, you want fight. Don't mention me, and you can lie to yourselves all day for all I care.

Eric how about the thug,ghetto,white trash that prey on landlords?Its also a problem.Theres enough blame to go around.
Sid

I wouldn't say prey on landlords as much as their own neighbors. I agree with you overall on that statement. There is enough blame to go around, city, landlords, tenants, neighbors- I've got no problem with that. This blog is set up for one purpose though- Blame everyone BUT the landlord.

So what Eric is saying is the next time you son or daughter comes home from school with all B's on theri report card just tell them thats what is expected.

Two things wrong with that. First, since my wife and I take time with our kids, paid for private instructions, and are involved in their schools, we know before grades come out where they are and Second, all 'B's would be a step down, so I would not be 'expecting' that.

In your world Eric when should someone be applauded for the business or work they have done?Or is the answer never because evrybody is expected to do something?

Well yes. You get recognition when you go beyond the norm. Jeez, in your world you were clapping and shooting off fireworks for Sarah Palin because she didn't screw up-too much.

You probably bitch at your co-workers because the boss didn't notice you got to work four out of five days on time and didn't steal anything when you left.

Where is your concern that these guys obviously have nice properties that are well kept with 80% to 90% occupied by African Americans that are being targeted.Any concern?Or should we just turn a blind eye because they didn't address the problem your way?

I am concerned about that Ricky boy, its just not in RICO. RICO is a dumbass way to go about it, especially when you drag in n'er do wells. Go back to the second month of this blog and see what I wrote before I realize that reasonableness is a foreign concept around here.

...ya can't even walk home from a bar without getting raped and it all the fault of the landlord preying on the poor huih Eric?

No, but the question I answered, which you copied right above was:
"You say you work on the Eastside but it still looks like crap.Are you to blame?

See the word LOOKS in there? Well, my answer:
"Nope. Lots of reasons, including slumlords preying on the poor."
--
Lots of reasons-including the slumlords preying on the poor are why the Eastside LOOKS like crap.
Get it? Its one of several reason it looks like crap. Not talking about the safety- looks, looks, looks. That falls on the property owner.

Criminals are preying on the citizens you dumb fuck and your DFL buddies who run the city do nothing about it except prey on the landlords cause they don't want to take the ehat about being accused of discrimination and you stick up for them and their ways like a beggar with your hand out so you can do some more political work for them.

I'm a dumbfuck and my DFL buddies run the city? Who put them there Einstein? Citizens?
I don't do election work for money anymore and there is only one campaign I worked for money that was local in eleven years. She lost the DFL endorsement and lost the election.
Thanks for playing. Blowhards can exit stage Right.

Your disgusting!

And, you're a coward.

One minute your running these guys down and then your saying sorry. You got a big mouth bud..

I do have a big mouth but, let's be real, you're not man enough to do anything about it, you don't even stand by what you write, so who cares if I got a big mouth?

Its actually called being man, chump. I'm man enough to sign my name to what I say, and admit when I am wrong without having to kiss the hinds of the likes of you.

Eric; 1:01 AM
Anonymous said...: So you did political work for money and you couldn't deliver the beacon huh? Now you're a loser to boot! I would have been smart enough not to hire you, you're too closed minded. There's still time to join us Eric. We'll enlighten you and no hard feelings.; 2:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Eric you should atleast stand behind Dadders if you think they have a real beef.; 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: So you did political work for money and you couldn't deliver the beacon huh? Now you're a loser to boot! I would have been smart enough not to hire you, you're too closed minded. There's still time to join us Eric. We'll enlighten you and no hard feelings.
2:32 AM

You mean 'bacon', and no I didn't. Political elections are like batting averages, .350 makes you an all-star. I spent over a decade working on federal and statewide campaigns(President, Senate, US House, Governor, Attorney General, etc) here and other states. I was able to survive until I felt burned out, not tossed out. I'm in another career field still learning the ropes.

The last story written about me noted that I tend to go with underdog or outsider candidates and was pretty good at building a campaign that makes them competitive. But enough about me.

