DISCUSSIONS ON POLITICS, CIVIL RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND ANYTHING THAT TICKLES OUR FANCY "HOST BOB JOHNSON" CONTACT Us at A_DEMOCRACY@YAHOO.COM Please stay on topic and no personal attacks.
posted by Bob at Tuesday, October 07, 2008
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
42 Comments:
There maybe copy errors.
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 FOR DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THERE IS RECORD EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN BEHAVIOR THAT SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE AND IS NOT RATIONALLY RELATED TO ANY LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST
Defendants argue that summary judgment against Plaintiffs’ deprivation claims because the Defendants’ actions do not shock the conscience. This is a genuine issue of material fact, since there is record evidence of bold and outrageous conduct of government actors that could shock the conscience of a reasonable person. The Defendants’ goal of “coding to the max” to either force landlords to evict their tenants, force landlords to sell their
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 55 of 78
56
property, or declare a property vacant for the purpose of condemning property, is shocking in itself. Even more shocking are the procedures implemented by the Defendants in pursuing their goal, such as intentionally delaying the mailing of important notices to ensure that landlords are unable to correct violations, employing the services of a large and physically imposing police officer to force his way into residences to discover interior code violations without obtaining a warrant, and widespread falsification of code enforcement orders where many landlords have the same story. Ultimately, the use of code enforcement to “force sales” of properties, or otherwise reduce the stock of low-income properties in the City, fails to achieve a legitimate state interest. Based on the record evidence, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Defendants engaged in behavior that shocks the conscience and therefore summary judgment must be denied.
This was of course the silliest argument of them all.
The behaviors of the City... "shocks the conscience!"
You have to love these guys sense of humor at least.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck your attitude shocks the conscience of us all too! ;-)
Chuck your vested interest, No wonder you have taken over this blog
"This was a good project that went bad," said Chuck Repke, executive director of NENDC, adding that the bank should be lauded for not being among the "zillion banks out there holding onto these properties and trying to get their last nickel out of them. I'm hoping the message we see coming out of this is it's another example of a local bank working with the community to make something good happen."
Scott Nichols can be reached at eastside@lillienews.com or at 651-748-7816.
http://www.eastsidereviewnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=64&SubSectionID=283&ArticleID=2884&TM=48510
Hey 12:31 I thought it was a good story. One of several jobs that I have is to be the Executive Director of a CDC on the East Side that works on both housing and commercial projects. I do site assembly in the area for development. I just did the site assembly for the new Cub.
This 1583 York deal was a developer that never completed a couple of buildings and we were able to get the bank that foreclosed on the abandoned building to donate it to DBNHS. We will partner with them in the redevelopment and market the house for about $100,000 less than what it was on the MLS for two years ago.
It was either that or let the City demo it.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Trying to assist with aplicable case law similar to Citys e-mail software
In August 2004, Noble sold a customer-support call-center system, which
included hardware and software, to ACI Telecentrics, Inc., a Minnesota corporation.
The title to the hardware passed to ACI, and the software was subject to an ongoing
licensing agreement. ACI granted Noble a security interest in the hardware, whiche law
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/071813p.pdf
St. Paul house explosion ruled arson
Star Tribune
Last update: October 8, 2008 - 2:25 PM
Print this story
E-mail this story
Save to del.icio.us
Share on newsvine
Share on Digg
More from Local + Metro
Missouri officials suspect fake voter registration
U doctor is sorry for stem-cell data slip-up
U pulls out of North Side center
2 women missing while hiking near Ely
Part of I-94 closing for lane change
A house explosion that rocked a neighborhood on St. Paul's East Side early today was the result of arson, said Steve Zaccard, the city's fire marshal.
The loud blast around 3:45 a.m. knocked the two-story house on the 1000 block of Hudson Road off its foundation and sparked a fire near the back door. Flames melted vinyl siding of a neighboring house, Zaccard said.
No one was living at house, Zaccard said.
Fire crews were called back to the same house around 10:40 a.m. when flames rekindled. The house is a total loss and will be torn down on Thursday, Zaccard said.
No one was injured in the blast or subsequent fire.
Police are investigating and looking for those who set the fire, Zaccard said.
