Custom Search

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Victim Troy Allison

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

posted by Bob at Saturday, October 11, 2008

4 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

There is copy errors

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas 1. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) 55.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
TROY ALLISON
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Troy Allison, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
EXHIBIT 77
I. I am a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota, and have resided in St. Paul my entire
life. I am married and have 4 children.
2. I was born and raised in Saint Paul, Minnesota and attended St. Paul Central
High School, and received my OED diploma in 1987. In February of 2005, I
started in the business of providing rental housing in the City of St. Paul.
3. I am an independent business owner, and have operated a handyman business
and dumpster roll-off business since 2004. Prior to going into business for
myself, I was a full time employee with Pioneer Press for 5 years. I was an
active owner with my rental properties, and visited or drove by them on a daily
basis.
4. My 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 B to Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories, which is a list of the rental
properties I owned 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 ofeach ofmy rental properties.
5. I was the owner of seven (7) rental properties within the City of St. Paul,
including properties located at 1522/1524 Carroll Avenue, 1500 Concordia,
1512 Concordia, 1532 Concordia Avenue, 877 Woodbridge, 367 Blair, and
1069 Albemarle. Four (4) of my seven (7) tenants received Section 8
assistance or other assistance. Four (4) of the seven (7) tenants were members
2
EXHIBIT 77
of a protected class. In each of my rental properties that housed Section 8
tenants, I passed the PHA inspection before being approved for receipt of
Section 8 rent subsidies. Due to the Defendants' conduct, I lost each of these
properties to foreclosure in 2006.
6. 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.
7. My rental homes were in the neighborhoods of the City 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 St. Paul's
census tracts.
8. When I started my rental business in 2005, I worked on a daily basis in the
City of St. Paul. During that 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
3
EXHIBIT 77
between my rental homes~ to and from hardware and home improvement stores
and to and from City Hall.
9. I attempted to screen tenants and deal with behavior issues without having city
provided resources. During the time we owned rental properties, the City
demanded that I and other landlords screen potential tenants more effectively.
10. 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.
11. If one of my tenants became a problem, once I was notified of the problem, I
would work to resolve the issue including working with the City police
department to address claimed criminal behavior.
12. The City code inspectors under 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 of my properties.
13. The City's increased code enforcement activity directed at my rental portfolio
interfered with my ability to attend to my rental business and prohibited me
from working to prepare unoccupied rental homes for re-rental, to
communicate with the many individuals who were seeking housing, and to
monitor my other rental properties.
4
EXHIBIT 77
14. Before I realized the city implemented a heavy handed code enforcement
policy and shortened the timelines for addressing issues - I 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, 1 was
forced to spend more time addressing targeting by the City for heightened
standard orders - which allowed less time for turning over units or other tenant
issues. In an effort to meet the city's elevated standard, 1 made more visits to
my properties to check and confinn the allegations of the code enforcement
officers and to take care of the issues cited in the orders. The more orders 1
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.
15.1 purchased 1522/1524 Carroll on February 28, 2005, from Dadder's
Enterprises, LLC. The property had renovations prior to my purchase,
including a new roof, paint, and refinished hardwood floors.
16.0n 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 1 purchased the
rental property Dadder's. See Exhibit No.4.
17. Because the paperwork on the property was still being sent to Tom Gallagher
5
EXHIBIT 77
from Dadder's, I was forced to file an appeal with Tom through the City
Council legislative hearing process ofSenty's vacant building posting.
18. I attended the appeal of the Vacant Building designation of 1522/1524 Carroll
with Tom Gallagher, and he 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.
19. After waiting for several weeks for the decision of the legislative hearing
officer (during which time the property remained empty), the legislative
hearing officer refused to overturn the "vacant" posting on appeal because the
Section 8 lease which Tom produced expired in January 2005. However, the
tenant in the upstairs unit remained in the building until approximately
February of 2005, when Tom Gallagher moved the tenants from the 151 floor
(Tony & Tonya Tama) to another rental property of his at 1368 Pleasant
Avenue, where they still reside today.
20. The sale took place on February 28, 2005, and the Vacant Building
