A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS/ Saint Paul Fair Houising Lawsuits

Custom Search

Thursday, May 14, 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS/ Saint Paul Fair Houising Lawsuits

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

107 Comments:

Bob said...: There maybe copy errors

Appeal From United States District Court

For the District of Minnesota

Civil No. 05-CV-1348 (JNE/SRN)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR APPEAL
1.
Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to Defendants in light of evidence creating genuine issues of material fact for trial?
a.
Fair Housing Act / Disparate Treatment / Disparate Impact
b.
Constitutional Rights Claims / Equal Protection / Substantive Due Process
c.
Void for Vagueness
d.
RICO
e.
State Law Claims
2.
Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiffs’ original and renewed motions for sanctions?
3.
Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to compel?
3
MOST APPOSITE CASES
1.
Darst-Webbe Tenant Ass’n Bd. v. St. Louis Hous. Auth., 417 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2005);
2.
See Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004);
3.
2922 Sherman Ave. Tenants’ Ass’n v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006);
4.
E*Trade Sec. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, 230 F.R.D. 582, 587 (D.Minn 2005).

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellants request oral argument because they appeal from the District Court's grant of summary judgment. A de novo review of a grant of summary judgment requires detailed analysis of the facts of the case. Oral argument is critical to a full understanding of the fact issues presented. Appellants request an oral argument of thirty minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs are or were property owners in the rental business with rental properties located within the City of St. Paul. Plaintiffs’ tenants were almost exclusively African-American, Hispanics, Asians, mixed race couples, individuals with various disabilities, individuals receiving state and federal financial assistance,
4
and families with children, who were and are individuals protected under anti-discrimination laws, hereinafter defined as “protected class.” Plaintiffs provided housing primarily to low-income, “protected class” tenants in the City of St. Paul and the majority of the time under the Federal Section 8 funded program. Plaintiffs owned and managed older rental properties located in the inner-city neighborhoods where older housing stock was common, where poverty was persistent, and where people of color had a critical need for safe and decent affordable housing.
Commencing in the Fall of 2002, Defendants, all with the approval and participation of the City Council, intentionally and maliciously commenced and continued an illegal policy, custom and practice of discriminatory and predatory code enforcement that aggressively targeted Plaintiffs and other St. Paul landlords, who were lawfully renting to, encouraging, and associating with, individuals with protected rights to housing under Title VIII, Federal Fair Housing Act and Amendments living within the City of St. Paul. This discriminatory and illegal policy, custom and practice had a discriminatory impact on the protected class, and the illegal policy, custom and practice continued at all times thereafter and continues presently in the City of St. Paul. This intentional, malicious and illegal conduct directly caused Plaintiffs and other landlords to be damaged in their property or business and caused injury to tenants.
5
As a direct result of the individual Defendants’ wrongful conduct and malicious discrimination, illegal code enforcement activities, and pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiffs and others were forced to incur significant expenses that were unnecessary and which placed a heavy financial burden on said landlords and forced them to close their rental units, and sell their rental properties, thereby decreasing the available rental units for “protected class” members in the City. Further, Plaintiffs suffered from ruined reputations in the rental business community and great emotional distress in their family and social relationships.
Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendant City officials and code enforcement employees, in their individual capacities, under the RICO Act, namely, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962 (c) (conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity) and (d) (conspiring to violate subsection (c) of Section 1962); against Defendants under the Fair Housing Act and amendments, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq.; against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982, 1985 and 1983; and against Defendants for various state based claims including abuse of process, interference with contract, and inference with business expectancy.
The City brought a motion for summary judgment, and the District Court granted the City’s motion.
6

FACTS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT
INTRODUCTION OF THE
DISCRIMINATORY ENVIRONMENT AND ATTITUDE
OF ST. PAUL HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT
“The nature of enforcement, especially at the local level, is that it often involves a significant amount of political pressure to achieve certain outcomes. The Ad Hoc Committee identified that it is absolutely essential for the code enforcement function to be guided by a classified manager so that he or she could have the civil service protection to withstand the pressure to bend the rules to achieve a particular end that is inconsistent with the code and/or past practices.” (emphasis added) ADD. 84.
On January 6, 2007, St. Paul’s new director of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (“NHPI”), Bob Kessler, made the above statement about “bending the rules to achieve a particular end/certain outcomes” in response to a committee that discussed the history of the City's management of the Code Enforcement function and noted that “the function has not had a classified manager with subject matter expertise for many years.” Id.
Prior to Mr. Kessler’s directorship, NHPI was directed by Mr. Andy Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins was the Director of NHPI during the time period in which this litigation is based, 2002-2005. The following are examples of Mr. Dawkins’ attitude toward code enforcement and the discriminatory environment he created while the director of NHPI. Mr. Dawkins’ goal was to eliminate rental properties and get rid of the “bottom tier of tenants” and the “down trodden” through the City’s 1) aggressive code
7
enforcement, 2) City initiated lawsuits, 3) a force ownership change strategy, and 4) eviction strategy.
Mr. Dawkins testified in his deposition as follows:
As to his attitude toward rental property:
Q: So is it better for neighborhoods to have less rental properties?
A: I will give you your answer. I think that it’s better to have a neighborhood that has more owner occupied housing in it than has rental property in it for the sake of the neighborhood (emphasis added).
ADD. 85, p. 638, lines 18-22.
As to the City’s force ownership change and eviction strategies:
Q: Back to your notes, I think we can start in the top right corner.
A: And then cervantes (sic)[City Attorney] & Mott [District Court Judge], get those meetings going, have an aggressive housing court, lawsuit city initiate city Tenant Remedy actions strategy, the force ownership change strategy, the eviction strategy (emphasis added).
ADD. 86, p. 558, lines 7-8, p. 560, lines 5-9.
As to aggressive code enforcement and its affect on affordable housing:
Q: Was aggressive code enforcement ever a consideration for you or an issue brought up during your directorship?
A: Aggressive code enforcement was the key from the first day that we needed to have a more aggressive consistent stepped-up code enforcement department. That's what everybody told me. That's what was in the city's chronic problem property report. They said, that's your mission, Dawkins, go do it (emphasis added).
Q: Was it ever brought up, either by you or within your considerations as a director, that at some point it may have been eliminating affordable housing?
A: I told you I read the story where Baltimore went over the tipping point. So I told the Sparrow [SPARL] group and some group of realtors and the chamber of commerce and whoever else I was talking to, listen, I need you to help me by
8
eyes and ears and let me know as soon as you think we have stepped up our aggressive, consistent code enforcement to the point that we are forcing abandonment of properties in the city. I want to know about it. (emphasis added).
ADD. 87, p. 566, lines 23-25, p. 567, lines 1-21.
As to complaints for applying too much pressure to homeowners:
Q: Have you talked with anyone about Steve Magner, applied pressure to homeowners?
A: Steve Magner and every inspector in my department applied pressure to homeowners.
Q: Have you ever had a complaint about Steve Magner applying too much pressure?
A: I had complaints about every inspector in my department applying too much pressure (emphasis added).
ADD. 88, p. 575, lines 23-25, p. 576, lines 1-5.
As to political pressure from city council members:
Q: Did she [Kathy Lantry] tell you anything specific she wanted you to do? Did she have any ideas on how to do code enforcement?
A: Yeah, do code enforcement to the max, do aggressive, consistent stepped-up code enforcement, don't cut down and shorten the time lines for compliance, and a lot of others (emphasis added).
Q: You said Benehoff was worst. Why was he worse than Lantry?
A: He never let up. He or his aid were on the phone with me every day saying, you're not doing enough (emphasis added).
ADD. 89, p. 591, lines 5-11, p. 592, lines 14-18.
Mr. Dawkins documented his approach in a flow chart he developed related to complaints and so called “problem properties.” Dawkins continued the City’s illegal and discriminatory elimination of low income rental properties by promoting “targeting of teetering neighborhoods or redeveloping areas,” “force sales,” “or
9
eviction” (top right of chart), and “Goal: force sale to responsible owner” (bottom right of chart)(emphasis added). ADD. 90.
Not only did Dawkins have meetings with Chief Judge Mott and City Attorney Cervantes to get “buy in” to his aggressive, force ownership change and eviction strategies, Dawkins goals for 2004 included getting “buy-in” from the Police Department, City Attorney, and Courts. ADD. 91.
In a police training bulletin about “How to Work with the Code Enforcement Problem Property Unit,” co-writers Andy Dawkins and Assistant Police Chief T. Reding discuss “how to eliminate nuisance properties” and use the following language:

THIS INFORMATION IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IF YOU GET INSIDE THE PREMISES because this will allow Code Enforcement to get an administration search warrant that could lead to condemnation of the property. eviction of the occupants and boarding-up the property. ADD. 92-93.
The police training bulletin further emphasizes that “A single nuisance incident, either a public nuisance incident or criminal nuisance incident, is enough to revoke a landlord's rental registration certificate; enough to start an eviction; enough to trigger a §45.04 letter [to] cease and desist or face criminal charges (emphasis added). Id.
Mr. Dawkins sent an email with respect to an apartment in which he referred to the apartment and the people as a “mecca for lots of the down-trodden:” ADD. 94.
10
Bill Cullen, former president of St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords (SPARL) testified that Dawkins suggested to landlords that maybe the solution for the City was to try and increase the quality of properties to the point that the lower tier of less qualified tenants would not have places to rent. Cullen testified in his deposition as follows:
A: There were two comments that I recall, one from Leslie and one from Andy. Andy asked me, how would we feel if all those tenants that are at the bottom of the box were no longer in St. Paul (emphasis added).
Q: He asked that question of the group?
A: Yes.
Q: Was there any responses to that?
A: I think we were all dumbfounded. I think the question was how are we going to do that. He talked in general terms about improving the city -- now I'm nervous about trying to quote him. I remember him talking about trying to -- the word I would use is gentrify the city. That's what I remember (emphasis added).
Q: Gentrification?
A: He did not use that word. I'm translating it. That's how I remember it. Let's gentrify the city to the point that none of these individuals with historical behavioral issues would be in the city at all (emphasis added).
Q: So was it your understanding what he was suggesting is that try to get rid of the tenants that are at the bottom of the box?
A: Very clear, yes. He was very clear about that (emphasis added).
ADD. 95, p. 113, lines 1-25.
Q: Did Mr. Dawkins ever say that maybe the solution for the city, including the private landlords, was to try to increase the quality of properties to such a point that this lower group of less qualified tenants would not have a place to rent?
A: I believe that's what he was implying all along when he asked the question of; how would it be if we just didn't have to deal with the tenants that were at the bottom of this market (emphasis added).
Q: I know that. But was he tying that into the system that he had to have a
11
higher code enforcement standard so that the properties would be at a higher quality level, therefore, these individuals would not have a place to rent, either because of affordability or too high of cost of the properties, that kind of thing?
A: I believe that's exactly what he said (emphasis added).
Q: Was that to you concerning that a city official would be voicing that type of a policy or advocating that kind of a policy?
A: I remember being shocked by Andy's comments, shocked or surprised. I don't know if concern came to mind as much as, wow, that's surprising (emphasis added).
ADD. 96, p. 202, lines 17-25, p. 203, lines 1-16.
Sara Anderson, a housing advocate from Project Hope recalls City Official Dawkins telling her that City officials and employees “don't want low-income people renting in the City”. Anderson testified in her deposition as follows:
Q: Again I want to make sure that we've got everything that you know here today. You indicated in your affidavit that City officials and employees have told you that they don't want low-income people renting in the City. Do you remember who would have told you that at any time (emphasis added)?
A: Andy Dawkins (emphasis added).
Q: Okay. And you mentioned here this morning that you recall him saying that in the initial meeting you had with him, correct?
A: Correct.
ADD. 97-98, p. 76, lines 20-25, p. 77, lines 1-6.
The City and Mr. Dawkins also had financial incentive to implement its discriminatory environment and attitude in code enforcement – the goal was to bring in $500,000.00 in inspection fees, which was “theirs to spend” for “a lot of overtime” and new hires, if the code enforcement officers write-up every property the way the Mayor [Randy Kelly] told Harold [Robinson] and Mr. Dawkins. APP. 1.
12
Mr. Kessler’s statement regarding “the pressure to bend the rules to achieve a particular end that is inconsistent with the code and/or past practices” is exactly what Mr. Dawkins’ achieved in eliminating Plaintiffs’ rental properties and their “bottom tier of tenants” and the “down trodden.” Mr. Dawkins used the City’s discriminatory attitude and environment of aggressive code enforcement, illegal condemnations and code compliance certifications, City initiated lawsuits, a force ownership change strategy, and eviction strategy, even though he knew that his custom and practice could force abandonment of properties in the City of St. Paul and eliminate affordable housing, as it did in the Baltimore study he discussed.