Lots of tsalk on here about how there is no evidence and what should be filed and what shouldn't be filed, but I know one of ythe landlords and have ample time to discuss some of the things I have read here. I am confident that these people have all the evidence they need to sustain the present allegation before the court. There's one thing a lot of people don't understand. They don't have to prove their case now. All they have to do is show they have some facts or evidence that should be decided by a jury. They have mnet that burden many times over and they haven't even yet begun. I hear they have much more which they are not required to disclose before the trial. What Eric and Chuck doesn't understand is how much work and investigation has been done over the years. You are going to unpleasantly suprised boys, and that may be an understatement.
1:17 - that was what the last hearing was about that was why the judge was asking your side all of the questions.
Give me one piece of evidence to substantiate any of these charges, something to allow the case to go forward.... that was the focus of the hearing...
The best argument that your side has is that the international world wide conspiracy head quartered in City Hall to pick on these dozen or so landlords is so huge and so tightly woven and so supportive of each other that it has been able to hide or destroy all of the evidence that it exists... So, judge you have to allow us to continue to waste the City's and the Court's time and money to make bazaar charges...
Tin foil, invest in tin foil...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Questions: How can the city of StPaul issue Forgivable Loans,Interest Free to their Cronys
Court hearings postponed as financial institutions extend litigation freeze
[JURIST] Citigroup Inc., Wachovia Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. [corporate websites] announced Wednesday that they had extended [Citigroup press release] an agreement to freeze litigation activity [JURIST report] through 8 AM Friday. According to Citigroup, the agreement provides for 1. A standstill of all formal litigation activity effective immediately; 2. Ceas[ing] any formal discovery ... [more].
Posted by Joe Shaulis on October 8, 2008, 5:3
8:17 said... "Questions: How can the city of StPaul issue Forgivable Loans,Interest Free to their Cronys"
Not sure which Crony you are concerned about, but my agency has done over a half a million dollars of forgivable loans or due on sale loans to low income or seniors on the East Side.
There are all sorts of programs designed to either bring business in or support people living in the City.
If that makes gandma on the East Side a "Crony" of the City's then I'd say its a good thing.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
District Heating, which Repke is a lobbyst for You tell me when is a nonprofit heating utility given all these tax breaks?http://stpaul.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=995&meta_id=49134
God,Gates and Google must bring the City Pensioned Parisites Down to the Bowels of Hell
Intentionally delaying notices to landlords to be code compliant so the city can make a case for condemnation is not hard to show Chuck.
Dates of notices and dates when complaints regarding those notices
are compared, and when the landlord actually recieves the notice, becomes an obvious case of
an attempt of depriving the landlord of due process and his property if the city witholds and delays sending the notices before the landlord can make corrections .
Chuck, you ask the plaintiffs to give you evidence of the allegations of 1983 claims ?
You acknowledged yourself that the judge asked alot of questions .
Thats what he is supposed to do.
I would have alot of questions to if I was a judge having to decide whether the plaintiffs can produce evidence of what they allege.
This posting from Bob only tells us what the claims are, not what the plaintiffs evidence is, so how can you pass judgment on it Chuck ?
How can any of us laymen pass judgment on it.
We can only judge these allegations on its face because non of us knows what the evidence looks like, but it probably consists of the notices themselves, the post dated envelopes that contained the notices, deposition testimony, city records etc. and other forms of discovery.
We don't see any of this mentioned here, but rest assured, the documents and exhibits are before the court and the only question remains. Do the plaintiffs, with this evidence, state a claim under 1983 ?
How would you know Chuck ?
If your so sure, ask the court if you can file an amicus brief in support of the city !!
Jeff Matiatos
First 9:30 - If you read what you have posted you will see that the City desired back in the 1980's to create a District Heating system for downtown Saint Paul.
So, District Heating Saint Paul has existed as a non-profit (which means it doesn't pay taxes) heating supplier to about 80% of downtown Saint Paul. It is not unlike a number of cities that have their own municipal utility, instead the City encouraged the creation of a non-profit to provide heating to downtown.
I have done government relations work for them since 1999, currently as a lobbyist for their affiliate Ever-green Energy. Like I said I have several jobs. (It appears as if this thread has turned into find all of the places that Chuck works... NENDC, Ever-green Energy...the rest are District 2 C. C. and Coldwell Banker)
So, when ever there is an interest in expanding the system in to more and more areas in Saint Paul, the original debt that created the system (bought all of the pipe and paid to bury it) has to be subordinated to any new debt, to put more businesses on the system.