My record on local races overall is a split. I was and am slow to understand the personal nuances and long memories that play in local politics that are looked over on federal races. In some cases its much more dirtier and personal (though Coleman and Franken are taking the federal race to new lows).

As far as joining you, I'm not against you. I'm against the RICO suit, and maybe Nancy Lazaryan.
-----

Dadders don't need me to stand behind them.

I would have advised them to stay away from a RICO suit and go straight for the jugular with a suit based on discriminatory enforcement-(if I take everything they say at their word). Then, our burden would be on proven the city targeted them, instead of being part of this RICO where they have to prove not only that they were targeted but, there was a pattern and someone on the city's end got a benefit from it.

Your main point gets lost in all of that.

Eric; 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: US Supreme Court now in session

http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/equitable-estoppel-does-not-prevent-governmental-entity-from-enforcing-zoning-where-it-previously-improperly-permitted-development/

Further, the Court agreed “that a current government official is not duty bound to continue improper acts of predecessors.”

Sebastian-Voor Properties, LLC v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 2008 WL 4286502 (KY 9/18/2008).; 12:05 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not against going after bad players. I have said that over and over.

Well, we'll see, won't we?

Look, Eric - you may or may not make a valid point that a RICO suit wasn't the way to go with this beef. On the other hand, leaving aside the legal technicalities of "what kind of suit do we file?", it seems pretty clear that the problem with housing in this city goes way deeper than a couple of bad apples in DSI.

Good landlords are being trashed by DSI, as we've seen in this thread, with the full connivance of the entire city apparatus.

And let's not forget - "Bad" landlords (as we've seen in this thread, to the likes of Chuck Repke ANYONE who runs afoul of Mother City is a "bad" landlord) have rights, too, or at least they should. You judge a society by how well it treats *the least of us*, not just the "best" (or best-connected) of us.

And the city's housing policy at the very top is crushingly stupid, is going to create acres of vacant properties, and will utterly destroy property values and make it even more impossible to get a mortgage than in the rest of the economy. The whole policy is based on wishing the city to look nicer, combined with complete ignorance of basic economics, and that's only if you take city officials at their word.

By all means quibble about what kind of suit SHOULD have been filed, as the city slides further and further down the toilet.; 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Give us a break Repke re: East Side Review Vol24,no40, Mon 6Oct08 2,100 vacant bldgs, 1583 York Ave. Bank Cherokee donates to nonprofit,

http://www.eastsidereviewnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=64&SubSectionID=283&TM=19843.24

Main Street gets Sick, Wall Street gets Rich; 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: it seems pretty clear that the problem with housing in this city goes way deeper than a couple of bad apples in DSI.

How so? We aren't there yet. More later.

Good landlords are being trashed by DSI, as we've seen in this thread, with the full connivance of the entire city apparatus.

Nope. There you go again. What we have seen is that some landlords may have other issues with the city that are not RICO. What has not been proven is that there is a city apparatus targeting 'good landlords.

And let's not forget - "Bad" landlords (as we've seen in this thread, to the likes of Chuck Repke ANYONE who runs afoul of Mother City is a "bad" landlord) have rights, too, or at least they should. You judge a society by how well it treats *the least of us*, not just the "best" (or best-connected) of us.

No, you mean those of the likes of Frank Steinhauser who in his own testimony admitted to having trashy, unlivable units and that not all of his tenants were minorities- and he was cited correctly by DSI- yet he still signs on to RICO and say the city is targeting him because of the race of his tenants. Ignoring his sworn testimony presents the opposite. Any good landlords tied into this guy needs to have their heads examined.

And the city's housing policy at the very top is crushingly stupid, is going to create acres of vacant properties, and will utterly destroy property values and make it even more impossible to get a mortgage than in the rest of the economy.

Really? Do you know St Paul is not in the top 100 cities when its comes to these housing issues? Not even the top 100. We are doing fine here- now is not the time to lower standards, weaken oversight.

You speak from such a concrete view yet your lack of objectiveness is blaring. Look at some stats and see where St Paul is on the national scale. Don't just go outside the door and look around. Get a big picture view.