CODE INSPECTOR REACTION TO THE CITY’S DISCRIMINATORY ENVIRONMENT AND ATTITUDE IN HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT
During the course of discovery, housing code inspectors were asked about the City and Mr. Dawkins’ discriminatory attitude and environment of aggressive code enforcement.
Code enforcement inspector John Reardon testified in his deposition as follows:
Q: Look at the smaller block there where it's just below that to the left, where it says, "Goal: for [force] sale to responsible owner." Again, in your work with NHPI when Dawkins was a director, did you ever overhear or were you part of a conversation about that kind of a subject?
A: No. In fact, I can't believe it's written down like that.
Q: If you go to the top of that same document -- see where it says "Outcomes" in a horizontal square there?
A.: Yep.
13
Q: Again, it says "If correct physical problems (or force sales)."
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Same question again, had you ever heard anyone discuss that in the department?
A: Never.
Q: You're saying never and that would include any time prior to Dawkins being a director, too?
A: I have never heard of forcing sales.
Q: Was that -- you seemed surprised by that -- that it's written down?
A: It seems real discriminatory. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't believe that it's even on paper (emphasis added).
APP. 2, p. 157, lines 7-25, p. 158, lines 1-6.
Code enforcement inspector Steve Schiller testified that Mr. Dawkins orders to write up a certain property was “the lowest thing that has ever happened to me.”
Q: What was the nature of the complaint on the property?
A: I was to write up everything.
Q: Who told you that?
A: Andy Dawkins.
Q: Did you go out to the property after you had that conversation?
A: Yes.
APP. 3, p. 112, lines 6-12.
Q: Did Mr. Dawkins tell you to write up the property?
A: Correct.
Q: To write it up -- did he use the terms "code to the max"?
A: Correct. Not that term. He said to do a thorough inspection.
Q: What else did he tell you?
A: It had to be written up and on the Mayor's desk by that afternoon.
APP. 4, p. 114, lines 15-23.
Q: Was there anything about the orders to you to write up Ms. Rodriguez that you felt were unfair?
A: Only from the standpoint that she was in very poor health.
Q: Was she on Social Security or a limited income at all? Any idea?
14
A: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Q: She was disabled?
A: To the best of my knowledge.
Q: Were there other homes in her area that were in similar condition exteriorly?
A: Yes.
APP. 4, p. 116, lines 12-23.
Q: Tell me more of what Andy Dawkins made you do that you didn't agree with?
A: Standard procedure when there is a death at the property is to give everyone time and to give the courts time to settle it and time to grieve and all that, that the file is closed.
Q: Dawkins came down on which side of that? Don't close it or do close it?
A: The Mayor said he couldn't close it.
Q: What else?
A: That was my major objection. It was the highlight of my career.
Q: Explain to me the highlight of your career that -- relating to the death situation?
A: Two of my clients died.
Q: Two of your clients died and you weren't allowed to close the file?
A: Two of my clients died and nobody listened to me to even start it in the first place.
Q: What was the result of you not being able to work on that?
A: What do you mean?
Q: Did the properties end up condemned or vacant?
A: They ended up vacant.
Q: Both of them?
A: There was only one property down on Butternut.
Q: Anything else?
A: No.
Q; So you said, "the highlight of my career," and so the examples are the Butternut property, and then closing a file when there has been a death?
A: I could not do that in this case. I mean this was the lowest thing that has ever happened to me (emphasis added).
APP. 5, p. 194, lines 22-25, p. 195, lines 1-25, p. 196, lines 1-4.
As another example of inspector reaction to the City and Mr. Dawkins’, code
15
enforcement employee Maureen Mitch wanted to leave the department in October of 2002, after Mr. Dawkins took over as director of NHPI. She stated in an email to her supervisor, Steve Magner: “If I apply in other division's can I still use you as a reference? I think I see where this office is going and I don't want to be a part of it” (emphasis added). APP 6.
These code enforcement employees’ responses to Mr. Dawkins illegal and discriminatory environment, attitude, custom and practice are key to the analysis of Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims as well as Defendants’ claims of immunity.

THE CITY’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
THE DISPARATE TREATMENT AND DISPARATE IMPACT
OF ITS DISCRIMINATORY ENVIRONMENT AND ATTITUDE IN HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT
There are numerous examples in which the City of St. Paul has acknowledged or has been put on notice that its aggressive, stepped-up housing code enforcement with its force ownership change strategy and eviction strategy had an adverse impact on protected class members and families living in poverty.
In an email from December of 2005, Jane Prince, legislative aide to council member Jay Benanav, sent an email to a constituent regarding the issue of the City’s code enforcement system unfairly targeting people of color:
“The issue of how a complaint-based system may unfairly target people of color is a huge one, and I'm not sure what we do to get at it. A new mayor and Toni's
16
and Jay's influence in a new administration can sure help” (emphasis added). APP. 7.
In a memorandum written by Mr. Dawkins to his staff in November of 2004, Mr. Dawkins discusses the impact that the excessive consumption system has on people of color:
“Perhaps a disproportionate number of folks getting EC bills are people of color; but if this is so, then maybe it's because a disproportionate number of families living in poverty are people of color” (emphasis added). APP. 8.
On August 11, 2004, housing law attorney Perry DeStefano, on behalf of Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, gave notice to the City about its discriminatory housing code enforcement by sending a letter to the city council president, Kathy Lantry, and cautioned the city about its discriminatory environment and attitude in housing code enforcement: “I was concerned that the City was using the Building Inspection Department to vacate a building of disabling and minority people. Every person in this building was a person in a protected class. They were either minorities or disabled people. Vacating the building by using the inspection department in this manner did have a disparate impact…I thought you should know that as a practicing housing law attorney who knows about discrimination law that there is exposure to a discrimination claim on this matter due to the way it was handled (emphasis added). “I would hate to lose the opportunity to collaborate
17
together on this case as it does appear that we have got the owner's attention and were making great progress despite the “hide the ball" tactics that were being played by the inspector’s office.” APP. 9-11.
In Mr. DeStefano’s deposition, he was questioned about other instances, which Mr. DeStefano numbered at greater than ten, in which the City displayed its illegal and discriminatory environment and attitude in housing code enforcement. APP. 12-13.
This evidence of the City’s illegal and discriminatory environment, attitude, custom and practice are key to the analysis of Plaintiffs’ claims involving discrimination as well as Defendants’ claims of immunity.; 3:56 PM
Bob said...: Hi All,

I will post the rest of this tomorrow or the next day. After this thread plays out I will post the Steinhauser appeal.; 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: These landlords represent about 2% of rental property owners that rent to minorities and protected classes, why aren't the other 98% involved in this?