Designation took place on March 23, 2005. It is still unclear to me how the
vacant building code applies to properties that are being sold, or rental
properties that are being turned over or are being cleaned and restored for the
next tenant.
21 . Defendant Senty ignored the obvious occupancy of the home and posted the
rental property as vacant. I later learned at Defendant Senty's deposition that
he made his determination without an interior inspection by looking through
6
EXHIBIT 77
the second story windows while standing on the ground, and based that
detennination on the fact that he could not see any blinds or window coverings.
See Exhibit No.6.
22. Because of the Vacant Building posting and order prohibiting occupancy of
1522/1524 Carroll, I was forced to deal with a SMRLS pressured TRA action
by tenants Leo and Angelic Holden, was forced to remove my 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.
23. 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
more than one occasion because the tenant left the service door to the garage
open. See Exhibit No.8.
24. Dawkins, Magner, Senty and others used the vacant building procedure as
leverage to illegally remove the grandfathering protections of the older
building under Minnesota law and to force me into having a code compliance
inspection and certification process on the 1522/1524 Carroll property.
25. Upon review of the property file, I 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.
7
EXHIBIT 77
26. 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 I would not be able to afford
to rent once again to low income minority tenants.
27. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by
Magner~ Dawkins and the City directed against me~ I lost revenue and rental
income and incurred expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other
expenses.
28. Before purchasing 1522/1524 Carroll~ the property was producing $2~700.00
per month in rent. Because of the vacant building designation and subsequent
code compliance and TRA which forced me to remove my tenants~ I was
unable to collect any further rents from this property~ and was forced to pay the
mortgage~ other expenses~ and pay for the code compliance while trying to
build my rental property business. I was able to keep the property afloat for 8
to 9 months before succumbing to foreclosure. Due to the vacant building
designation and code compliance~ the shortage of $2,700.00 per month in rents
proved to be too great a financial burden to continue my rental business~ thus
forcing me into foreclosure on my remaining properties.
29. With respect to my property at 1512 Concordia, I do not claim that it was
illegal code enforcement to be told that the tenants could not engage in illegal
drug activity. Every person is responsible for their own behavior. Rather, the
8
EXHIBIT 77
City forced me to evict Section 8 tenants from their affordable housing due to
their behavior, rather than addressing that behavior through criminal
proceedings in a court of law.
30. Code enforcement officers prepared and mailed written Correction Orders and
Summary Abatement Orders on my 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 were false, petty and calculated to make my properties look bad.
31. 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, I
attempted but could not keep up with the City's requirements and therefore
incurred many reinspection fees and excessive consumption invoices.
32. As a direct result of the constant discrimination and illegal code enforcement
treatment and racketeering activity by Defendants, all at the direction or with
the approval of Dawkins and Kelly, I was injured in my rental business and
incurred unnecessary expenses, fees and lost profits and thereafter was forced
into foreclosure on each ofmy low income affordable rental properties.
33. Defendant Dawkins owns at least two properties in the City that have been
consistently in a state of disrepair and in serious 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.
9
EXHIBIT 77
34. 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 income 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, I was forced into
foreclosure on each of my single family and duplex rental properties in the
City, resulting in a financial disaster.
35. The city's heightened code standards and increased code enforcement against
me, my rental homes and tenants 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.
36. I continued to receive calls from prospective tenants looking for affordable
housing in the City of Saint Paul while my rental properties were in
foreclosure.
FURTHERYOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 8-21-2008
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 2 t day of August, 2008
Notary Public
Under Seal
10
~ '-
Troy AIIsion
MATTHEW A ENGEl.

10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I later learned at Defendant Senty's deposition that
he made his determination without an interior inspection by looking through
6
EXHIBIT 77
the second story windows while standing on the ground, and based that
detennination on the fact that he could not see any blinds or window coverings."

LOL!!!!!This guy is pretty efficient.

3:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you bring charges like this if you call Dawkins conduct "Petty" ?

ie.

" the petty conduct by Dawkins and the inspectors ".

10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy got railroaded!Lost everything he had.Poor soul.He also has 4 small children-way to go city and Repke.

12:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home