The whole policy is based on wishing the city to look nicer, combined with complete ignorance of basic economics, and that's only if you take city officials at their word.

By all means quibble about what kind of suit SHOULD have been filed, as the city slides further and further down the toilet.

Going to court and not having your shit straight destroys your case and weakens the next one you may bring. If it doesn't matter about the suit, why file in the first place?

For years the cheerleaders on here have been talking about law suits and they're coming and they're going to break the city. Well, George Bush beat you to it.

Eric; 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric and Chuck we all see these guys have good property and take care of it.We also should give them credit for standing up to the city for their wrong doings.It might not be the way you guys think it should have been done but they stood up.We are suppose to believe and trust our government but when they have an off the wall motive and put stresses on your business above and beyond public safety then thats when all citizens should stand up because you could be next.

Rick; 8:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Rick

If their tenants have to do a TRA in order to get repairs done then they had problems. The courts just don't allow TRAs on a whim.

I said that I thought that their web site looked like they had nice stuff. The big issue in the claim back at the top was a dispute over if a property was vacant or not. I don't have a clue if it was or wasn't your assumption that was occupied because they said so is pure BS.

I don't believe everything the city says. But, I don't believe that there is an international conspiracy headquartered at City Hall out to get a dozen or so landlords, that is just pretty crazy.

I know you don't buy this but on a reasonably regular basis I am downtown having to fight City Hall. People that do neighborhood advocacy spend as much time for the City as against it. It depends on what the issue is.

Those who sit on their duff's and listen to right wing radio believe that people who work at City hall are all aliens that came here from another planet and want to suck the blood of good decent people.

Sorry, they are just people trying to enforce the ordinances they way they read them. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Its just life.

I was at the Board of Zoning Appeals yesterday fighting the City's ruling on the need for a church to have additional parking. I think the staff is wrong. That doesn't mean that they hate churches or god, or this church or this faith... I just think they have the facts of this case wrong.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: We are suppose to believe and trust our government but when they have an off the wall motive and put stresses on your business above and beyond public safety then thats when all citizens should stand up because you could be next.

No we are not supposed to trust government. I don't, its why I'm involved in the first place. I'm not hostile toward government in general, but I don't turn my back on it and let it operate without having some kind of idea of what's going on. If you don't have the time, you have to make it. I'm not saying everyone needs to be a lobbyist or Bill tracker or board member but, you can at the very least read public agendas before meetings, read minutes after meetings and follow press coverage of local issues.

Chuck just said it best, those who volunteer and advocate for the neighborhood issues are fighting against the city as much as working with the city. It varies issue by issue.

Eric; 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: While other cities wallow, complain and go backwards, ours move forward. Mayor Chris Coleman has been recognized as one of America's Innovative Leaders. Why? Because of his ability to revitalize the community during this mortgage crisis.

(gentlemen-and Linda, this does not help your case that this town is going down or even close to be one of the worst in the nation- or the people of St Paul believe that)

Governing Magazine Article

Eric; 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Mayor Chris Coleman has been recognized as one of America's Innovative Leaders.

By a publication which mirrors Chuck's love of turning the wheels and levers of government for its own sake.

Sorta like the NRA recognizing Charleton Heston for being a great guy; it's hardly a statement against their interest.; 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Their interest is effective, efficient 'good government' models.
Corrupt, ineffective, bloated government would be the opposite of that.

Do you guys piss on everything until someone tells you its OK to like or good for you?

Eric; 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck said-Sorry, they are just people trying to enforce the ordinances they way they read them. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Its just life.

Chuck is that why Dawkins told Bill Cullen and landlords that if the city could get rid of the bottom tier of tenants the city would be better?Is that why Dawkins and the city had a force sale policy?Is that why Dawkins didn't know the difference between a catagory 1,2 or 3 vacant building?Is that why Dawkins under deposition said he didn't know what a code compliance is and it confuses him to this day?Yeah I agree pretty hard to enforce ordinances when you don't know them.The most extreme measure of code enforcement is a code compliance and the head of NHPI doesn't know what one is.Thats a concern my friend.; 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: 5:26 thats way to many facts for Chuck to spin. He'll get back to ya tomorrow.Or are those just allegations Eric?