Why can't they get the reports on enforcement showing any other like landlords were targeted?

Why are no social service agencies, non-profits, civil rights, legal aid or any organizations that fight the powers that be in the name of the protective classes involved in this?

Because its all bullshit.
This is not about who they rented to. Its about what they rent and that's sub-par, unacceptable, unsafe living units.

This 'appeal' is DOA. Why are they requesting time for an oral argument instead of presenting the new evidence or evidence that the district court was erroneous?

Because they've got nothing but the right to appeal. So do prisoners and the courts are filled with those appeals everyday.

Eric; 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Eric.....your always running down our legal begal Jeff about your perception of his lack of knowledge with the law and it appears you need a lesson or two. You don't present new evidence at an appeal of summary judgement you fool. You present facts as to why the judge made a mistake. Go read a few books Eric and check back with us.; 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: It doesn't appear to be over from the looks of this!; 5:00 PM
henry said...: I have read the entire appeal of all the suits, and it is the city that's in trouble. There are plenty of other landlords that were targeted, only they don't have the million or so dollars needed to bring this type of lawsuit. These guys are going to win and after they do, criminal charges will follow.; 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: "legal beagle"
Thanks for the lesson, aren't facts, evidence?

Saying something is so, doesn't make it a fact. There has to be supporting evidence, or its just an opinion.

So what you read the entire appeal. Its nothing new from the case that was dismissed. We all kept up with that for three years.

What are you reading that we didn't go over in the case? Point it out. FYI, there are other landlords who do rent to protective classes and were/are willing to testify that these landlords were able to offer lower rental rates was because their properties were below standards.

So you're saying that to be apart fo this suit you needed a million dollars to buy-in?

Your lawyers have discovered a real recession buster.

Eric; 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm very anxious to see the ending and the outcome of this!; 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: We'll see how many of the people the city bankrupted and ran out of business gets paraded through the trial as witnesses. You may want these to be DOA Eric but they are not and I cannot figure out how you can read some of this stuff and not see that there are valid fact issues to go before a jury.; 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's a housing attorney who is sending letters to the city telling them they are acting illegaly and calling out the minority probelma and everything and Eric tries to dismiss the seriousness by jusy BSing something about how because the guys suing caouldn't find more people to sue that there must no be any legitimacy to this. What a joke he tries to play off on us.; 8:20 PM
Jeff Matiatos said...: A very concerning E-Mail from code employee Maureen Mitch here talking about not wanting to be a part of bending the rules.

At least thats how Kessler describes what Dawkins has been doing, with his approval.

As was correctly stated, summary judgment on appeal will address errors of law and whether material facts exsists that warrant trial.

Of course the legal arguments on both sides ( the cases supporting the alleged facts ) will be reviewed on appeal to see which side is more persuasive when held next to the facts of the case.

If the material facts alleged here can support the elements of the claims presented, then we will have a trial.

The rest of this appeal which Bob says he will post should contain the cases the plaintiffs rely on to support their version of how the law looks at these things.

I hope their good cases, because the alleged facts here certainly raise genuine issues of material fact.

Jeff Matiatos; 8:25 PM
Jeff Matiatos said...: Remember, no one has to prove anything yet. Plaintiffs only need to show that material facts
contained in depositions and other exhibits are enough to trigger whats needed for the court to order a trial.

Plaintiffs will still have to present this stuff and get it into evidence.

Since depositions are evidence, and unless defendants have raised a genuine issue of material fact opposing plaintiffs proposed evidence, the court must take what it has and do its job from their.

I just think the lower courts don't get it.

It happens more than we would ever believe, especially when Government entities are involved.

Jeff Matiatos; 8:33 PM
Anonymous said...: It doesn't look good. A department with motie that is taking in money that they say is theirs to spend and they are having provate meetings with the court? Housing attornies writing to the city and telling them they are breaking the law? Bending the rules and forceing the sale of property? Political pressure? Councilman Lantry appearing to be directing the show?

This baby is going to trial!; 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: I am going to type this slowly so that maybe a few of you can get it....

Read what they have as the statement of the case and think about what they are saying.

They are saying that forcing people to keep up their property is to discriminate against people of color. That somehow by enforcing a health and safety standard on property we are taking away the RIGHT of people of color to live in sub-standard property.

What the last court said was that is insane and awarded summary judgement in favor of the city. So, instead of showing that the judge missed something like some evidence that there was some effort to evict people of color over white people or that there actually was someone who got something out of the RICO case they have made up, they just say it over again that somehow people of color want to live in buildings without working plumbing and the city is evil to try and stop people from making a profit renting to them.

The case is dead.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:35 PM
Anonymous said...: You don't seem to interpret things very well Repke. You also seem to only see what you want to see when you read something that has subject matter you don't like. There will be a lot of crow for you to eat at the end of this my friend.; 11:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Could someone please list the names of some social service employees who were diposed and why don't ya throw in a SMRLS attorney.
Eric you fool.

Brad; 12:08 AM
Anonymous said...: I work for the city Eric and I can tell you for certain that city leaders are not as sure as you seem to be about the the lawsuit by the landlords.; 12:45 AM
Anonymous said...: We will see. I've laid out my perspective and really have nothing more to add. Also, I won't comment much on the same thread as that pos Jeff.

Brad, I don't understand. Nothing on the landlords perspective has been proven in over three years. There is nothing new here. The fool be you.

Eric; 7:42 AM
Bill Cullen said...: Chuck, your right, it is about the evidence. And the lower court was not impressed with the evidence and awarded summary judgment. I don’t know if the evidence has improved or if the lower court missed the evidece, but taking a step back ought to give you pause.

St. Paul stresses that a problem property is one with code problems AND behavioral problems. “AND” requires both, Chuck. So can someone define what behaviors justify “code to the max”? Chuck? Eric? Anyone? If not, it screams discrimination. Can you imagine a landlord using as rental criteria “people with good behavior”? Eric and his attorney buddies would find it easy to plaster that landlord to the wall with lawsuits. Yet you city advocates see no trouble with the city using the same criteria.

Eric, I laughed at loud at your challenge as to why only 2% of the landlords are complaining and not the other 98%. Does the St. Paul Department of Human Rights only find discrimination when the majority of people make the same claim? It is a laughable argument! Frankly, the reason most of us landlords are not part of the suit is because it is far easier to sell and move out of the city – leaving you with thousands of vacant homes and rapidly falling values.