That was the business in front of the council. No cronyism, fulfilling the mission of the City and the nonprofit.
And then Jeff... "Intentionally delaying notices to landlords to be code compliant so the city can make a case for condemnation is not hard to show Chuck."
Even if the above was true... not saying that it is, but even if it was... that isn't a RICO case or a Fair Housing Case!
If someone was delaying the mailings to force your buildings to be condemned by the City you still had an appeal to the District Court. There were paths to relief. The staff person who did that could be sued. If he/she had something against you.
But, the path they took was one to say that somehow there is a secret world wide conspiracy head quartered in City Hall and that the Mayor and Dawkins and who ever else MADE the staff member delay the notice. Now there isn't one piece of evidence that it ever occurred, which is what the judge begged for... nothing just the wild assumption.
This really boils down to one having to believe that since there is no evidence of a conspiracy, and no one who ever comes forward to say that they were asked to be a part of a conspiracy, that it means that every body in City Hall was an active part of the conspiracy.
Tim foil Jeff, you need more tin foil...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
The only tin foil I will be using is on the barbeque.
Again Chuck, you need to be reminded that neither you or I are the judge being asked to decide if it is or isn't a claim under 1983.
Neither you or I am attorneys but I think it's fair to say that
I understand these type of issues better than you do.
Aside from that, again you have avoided responding to the fact that plaintiffs have evidence to support their motion.
To bring a claim without evidence is whats called a sham claim and
grounds for dismissal with prejudice, sanctions under rule 11 and attorneys fees awarded the other side.
This claim is not sham, your responces are.
I might have some left over tinfoil from my barbeque you can use for your hat.
Barbeque ribs anyone ?
Jeff Matiatos
Repke wears tin foil to keep out Jeff's wisdom! There's thousands of pages of evidence Chuck, plus Deposition testimony of the city's own people who by the way had good things to say about these landlords from what I hear. Just because the city Attorney takes things out of context and twists them to suit the city position doesn't make them so. Niether do these local crackerjack Judges who routinely give the rich and the government the benifet of the doubt. We'll see what the appeals court says. I'll bet Jeff's right and the city is hung out to dry.
Jeff the City has asked for a summary judgement against the plaintiffs that will end this thing and this lame crap is the best that the plaintiffs had. If they had any evidence it would have been in these responses.
They have nothing else or they would have used it.
Its over.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck, When brought a malicious prosecution lawsuit against the state and county, the attorney general was on the opposing side and filed a motion for summary judgement against my suit.
Guess what, they lost.
Never say it's not possible.
David and Goliath perhalps ?
Jeff Matiatos
Summary judgement consists of this :
When reviewing a case for dismissal under summary judgement, the court determines whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.
A claim is legally sufficient if it is possible on any factual evidence that might be produced, consistant with the pleadings , to grant the relief demanded.
It is immaterial whether plaintiff can prove the facts alleged Martens vs. 3M Corp. 616 N.W.2d 732 at 739.
This being the case Chuck, any evidence that supports the legal prongs of a 1983 case is enough for a court to deny summary judgement to defendants.
Simply stated, plaintiffs do not have to prove this evidence at the summary judgement stage, they just have to convince the judge that what evidence they have presented could not be defeated by any evidence defendants may produce to negate plaintiffs evidence.
Should however, defendants come up with some evidence, although not conclusive to defeat plaintiffs evidence, a material fact is in dispute and only means there will be a trial .
So,this is it Chuck, and plaintiffs don't have to prove their case at this stage of the action.
You have put the cart before the horse and have passed judgement here on this blog when neither you or anyone else here knows what the evidence consists of.
What kind of judge would you be ?
I know what kind of judge you would be.
There is a judges vacancy in Ramsey District Court.
From what I hear, you would fit right in.
Jeff Matiatos
No Jeff what I am saying is that the Plaintiffs have to show some evidence that substantiates that there is some kind of a RICO case or some kind of a Fair Housing Case.
EVIDENCE. Not assumption, or speculation.