Gary; 12:23 AM
Anonymous said...: No they are not Gary.

They're actually not even allegations. They are scurrilous rumors until one of those involved confirm a part of it.

Eric; 6:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Hold on Eric.Obviously you haven't taken the time to look at the plaintiffs evidence.I'll be back with the eveidence in the Citys own testimony and documents that says just that.; 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey I have known Andy Dawkins for almost thirty years. If Andy was talking any "bottom teer" of renters he was refering to thugs and criminals and people who destroy your buildings. The slimey racist crap that some of the scum balls throw out on this list and try and slime Dawkins with is discusting. Andy's record in serving the poor and minorities when he represented HD65A was matched by very few.

Now, does the manager of a department know all of the rules? NO! Its not his job to. That is why the rules are written down in a book. His job is to manage his staff.

His direction from the Mayor was to get these guys out into the field and to treat the East Side like it was Highland Park and to stop the racist..."its good enough for the poor..." attitude that Kelly felt ran rampant in the department.

Evidence... great evidence...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:31 AM
Anonymous said...: I've known Andy Dawkins for almost twenty five years.

It doesn't surprise me to find thugs and criminals and slimey racist crap and scum balls around in his aftermath.

His record of 'service' is matched by very few.; 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck,

Now we're getting somewhere:

That is why the rules are written down in a book.

Really?

What book?

Where is this "book"?

Does this book express the standards - beyond Inspectors' senses of aesthetics - that DSI will use on their inspections?

Does this "book" contain anything in the way of due process for property owners, especially landlords?

Oh, yeah - and does the stuff "written down" in that book violate state law? See Morris V. Sax for details?

Most importantly, Chuck - does that book actually exist? In a form where an actual property owner could get a look at it? And perhaps even use it to enforce the city's own rules on...the city?

I won't hold my breath.

is direction from the Mayor was to get these guys out into the field and to treat the East Side like it was Highland Park and to stop the racist..."its good enough for the poor..." attitude that Kelly felt ran rampant in the department.

Well, cool.

But, Chuck - it's an absolutely immutable fact that if you make it impossible for people to provide inexpensive housing, it will not exist in the free market. Which may be what you (and the City Council) want, since that's a "market" for non-profits - but we've seen how that works in places like New York and San Francisco and even Portland and Denver, where it's basically impossible for poor (or even middle-class) person to find housing at all, at any price.

Believe it or not, there is a place for housing that isn't ready to go into Architectural Digest.

I'll await your tangential, class-baiting non-response.; 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Buttocks, two things.

The "book" is the state building and fire code. That is what the City enforces.

As to your ability to provide inexpensive housing, it is not your right to rent properties that are unsafe.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck where does the state code state that its alright to use code to rid the city of thugs?And what race do you think these thugs are?And should landlords rent to anyone with criminal history?And if not who?; 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like Chuck and Eric don't see eye to eye after all !

Chuck, it's nice to see you tell Eric what he is. "Buttocks".

Oh let me amend that, ASS !; 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: No Chuck just got sloppy and hit the nail on the head you Chuck,Kelly and the city council wanted the "THUGS" out of the city and were going to trample the rights of citizens to accomplish that.What is a Thug Chuck?Saggy pants hat crooked standing on the corner?Does that scare the white folk to the suburbs?Does that hurt the sales of you condos?Chuck you're the intolerant racist!

Chuck wasn't it Dawkins that said the city r=targeted Divas due to the color of his clientele?Does he know something?

Brian; 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Brian,

The City does not have to tolerate criminal behavior. If someone is shooting of a gun in the house for a little target practice, you can evict him and the City can prosecute him.

If drugs are being run out of some one's house they can be arrested and you can start the eviction process.

Yes, I know it is tough, I own rental property too (and yes ass holes on this list turn me in on a regular basis, thank you very much). But there are idiots and jerks out there that will not even attempt to evict.

Don't give me that Racist BS not every kid with hanging jeans is a criminal. My kid and all of his friends dress in the style...

Brian you are the racist!