But then again, maybe ya’all would prefer we declare discrimination no longer exists and all is well.

Bill Cullen.; 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: 12:45 I assume that is because the "City leaders" that you talk to haven't read anything about the case.

The only thing I have ever heard at all about the case at City Hall was a mention in the budget discussion by the City Attorney about how much money was wasted because of it. Having to retrieve all of the email records from 5-10 years ago that was billed to the City Attorney's office because of this case was not something that anyone had budgeted.

People this is a FEDERAL CASE. It is a case on two fronts one is RICO which for all intent and purpose even the most zealous on the list here have conceded that they have flat out noting on. The reason being in that in RICO there has to be three elements 1. someone that loses something, 2 someone that gains something, 3 a conspiracy to make that happen. The landlords case is we lost our property, we don't know who gained anything from it and because we can't find anyone who did, there must be a good conspiracy to keep that from us. That is not a case and it will never go to trial.

The other is the Fair Housing case. The essence of a successful Fair Housing case must be that the City's actions in some way is discriminatory against people of color or disability.

The landlords case in a nut shell is: 1. Our properties were in disrepair and not up to code 2. only the poorest of the poor would live in the terrible housing stock that we maintain 3. the poorest of the poor are black (or of color though they use black more often) 4. The City trying to make us repair our properties to habitable standards is an assault on people of color.

They offer no evidence that any of the properties in question actually met the code and were successfully appealed to state court for relief; nor do they offer any evidence that properties that they owned that were in disrepair and had white tenants were passed over. Instead they show the City continually trying to get them to repair their property so that they can stay in business and continue to rent. Extension after extension, year after year, appeal after appeal, delay after delay.

No evidence that the City's desire was not to make sure that houses were safe to live in.

There is no case.

Bill,

As to all of the other garbage in the suit, those would potentially be case by case issues or state issues. Was this staff person mean to me? Was this staff person out to get me? Was this staff person fair? Was there a grudge against me for past actions? Those are all state case issues. The notion of the Fair Housing suit has to have something in common with people of color or disability status and most of the landlords complaining are white.

That Andy Dawkins or Steve Magner may or may not be a prick is not a Federal case.

"Code to the Max" appears to me to mean that there is a property that has both code issues, and criminal complaints, AND AN ON GOING RESISTANCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION.

Bill, if police only pulled over people for speeding who were going faster than the speed limit would that be discrimination? I mean in your world, shouldn't everyone get pulled over for speeding even if they were under the speed limit? That is the logic you are using.

If the City says flat out no more breaks, no more extensions to this guy who will do nothing to improve the situation in his property, how exactly is that discrimination?

Bill, the City gives almost everyone a break on inspections. You and I both know inspectors that have to find something and will find the one little thing this time to write you up on that they let go the last six times.

In your world, you would say that if the City doesn't code to the max everyone, on every inspection every time than it should never hold anyone accountable. Sorry, Bill not on this planet.

People who enforce the law are allowed discretion. That is just life in the real world. It is normal that enforcers of the law tend to be more lax on people that cooperate. It is discrimination if they respond differently because of color.

That is why your parents told you to say "yes sir and no sir" when the cops pull you over so they might cut you a little slack. Rather than, "Fuck you pig, I wasn't speeding." Try it sometimes it works...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: It looks bad for the city. They should have just concentrated on doing there jobs responsibly and acting responsibly.

And those insular district councils that radiate self interest of a few jerks - they should be held accountible.; 2:46 PM
henry said...: It is blatently clear that Chuck and Eric are going to take the City side of the fence no matter what anyone says and no matter how clear the evidence is. Quite frankly, I don't believe that anyone could be so stupid as to really believe what they say.; 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: It's been a year since the Morris ruling came down and the city is still violating the law. They are still requiring property owners to change out eagress windows which was specifically prohibited by the Morris ruling. Yet the city says in the newpaper that there's still confusion over it! How much confusion can there be? The court has spoken, but the city refuses to comply.; 7:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Which is why they are being sued. St. Paul thinks they are above the law and they provide example after example showing it.; 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck how about city officials using the "force sale" policy?Any rights violated there?

Its kinda like the cops pulling over a guy for speeding 5 times in a month and instead of giving him five tickets you find out where he lives and give him parking tickets-follow him to work and pull him over for not using his blinker-then follow him home and pull him over for a cracked windshield-then find another car he owns that his wife drives and pull her over because she went over the white line and then after all this harrassment you force them to sell their vehicle so they have to walk.Problem solved skipper,no more speeding-you on board?

P.S. Do you agree with a force sale policy?

Ken; 9:36 PM
Anonymous said...: And while we're at it skipper you have never said where you stand about how the city goes out and lies about code violations to be able to condemn the property in order to remove the occupants because they have an issue with the behavior of the occupant. Can ya dig it Repke? How about iof someone has an issue with you so they go over to your mothers house or job or church and make trouble for her? Aren't they the same things? You're a hypocrite.; 10:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Folks again even if what you said were true and the City did all of those things.

THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A FEDERAL CASE.

Violating Morris v Sax - state case.

Targeting someone's properties because they have been problems in another location - state case.

Writing someone up for problems that don't exist - appeal to state court.

Does it help in the Federal RICO case? No.

Does it help in a Fair Housing case? Only if the only thing in common with the properties were minority owners or tennents. Nothing in any of the cases lead in that direction.

So, still no chance for this case.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:55 PM
Anonymous said...: You'll see Repke. You can spin all you want, but it doesn't make it so. Facts are facts and federal laws are federal laws. When you violate them, it's a federal case.; 12:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck lets take speeders again for example.You have a cop sitting on the side of the road and you have blacks an whites speeding and the cop only pulls over the black ones do you think thats a problem Skip?

Because you know the demographics of most of the heavy handed code enforcement,sweeps and condemnations were in black neighborhoods.See Skipper when you start targeting behavior with code enforcement that is called profiling and as we all know most of the behavior probelms come from minority tenants.GET IT?

Once again using you car scenerio which I thank you for bringing up.What if cops were using behavior in minority neighborhoods to pull over cars?It wouldn't be tolerated.

I can't believe you can't even see a problem with Johnnny(tenant)on the corner house on Jenks having behaior problems in a house Betty owns so then code enforcement goes out to all 5 of her houses to code to the max and affect the lives of her other tenants due to Johnnys miles away.