If they had one employee that came forward and said they were asked to be a part of this "conspiracy," that would be enough. If they showed how there was some profit for someone in their properties being closed down, that would be enough. That would show the bare minimum needed to suggest there was a RICO case. It would be enough to start a trial.
If they showed some statistical evidence that the City was whiter and wealthier because they were put out business then they would have the beginnings of a Fair Housing claim. It would show that potentially the City was trying to rid itself of poor and minorities.
But they have nothing remotely like that.
What they have is we the plaintiffs believe that the City of Saint Paul must have ulterior motives for attacking us, it can't be because of out properties, and because we don't have any evidence at all, that means that the conspiracy is very big and very strong.
We go over and over this stuff. For the Federal bench to have an interest in the case, there must be a violation of Federal laws. It can't just be that Andy didn't like me and the staff was mean to me.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
We have discussed the possibility that plaintiffs actions may or may not consist of the prongs that set out a claim for a RICO action.
Has it been decided yet that this is not RICO ?
Has it been decided yet that this is not a 1983 case ?
You keep stating that what plaintiffs have for evidence only consists of speculation and assumptions .
Chuck, attorneys know better than to bring a case based on speculation and assumptions.
You want to deny that there is a conspricy in this case, what ever it ends up being called.
Fact is, only a trial will settle this question since it is not the courts function at the summary judgement stage to make this kind of determination.
I recall some of the evidence being e-mails between defendant employees that raise genuine issues of material fact that suggest that this is a conspiracy.
How about deposition testimony, city documents and documentary evidence that shows that these defendants intentionally obstructed
the plaintiffs ability to cooperate with code, harassed countless others like Nancy O.
These things came out in depositions Chuck.
The plaintiffs have witnesses that will testify to these matters.
Evidence that the mayor speaks to others about coding to the max is one of the building blocks plaintiffs will use to show that violations under 1983 are valid.
It's not so cut and dry as you would have us believe Chuck.
I don't think you understand how summary judgement works.
Citizens are put in prison for the rest of their life because of circumstancil evidence.
At least in this case, we have circumstancial evidence that far outweighs any evidence that would defeat plaintiffs allegations.
Circumstancial evidence is good enough to overcome summary judgement.
Jeff Matiatos
But Jeff you don't have even circumstancial evidence if you believe everything that the plaintiffs said happened to them.
In all of their cases relief was available in District Court. Those actions are state court issues.
Randy Kelly being a prick does not make the City a Racket.
He can say whatever he wants but you need some elliment of a case.
We will see what the court says but from what I hear the tone of the meeting was, and that the judge didn't want to hear anything from the City and was almost begging for more information from the plaintiffs, I'd guess this is about over.
The judge's response to plaintiffs when they had asked for summary judgement in their favor made it pretty clear that they have shown no evidence of RICO of any conspiracy. So, the last angle is FFH and to buy that you have to believe that the City's interest in trying to force these people to repair their properties was the belief that all of the poor and minority people would leave if there wasn't the selection of substandard housing available to them. Because that is all that is left of this case.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
With the stock market continuing to crash due to all the crappy loans out there, I thought I should tell you why this happened. My own words are at the end of this video...
Clears everything up!
Slick Willy.
Chuck you keep saying that these guys had substandard housing. Just because you have some minor violations doesn't make the place substandard. What about the city fabricating violations that didn't exist? Also, I remember what chapter 34 said years ago, and when this thing first started, there was no law on the books that allowed the city to require a code compliance. Those orders were given illegally. You are wrong about rico too. What I can tell from reading the law on it is that the city or some employee doesn't have to benifet or make money. The requirement is that the victim must be damaged finacially, and they have as have many others. You need to start studying up on things before you start spouting off.
A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise.
That is the provision that they are trying to use. There still has to be someone who gets something out of it for it to be RICO.
NOBODY GETS ANYTHING AT THE END OF THIS FAIRYTALE.
The City goes after these guys in a criminal pattern for the purposes of benefiting the non-profit PHA. That everytime I type it sounds so F'ing insane, I can't believe that any of you people are crazy enough to believe it.
These people will risk their careers and livelihoods and the chance to go to prison so that the waiting list is longer at PHA!
HOW CRAZY ARE YOU? And how crazy do you think the court is?