You are the one that thinks that minority members deserve substandard housing!

In fact you racists demand that the City allow you to continue to house minority members in unsafe housing. That is the essence of the case... the City is deliberately and intentionally interfering with your right to house minority members in substandard housing when that is all you think they deserve.

That is why this case fails. Because to support the case you have to believe that it is the desire of the minority community to live in unsafe housing and that the City's attempts to force you to repair it interferes with how the minority community wants to live... with broken windows, and broken stair cases, and no fire detection equipment and bad plumbing...

So, call me a racist all you want, but the facts of the case are what they are. Dawkins went after landlords with bad properties and he particularly went after landlords with bad properties that had criminal behavior going on at the same time.

The criminal behavior put a light on the physical problems with the property. You can cry all you want about how the property came to the City's attention, but once it came to the City's attention, it did not have to let go.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...: ...and another thing Brian, one of the great lines that you suburban landlords love to do is to claim that those of us who are trying to improve the quality of life in the City are trying to gentrify the city.

Who do you think live next to the folks with the criminal behaviors in the badly maintained properties that are in these suits?

The houses listed in these suits almost to a one have minority members as the majority of the neighborhood surrounding the property. The whole damn lot of you are so racist that you are convinced that the minority community accepts the criminal behavior that you tolerate in your buildings.

Its just sad. The depth of your racism and the plight of those communities totally escapes you.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: The "book" is the state building and fire code. That is what the City enforces.

Well, no - and that may be one of the RICO suit's better points; the City goes above and beyond the state building code - sometimes waaaay above and beyond. Morris V. Sax says that's a no-no.

one of the great lines that you suburban landlords love to do is to claim that those of us who are trying to improve the quality of life in the City are trying to gentrify the city.

Well, I'm no "suburban landlord" - nor a landlord of any type - but I think that gentrification is the least of our worries.

The city's policy seems pretty well guaranteed to turn over, eventually, a LOT of property to:
a) itself
b) non-profits

The Vacant Building ordinance, for example, artificially raises the price of vacant houses far beyond what anyone can (much less "will") pay for them. There is no way that a bank that holds $200K of paper on a vacant house worth $50K is going to put $100K into it to make it saleable. They'll go tax-forfeit and turn it over to the county, which'll deed it to the city, which will...

...what? Sit on it until times get better? Or hand out the good ones to PHA or their pet non-profits (sounds like deal, Chuck?), and demo the rest?

Which leaves all of us who are stuck owning property in this city...where?

Fucked. That's what.

The city's policy is guaranteed only to create vacant buildings, destroy property values, and eventually enrich non-profits - like you, Chuck.

Gentrification sounds much better, thanks.; 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: 10:32
CHuck wasn't responding me, look at the top of that post- that person called themself Buttock.

Chuck is right. The more you let these people on here talk, the more their true feelings come out.

Being poor doesn't mean you have to live without dignity. It is certainly racist to assume that all low income renters are minorities (Frank Steinhauser proved in his testimony most of his tenants were white), all criminals are minorities, and minorities don't mind living in substandard housing or near neglected properties.

Plain and simple. Kelly and Dawkins ahd the right idea that if its not accepted in Highland or Saint Anthoney Park, then it should not be acceptable in Frogtown or Lower Payne.

That's called being uniform on standards and enforcement. You guys are so use to not being tagged for this stuff because you rent in neighborhoods that have been overlooked. Well, no more.

If you want to go public with this, go ahead. We can make it a referedum on the Mayors race next year. Pick a candidate and run 'em. We'll bury your message, your cause and take that property and bring it up to code.

You're losing in the courts. You have no case in legislative branches, take it to the executive and the let the voters decide on what standards they want for their city.

Not only will you loose but, many will finally get to see who's behind some of the worse problem property in the city.

C'mon, lets get going. Go recruit a candidate and let the citizens decide. You think the people are on your side.

I dare you.

Eric; 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: First of all, Eric, it's not "Buttock". It's Incontinentia; "Mister Buttocks" if you're nasty.