Ken; 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Most of the tenants in the units that were discussed on record were white.

A-Democracy has an archive of the entire suit. Thanks Bob.; 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: I have to interject because Ken gave half an example. This Fair Housing Lawsuit is still not proving that other complaints are being ignored if the tenants are white.

In Ken's racial profiling example what he leaves out is that, you still have to pay the ticket. I know from experience. You may have a case of unequal enforcement but, if you are clocked at 82mph, you still have a fine to pay.

What then happens is that the police department has some issues to deal with- if a pattern is shown that white speeders are not being pulled over.

So, to tie this in, landlords cannot, and have not denied having problem with their properties. That's a documented fact in the court records.

However, they have not proved that other properties similar to theirs, with complaints are being ignored.
As the above poster wrote, they have also failed to prove that their tenants were black. In a strange twist, they admit to having black tenants in other units in St Paul that are not an issue for them or code enforcement.

The racial profiling example is a bad one in the sense that code enforcement is complaint driven, in the case of speeders, its the cop himself that decides who to pull over or when to investigate.

So:
1. Most of these tenants were not of a protective class.
2. Similar properties with protective classes at the same class status (poor, working poor), are not having problems with code enforcement.
3. All of these landlords admit to having code issues with their properties. All of them. Its hard to say you're being targeted when you are breaking the rules (speeders).
4. What is the "obvious" evidence that is in the appeal? Nothing new except you say Chuck and I are so stupid and blind to the obvious evidence. What is it?

Once again there are probably individuals within code enforcement that have race issues, as there in the police department and parks and public works. I can't and won't argue against that. My advice three years ago was to name names and sue on the discrimination charge.

The RICO charge brings in too many factors that are just fantasy. Instead of getting the individuals, RICO casts a wide net over the entire upper level of the department, the city council and the county judicial system. Anyone who was serious about changing things would not have gone this route because its just too difficult to prove and- not true. There is no conspiracy. And, if there were some bad players within the department, you've done nothing with this suit but allowed them to hide behind the impossibility of proving RICO.

Eric; 12:41 PM
Bob said...: APPEAL CONTINUED. There maybe copy errors.

THE CITY’S USE OF
HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT
TO CIRCUMVENT CIVIL RIGHTS AND
TO ADDRESS BEHAVIOR ISSUES

There are numerous examples in which the City of St. Paul takes action through housing code enforcement to address behavior issues, effectively circumventing individual’s civil rights. The City has provided documents stating that the civil laws are preferable because the burden of proof is less. In addition, the City is very eager to get inside properties to exercise their illegal and discriminatory housing code custom and practice. Below are two examples.
18
In a police training bulletin about “How to Work with the Code Enforcement Problem Property Unit,” co-writers Andy Dawkins and Assistant Police Chief T. Reding discuss “what legal action is possible” and tell the officers “this is civil law, so we don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In the same bulletin, the co-writers emphasize the importance of “getting inside” the premises in order to further the City’s discriminatory code enforcement environment because “getting inside” could lead to “condemnation of the property, eviction of the occupants and boarding-up the property.” ADD. 92-93.
The City produced through discovery a “Code Enforcement Cheat Sheet” with a couple of examples of ways to circumvent civil rights. First, it encourages Police Officers by telling them that “Civil laws are being used and the preponderance of evidence is lower for proof.” In addition, it encourages the Police Officers to permit warrantless administrative searches by code enforcement officers in furtherance of the City’s force ownership change strategy and eviction strategy: “If officers get inside of a property for whatever reason and see code violations, please call for an inspector. Sweeps of the exteriors are being done by code enforcement, but we don't get interior
inspections” (emphasis added). APP. 14.
The City also used a very large police officer, Dean Koehnen, to further its discriminatory environment and attitude in code enforcement. Below are two
19
examples.
In an email dated June 30, 2006, code enforcement employee Jackie Girling complained to Officer Dean Koehnen about exercising his size and influence to strong arm property owners:
“Dean, please in the future, if you are going out on a property where I have pending orders, I would appreciate a heads up. There was no need for you to go out there other than (what sounds to me like) Pam from crime prevention hoping that you could strong-arm these people with your "size and influence"(emphasis added). APP. 15.
Police Officer Mark Wiegel, who also worked for the housing code department, sent an email on March 29, 2007, indicating that he would take housing code action on a property because there were not enough behavior problems for the police to act. The police officer requesting assistance to “sick you and yours on a property,” stated that “the problem is more about the conduct at the house and the type of people that visit.” Officer Weigel sent Dean Koehnen to the property to “get an inspection and have an impact:”
I need to sick you and yours on a property. 1011 Burn is a single family home/owner occupied by Vickie. I am not sure of her last name. The address has been a problem for well over a year but we haven't been able to do much. It is up off of the street and they do not actually drugs from there. The problem is more about the conduct at the house and the type of people that visit. Vickie is Native American and has had boyfriends arrested off and on.
I’m forwarding this to Dean to see if we can get an inspection and have an impact (emphasis added). APP. 16.
20
City council president Kathy Lantry made an email request to Officer Mark Wiegel to take code enforcement action against a property with behavior issues. When the property didn’t meet the criteria for an excessive consumption violation, Officer Mark Wiegel again indicated that he would send a message through housing code enforcement:
I realize that there are too many calls overall to this area but from my jobs perspective I'm stuck. I was even looking for any that could have fallen into excessive consumption for police but none fit that criteria either. I think at least somewhat of a message can be sent through making them register and by code enforcement issuing orders (emphasis added). APP. 17.
As can be seen on the email chain below from August 16, 2004, Officer Wiegel again sent code enforcement to issue orders on a property, even though it didn’t have any behavior or code issues, and even though the code enforcement officer questioned the inspection, but simply because it was requested by council member Dave Thune.
“Can you check 348 W. Winona. No dangerous police issues and no current open code.”
“Sure, but why are we checking it then?”
“It came from a citizen through Thune's office and has some police issues, but not enormous” (emphasis added). APP. 18.
The misuse of the housing code by the City to address behavior problems lends the housing code to political pressure and to abuse of the complaint based system and is further evidence of the City’s “bending the rules of code enforcement to achieve a
21
particular outcome inconsistent with the code” which creates the City’s discriminatory environment and attitude in code enforcement.; 1:57 PM
Bob said...: I and everyone in the know cannot deny this truth!