There is no RICO. There is no conspiracy. And, you have to believe that minority members don't want properties repaired to believe there is a FFH case.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
If you were writing a brief to the court, this web address could realy help you understand a 42 u.s.c. claim :
http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm
Jeff Matiatos
Folks, after having visited this web address, and having read it, especially paragraph iii, you wil believe that this is a RICO case and if what alleged is true, you can bet there would be a trial.
Its a must to read !
Chuck will have learned something to.
Jeff Matiatos
"Qualified immunity is a powerful tool that shields individual officials who are performing discretionary activities unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Hey Chuck....ya think a reasonable person would know that fabricating code violations is a violation of constitutional protections?
"A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his "act is so obviously wrong, in the light of preexisting law, that only a plainly incompetent officer or one who was knowingly violating the law would have done such a thing."
Ya think they knew they were violating the law when they brought false charges against people Chucky boy?
I think your city is cooked Repke. Affirmitive Judgements for the landlords will be forthcoming.
Jeff what is it that you think you are reading there.
Who's rights are being deprived that would require the Federal bench to step in.
You have to beleave that there is an international/world wide conspiracy headquartered in City Hall against these particular property owners to find where there is a RICO or a 1983 action.
All of these cases could have gone to district court if they had a legitimate claim. The didn't. They all had violations, or they would have appealed to district court. There is no lack of training or ignorance of the law. They are enforcing the state code.
What is it that you think is the conspiracy?
It makes no sense.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck has OCD, he is in a pathetic state of denial and needs to be reminded time after time after time after time that plaintiffs have EVIDENCE.
U use EVIDENCE to convict Chuck.
Go to and read the web page Jeff posted and learn what rico is man.
Then, gets some meds and go to bed.
11:21 - to have RICO you need a victim, a group of conspirators and some one who benefits.
No one has shown anything that appears to be a conspiracy and no one wins. No one comes out ahead if the landlords lose.
It can't be RICO.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
VICTIMS = LANDLORDS
CONSPIRATORS = ST.PAUL CITY EMPLOYEES
BENEFACTORS = THE CITY ADMINISTRATION WHOS MANDATE WAS TO RID ST.PAUL OF UNWANTED LANDLORDS WHO RENT TO POOR SOULS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF CONDEMMING PROPERTY OR FORCING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY (NANCY O) TO GET MORE WEALTHY AND DESIRABLE TENANTS AND PROPERTY TO SUIT THE CITIES AGENDA !!!
Jeff Matiatos
Chuck, agendas, whether they be hidden or obvious, exists in city administrations.
The police have an agenda, that is to rid the city of crime.
The city and mayors office through its departments and agencys, have agendas in maintaining a healthy city.
Only problem is, the way this city performs that function.
St.Paul has always had it's run down parts of town and nobody would argue that perfection of having a totally healthy and clean city would be the goal.
What mayor Kelly and Dawkins were conspiring in so we are told, far exceeds any legitimate purpose for wanting this city to improve.
The depositions and other record evidence via e-mail etc, show that city employees were told how to go about getting certain landlords and coding to the max.
Why these particular landlords ?
Seems these guys were renting to low income section 8 tenants same as PHA.
So why then doesn't the city pick on PHA and inspect them like these landlords ?
These landlords were singled out for starters and had they not sued, there would have been more.
Jeff Matiatos
Looks like Chuck took the meds .
Sweet dreams Chuck !!!!!!
State Court? Are you nuts Chuck? There's already been testimony that the city rigged the courts in their favor. This belongs in Federal Court and I doubt the city will prevail. I've seen some of the veidence from a couple of these guys Chuck. There was an effort between some city council people and code enofcement to go after certain people. They had hit lists and the defendants have copies of them you fool. The big deal about the emails was not to get every single piece of paper that weas ever written. They already had emails and memos from council people and other city employees and neighborhood groups that put the rope around their necks. The email deal was to back the city into a corner they can't get out of when this stuff is brought up at trial. The plaintiffs knew from someone on the inside that the emails and files were being vacumned out and sanitized. People on the inside gave them information and told them where to look and who to talk to. You are in for a hell of a suprise Chuck.
Jeff read what you wrote and think about it.
You are saying the City went after substandard property to force the landlords to repair it to improve the City of Saint Paul and calling that a crime.
Sorry Jeff it isn't.