And both sides - the RICOmen AND Chuck/Eric - are being incredibly cowardly by scuttling away behind the race card. I'm completely willing to allow that race has no place in this discussion - because there's something equally wrong and, in today's world, much more stupid and widespread holding sway on this conversation; economic stupidity.

St. Paul's policy is to make "Fixer-Uppers" in effect illegal - to try to make all neighborhoods just like Highland or WTF by decree. The problem, of course, is that it's an iron-clad rule of economics (that pesky class that none of you DFLers ever took) that you can not make something worth other than what people are naturally willing to pay for it without massive unintended consequences.

You can not put $100,000 in expenses on a $30,000 house by government fiat without *something* having to give way - and the most likely "something" is going to be the owner (the holder of the mortgage paper) walking away, leaving it tax forfeit and, according to St. Paul's "everything must be made as nice as Highland" code, legally uninhabitable.

It'd be nice if everyone - on "both" sides - would knock off the racial bullshit and start talking economics. That's the real problem, here.; 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: take it to the executive and the let the voters decide on what standards they want for their city.

Yeah, I'd love to. The problem is, most Saint Paul voters are...well, the kind of dolts that vote for the DFL. History shows that only 25-35% of St. Paul voters know enough about economics to know better.

Most of them would seem to have no idea that if you create, by legislative fiat, 4,000 vacant homes in a market with 140,000 homes, nobody is going to invest $400,000,000+ to bring them up to code; they're going to walk away, leaving 4,000 empty buildings and vacant lots, and dragging the values of THEIR homes down with 'em.

No. They'll listen to the City Council and their assurances that "the mortgage holders won't let that happen", and ask NONE of the questions they need to.

Not only will you loose

"Loose" is the opposite of "tight". You're looking for "Lose", as in "the opposite of win", right?

but, many will finally get to see who's behind some of the worse problem property in the city.

The PHA?

C'mon, lets get going. Go recruit a candidate and let the citizens decide. You think the people are on your side.

I dare you.

I think that if the people were nearly as smart as they need to be to un-cluster-farg this city, they would be on "our" side, yes.

I have doubts about that first bit.; 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: 10:13 says... "Well, no - and that may be one of the RICO suit's better points; the City goes above and beyond the state building code - sometimes waaaay above and beyond. Morris V. Sax says that's a no-no."

Been waiting since the Morris v Sax ruling to find out what any of you think are beyond the building code. To date, nothing!

There is only the state building code. That is all that the City has enforced.

The only question that Morris "may" have for Saint Paul is "grandfathering" old code. I think the case can be made that it is impossible for the City to know what the code looked like in 1875 so it can enforce the current code, but we shall see.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: That is all that the City has enforced.

That issue is very much in question, Chuck.

I know - you're all "government uber alles" and all - but no, Chuck, that's a matter that the courts can hopefully figure out.; 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Incontinentia Buttocks,

I studied econ in college (101,102, Money and Banking, International Monetary Systems) and observed it in real life. As is true with a lot of philosophical discussion and study, some adjustments may be needed for real life application.

The race issue came up not from us- Chuck and I are the ones calling bullshit on it. Its part of the RICO suit therefore germane. So, I'm dismissive of it in the frame of the suit but, not so much in that I'd find it hard to believe that race does not play a major factor on an individual basis. You can just read over some the previous post to find that the main individuals saying they're protecting the rights of minorities, also professing their beliefs that they are the cause of the criminal element. Its perplexing.

I view governing economic principles like I do political philosophies, its a pendulum that swings back and forth. When it goes too far to the Right or Left, the people will act to correct it. Like the national election now- and the national economic policies which have taken a hard left turn right before our politics do.

The housing situation as it stands right now is unacceptable. Moving to a system where we have to institute rent controls to hold on to low income and affordable housing renters is not where we want to go and we are a long way from that. A long way.

There is an in between where we need to move and standards for the bottom of what livable across the board.

Eric; 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: 'Been waiting since the Morris v Sax ruling to find out what any of you think are beyond the building code. To date, nothing!"