To all of you within city government past and present responsible for this behavior. You are a disgrace to this nation and it's founding fathers.; 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't see any cases of precedent supporting the plaintiffs claims.
Maybe there are none.; 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous said...
Most of the tenants in the units that were discussed on record were white.

A-Democracy has an archive of the entire suit. Thanks Bob.

8:50 AM"

This is an outright lie. Most of the renters involved were African American.; 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...: "In Ken's racial profiling example what he leaves out is that, you still have to pay the ticket. I know from experience. You may have a case of unequal enforcement but, if you are clocked at 82mph, you still have a fine to pay. "

What Eric leaves ot is that if the Police had lied about a person going 82mph and the accused speeder caught them at the lie it would be an altogether different deal and that is exactly what happened with the landlords......they caught the inspectors fabricating violations. Eric wants everyone to believe that just because these landlords had some code violations that they are something evil when in fact every damn house in the city has code violations according to the cities own documents. 60 something percent of those hosues have serious violations. To try and get some negative spin on the landlords just because they hadd some violations is disegenuious and you know it Eric.; 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: "if" the police lied?

The landlords own testimony show that they had some violations. One even admitted to buying a place that he knew he didn't have to money to fix up. People called in the violations.

That's all fact.

THEY HAD CODE VIOLATIONS- AND ADMITTED SO.

That right there is what killed RICO.

One of the landlords admit that his complaint in the three year long lawsuit was that no one called code enforcement on his neighbors. Just him. He also admitted that his tenants were not black. The property with his black tenants experienced no calls over code violations. No Fair Housing violation.

Just a bunch a guys who didn't want to clean up and maintain their property.

Tell us which one is saying that they were the victim of false code violations. Who?

Instead of calling me names, which one of these defendants testified that code enforcement lied. It should be easy. Its all right here.

The reason this appeal will fail is because there is no new information. What landlord said that they were lied on, and in reality had no violations? Which one?

All of you are so smart and supposedly read the appeal and kept up with the case- who is it? Which one?

and we wait...

Eric; 11:15 PM
Anonymous said...: I always loved this one...

..."As can be seen on the email chain below from August 16, 2004, Officer Wiegel again sent code enforcement to issue orders on a property, even though it didn’t have any behavior or code issues, and even though the code enforcement officer questioned the inspection, but simply because it was requested by council member Dave Thune.
“Can you check 348 W. Winona. No dangerous police issues and no current open code.”
“Sure, but why are we checking it then?”
“It came from a citizen through Thune's office and has some police issues, but not enormous” (emphasis added).

...a council member asks the DSI staff to check on a house, he doesn't tell them to do anything, just check on it, because he has had some kind of call about the property. If you look at the city site there is no write up on the house... sounds like they check it out and didn't find anything wrong so they didn't write anything up. Case closed no big deal, NOTHING HAPPENED!

Yet the landlords site this as some evil intent to do harm to the property owner and a misuse of the housing code... nobody was written up.

It is a perfect example of how a complaint base system should work! Someone complained to an elected official, he asks the staff to inspect, they find out that it is fine and nothing happened. (If you look at the write ups they have unlicensed dog issues and who knows maybe their dog ticks off the neighbor.)

This shows you how stupid the landlords case is. What is the city suppose to do when a neighbor complains? Its their job to check on the complaint. And, just like this one if there is nothing wrong do nothing.

But paranoid people see evil consperacies everywhere, don't they Bob...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 12:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Eric said:

THEY HAD CODE VIOLATIONS- AND ADMITTED SO.

Then Chuck said:

But paranoid people see evil consperacies everywhere, don't they Bob...

I say:

But everyone has code violations - it's impossible not to, which is why the arguments by the political operators are meaningless.

This discussion is about arbitrary and punitive code enforcement to meet political agendas.

Eric and Chuck, you should be ashamed of yourselves.; 4:23 AM
Coleman Brief 15May09 said...: Even Norm Coleman has the Right to "due process" Traffic Tickets are minor, ELECTIONS ARE MAJOR

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2009/05/Appellants_Reply_Brief.PDF; 4:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck and Eric I'd put the Dadders guys properties up against your own homes.These guys are sqeaky clean and have done wonderful things for the community and for St.Paul.Home grown also.

Gary; 10:22 AM
Bob said...: But paranoid people see evil consperacies everywhere, don't they Bob...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

My response;
I have spoken with citizens this OGAR of a cop has bullied his way around. The S.O.B. ever tried to pull that shit on me or a family member of mine, first, he'd have to kick my ass to come through the door. Then I'd print thousands of fliers and pass them out door to door telling citizens what an ass this Ogar and the city is. I'd SUE everyone involved into poverty. I will fight for my F..ing rights just like I fight for the rights of citizens here.

Off subject a little. It is a widely known FACT code enforcement has accompanied police on raids with the intention of condemning so called undesirable citizens to the streets to get them out of the neighborhood where neighbors complain about their behavior. IT IS A SICK ACT, putting INNOCENT women and children on the street just because a family member "may have" been involved in a crime.

I know you want to tell these folks here Chuck that these citizens were condemned out of their homes over safety issues. Some of those types of safety issues homes have been condemned for are broken security locks. Locks the police broke during a raid. Or as Saint Paul resident Jennifer Teitz and her friends told me concerning a raid on her home. "The police were kicking holes in the wall saying they were going to make sure this house was condemned". The police confiscated all of Jennifer's money and put her and her children on the street that night via a condemnation of her home. The only charge, disorderly house, DISMISSED! How many more stories do you want me to post like this Chuck? You have seen the stories posted here Chuck. I think your blood is BLUE.

What do the police and city accomplish with this objective. Well where there is issues of real crime and a condemnation, the cities efforts spreads crime to other parts of the city when these so called undesirable citizens find housing in other parts of the city. West 7th. is no longer the WEST END. Now it is the METH END. Largely in part of citizens with behaviorial issues being chased out of the red zones of the East Side and Frogtown.

To you good DFLers out there. This is what you have elected as our city government. Do you want a city government who violates citizens rights just because they believe it is a short cut to their objectives. What cost do you put on your freedoms when you have a city government willing to abuse the civil rights of the most vulnerable among us?; 11:31 AM
Police Complaint Records said...: St.Paul Cops, Ofiong Sanders cutting his mothers grass?