For it to be a RICO offence there has to be someone that actually benefits from someone losing something.
These property owners either had defects in their properties or had places to appeal and didn't.
There were/are thousands of properties that house poor people at the same rent rates and weren't being written up by the City. BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM!
So, then it comes down to why these guys? In there minds its because there is a international conspiracy headquartered in City Hall that is out to get them.
Because if it isn't that then it is that they had things wrong with their property.
Oh, yes 2:43 I forgot that the conspiracy to get these dozen landlords includes the entire bench in Minnesota.
RIGHT...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
How about a city council person out wandering the town with a "hit list" of owners to target Repke?
How about neighbors scamming with council people to condemn property so tyhe neighbors can buy it cheaper than what the owner wants to sell it for?
How about the Police getting Search Warrants for something completely unrelated to code violations so the city can get inside to see what code vilations are there.
Ya think the plaintiffs have access to any of these things?.......just wondering.
For it to be a RICO offence there has to be someone that actually benefits from someone losing something.
POW!
City councilpeople have a long history of handing out tax-forfeited and condemned/seized property like party favors to their cronies.
Remember in probably 2000 or 2001, when Jay Benanav had the city sell a tax-forfeited property with a fair market value of 20K to Kathy Sundberg, a big-time supporter of his, for its tax-forfeit value of $8K? That is to say, the city gave a $12K gift to a crony of Benanav's?
That'd be a $12,000 "benefit" to someone losing something. Wouldn't it, Chuck?
I have a hunch a serious look through the disposition of other such city property would find all sorts of other "benefits".
11:11 THERE HAS TO BE A DIRECT CONNECTION!
I don't know anything about that case, but for it to have any value to your cause it has to be...
A house that was written up for code issues..
The owner disputes that there is something wrong with it, the City demo's it or some how gets it...
Jay gives it to a pal
Get it?
That is what you need. I don't think anyone has shown ONE - ONE property where that occured.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I don't know anything about that case, but for it to have any value to your cause it has to be...
What's my "cause", Chuck?
You have no idea what my "cause" is.
This has nothing to do with the lawsuits. It is merely anecdotal evidence of the sleaziness of this city's government.
A house that was written up for code issues..
Irrelevant to my point.
The owner disputes that there is something wrong with it, the City demo's it or some how gets it...
Also irrelevant.
Jay gives it to a pal
That, of course, is what happened; at $.40 on the dollar.
Never said it was a "code" issue - indeed, I specifically said it was a tax forfeit case.
Get it?
With all due respect, it'd seem to be you that has the reading comprehension problem.
That is what you need. I don't think anyone has shown ONE - ONE property where that occured.
Give it time, Chuck.
Of course, when is IS found, you'll be the one insisting that government can do no wrong, to the bitter end.
I don't know anything about that case, but for it to have any value to your cause it has to be...
What's my "cause", Chuck?
You have no idea what my "cause" is.
This has nothing to do with the lawsuits. It is merely anecdotal evidence of the sleaziness of this city's government.
A house that was written up for code issues..
Irrelevant to my point.
The owner disputes that there is something wrong with it, the City demo's it or some how gets it...
Also irrelevant.
Jay gives it to a pal
That, of course, is what happened; at $.40 on the dollar.
Never said it was a "code" issue - indeed, I specifically said it was a tax forfeit case.
Get it?
With all due respect, it'd seem to be you that has the reading comprehension problem.
That is what you need. I don't think anyone has shown ONE - ONE property where that occured.
Give it time, Chuck.
Of course, when is IS found, you'll be the one insisting that government can do no wrong, to the bitter end.
That is what you need. I don't think anyone has shown ONE - ONE property where that occured.
Actually, I have a hunch that in a year or three, we'll be able to show you between two and ten thousand.
Saint Paul's vacant building ordinance - which essentially makes buying or selling vacant homes absolutely financially unviable - is going to end up being a huge transfer of buildings and property to the city, and from there most likely to non-profits.
It's not "graft" or "corruption", in the sense that there's no law against it, but the results are the same. Maybe worse; the city (and its cronies in the non-profits) are gutting the viability of huge tracts of this city to eventually enrich the non-profits (and fill the city up with pseudo-public housing, full of people who are beholden to the DFL and the non-profits).
Post a Comment
<< Home