I've mentioned on here several times Chuck that the code compliances are illegal and asked you to point us to where it is in the law that says the city can arbitrarily require them. You haven't done it nor can you so don't come along with this line about how no one has answered your quextion on this. You're out to lunch.; 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Your right Chuck and eric the whole city should look and be treated like Highland Park.Does anyone know how many minoritie live in Highland Park.And if all the houses were in the condition of Highland Park how much would be affordable ya dumb asses?

Pete; 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: 3:38 - that isn't the way the state works or what Morris says.

The City can do code compliances under there basic charter responsibilities to protect the public, health and safety.

The City of Saint Paul as a City of the first class has the responsibility to enforce the state building and fire code.

What Morris says is that the City can't have a seperate special code that it uses on rental properties. It doesn't and it never did.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck your a government man.Look where the government has gotten us.Its not just a George Bush thing either.Both parties.People like you and the government are the problem Chuck.To say the head of code enforcement doesn't need to know everything about his job especially the most extreme measure of enforcement is just down right silly and requires tin foil hats.Not once have you been on the side of the people Chuck.Take away government and we take away your money train.You come on here and defend your money thats it.Sad!

John; 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: I know John and if the uniformed were only in power we would do so much better.

The real problem in this country is since 1968 - fourty years we have elected the person who has most effectively campaigned on the pledge to wipe out the government.

We haven't elected a pro-government candidate for president since LBJ. The two Democrats that got elected in the last 40 years both ran against the government...

Nixon the silent majority, Carter to take away the power of the president, Reagan "government is the problem not the solution," Bush, "read my lips no new taxes" Clinton to end welfare as we know it. Bush 2 "Big governmene is over."

40 years of destroying the government has been the pledge of Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now when we have a government that has no ability to control the events that surround us we ask... what the f happened to the government?

Yup those of us who try to find ways to make the government help the people are the problem aren't we.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck and Eric have just been listening to the wrong people. They've heard the regurgitated filth of vultures, and and its affected their perceptions.

If they were on the receiving end of it, or had more administrative insights, they'd see it differently.; 7:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck government has gotten bigger since 1968.So what are you saying.All government officials are whores doing the dirty work of the people that pay them.Which would classify you as a John waiting for your goverment whores to give you a reach around.

John; 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck government has gotten bigger since 1968.So what are you saying.All government officials are whores doing the dirty work of the people that pay them.Which would classify you as a John waiting for your goverment whores to give you a reach around.

John; 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Yeah you guys are out to help people allright Repke. Help them right out of their home so your government buddies can build some crack tower for rich people is what you mean.; 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: What Morris says is that the City can't have a seperate special code that it uses on rental properties. It doesn't and it never did.

Not in writing. The City of Saint Paul may be depraved criminals, but they're not stupid.

They do, however, enforce the codes differently for rentals than for homeowners.

Do I want to be the one to pay a lawyer to take on the city to prove it? Not really. But you're being disingenuous - or, as people might start calling, it "being Repke", to deny that there's a gross difference.; 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: That's how the city has gotten away with this shit for so long is because not many people people are willing to pay Attoneys to sue. It's also one of the reasons business doesn't want to come to St. Paul. On the Morris thing, the court said 2 things. One you quuoted and the other was that the city code cannot be more restricitve than the state code and it is with their code compliances. That one thing and the PHA deal alone more than prove 1 of the many different charges of this lawsuit regardless of what Chuck says.

You'll notice that Eric has the good sense to stay out of this lately and that's cause he knows the city's ass is toast!; 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "Not in writing. The City of Saint Paul may be depraved criminals, but they're not stupid."

They were stupid enough to put it in writing about wanting to force the sale of the property.

They were stupid eough to put it in writing about how they met with and "rigged" the court system in their favor.

They were stupid enough to do a study that says they treat private sector property owners different than PHA.

They they're stupid enough to hand it all over to the other side!

If they're not stupid, what do you call it?; 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: If they're not stupid, what do you call it?

Hopefully, "Busted".; 3:41 PM
Anonymous said...: They're not stupid, just bureaucratically disadvantaged.; 6:06 PM

A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Victim's Joe Collins and Tom Gallagher

95 Comments:

Previous Posts