May 17, 2009

CUAPB ACTIVIST LOCKED UP ON BOGUS CHARGES--
YOUR HELP IS URGENTLY NEEDED!
Ofiong Sanders is a case study of a person who has changed his life for the better. In 1997, he was convicted of burglary and sentenced 10 years in prison. During those 10 years, he had an epiphany and recognized that he was handing his life over to the state. He vowed to straighten out his life. When the time came for him to be released, he found that the prison system continued to hold him, based on a miscalculation of his sentence. He sued, representing himself, and won his immediate release. Since

St.PauCall, email or fax the Ramsey County parole supervisor Debra Ranthum on Monday, May 18:
Phone: 651-266-7630
Fax: 651-266-7629
Email: deb.ranthum@co.ramsey.mn.us

Tell her that you are very concerned about the violation of Ofiong Sander's rights and that it is an outrage that he is being held on the basis of simply being arrested, not convicted of any crime. Ofiong poses no danger to society. Urge her to release his parole hold so that he can go back to his job and his family.
http://www.cuapb.org/PoliceComplaintRecords.asp; 12:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Gary,
Since I made the mistake with one of Dadder's properties (confused it with Steinhauser's) I have since admitted that mistake (like two years ago) and have omitted them from the conversation.

To say the have decent property is one thing, to say its better than my house well, you're projecting about yourself in that one. My kitchen counters and upstairs bathroom tile cost more than an entire rehab of those places.

Still waiting for one of your cowards to call enforcement on me and yet again prove that they don't target, only react to citizens calls no matter who it is, or what their connections may be.
-------

Bob,
Without debating those stories, those examples don't have anything to do RICO or Fair Housing.

With everyone lumping in to these landlords, they have weakened their argument. They should have filed civil rights complaints, like the minority contractors did. You got no problem out me for that.

Conspiracy to remove blacks and the poor? Too wide of a net to be believable.

Eric; 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: I thought they did file civil rights lawsuits also. 1981, 82 and 83 are civil rights deals righ?; 7:28 PM
BILLY D. said...: Eric said 12:44 PM
Conspiracy to remove blacks and the poor? Too wide of a net to be believable.

This sounds nice coming from you Sir, it shows that you are a very sensitive person when it come to how these city government people would deliberately try to push the black people out of their town.
This show you, me and everyone at the blog how we all are treated by St.Paul's Finest Government that treat lower income people of any color, religion, race, are not wanted.

The word is lower income people are not wanted in St. Paul, then their homes are condemned or foreclosed on, some of these families become homeless.
Then we all see how these homeless are treated, and how easy it could happen to any of us.
Next time you drive by the
EXCEL Center look over at
The Dorothy Day Center,
and think that the people hanging around there could be any of us if some dilemma happened.

Billy D.; 9:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob...

Now I get it.

The people on the East Side and Frogtown are suppose to be OK with all of the meth houses being located in your friends rental properties and not call the cops on them, because if they get moved along they may move near you.

That's the ticket isn't it?

Fuck the East Side and Frogtown let people commit crime there and don't bother the landlords that get the piece of the drug profits as they collect the cash from the trashed drug houses.

Because if they are over there they won't bother Bob. Its fine on the East side but we have a problem in the police department if the shit moves near Bob's house.

Nice to see your true feelings about the East Side and Frogtown coming out Bob.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:35 PM
Bob said...: Conspiracy to remove blacks and the poor? Too wide of a net to be believable.

Eric

12:44 PM

My response;
I believe the city's motives are based solely on suspected anti-social behaviors and not race.

It is also my belief the landlords in the fair housing lawsuits were "targeted" because of the behavior of their tenants. Most of which were black.

So entire families end up on the street through these condemnations to rid the neighborhood of these socially labeled undesirables. Most of them innocent of any crimes. Their only crime, they have a family member who they love that may or may not be involved in criminal activity.

Chuck, I don't have time to get into every thing on my mind at this moment. I have to go to work.

However, I have said it here a hundred or more times, "I believe in individual responsibility". I do not believe it is a good policy from city government to make innocent folks suffer for the anti-social behavior of others. May it be a family member or a LANDLORD innocent folks should not have to be made to be responsible. Investigate, prosecute, and convict criminals where ever they maybe. Do not spread crime around through forced condemnations.

I support neighbors calling the police when all else fails. We should have mediation groups who will go out and try to bring resolution to neighborhood problems.

I have had success in the past as an apartment building manager bringing my concerns to tenants suspected of criminal activity.; 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Have mediation groups ?

Try bringing your concerns to tenants suspected CRIMINAL activity ?

I SUPPOSE YOU WANT YOUR HEAD BLOWN OFF BY ONE OF THESE SUSPECTED THUGS ?

You have a permit to carry ?

You should work for the cops as an informant.

You have a duty to report crime, not try to cover it up by mediating their suspected criminal activity.

Give us an example of what you tell these suspected criminal thugs ?

personally, I like the idea of the city getting rid of these suspected thugs before they cause problems.

To bad for the innocent ones.

Guilty by association because they harbor thugs and raise them that way.

No sympathy.; 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: First off you all are off the subject again, its a case of landloards not being up to code. if there not up to code you have to fix whatever issues there are. end of story.

Next everyone can name thousands of cases were cops do crooked things, there like everyone else with power issues. Most cops are realy great people but some are just on a power trip, and if im wrong ask any 17 year old lucky enough to drive a convertable after 10pm, see how many are on a power trip then.

the real issue you all seem to miss on almost every post here is that people are always going to see things there way. No matter if its housing codes or police actions. What I dont see is how so many of you people on here can run your mouths and yet never run for office, get involed in social groups, or volunter for anything. Grow up, get involed, and remember time weights for no man. Your days of being in power are all just as short and numbered as the next guy.; 5:10 PM
Bob said...: Anonymous said...
Have mediation groups ?

Try bringing your concerns to tenants suspected CRIMINAL activity ?

I SUPPOSE YOU WANT YOUR HEAD BLOWN OFF BY ONE OF THESE SUSPECTED THUGS ?

You have a permit to carry ?

You should work for the cops as an informant.

You have a duty to report crime, not try to cover it up by mediating their suspected criminal activity.

Give us an example of what you tell these suspected criminal thugs ?

personally, I like the idea of the city getting rid of these suspected thugs before they cause problems.

To bad for the innocent ones.

Guilty by association because they harbor thugs and raise them that way.

No sympathy.

1:45 PM

My response;

I understand the FEAR folks like you suffer from. An example of your fear is the anonymous post here. You are the typical sheltered WHITE neighbor who is scared shit-less by the Black, Asian or Mexican family down the street who has teen age boys with lot's of friends.

I am not some chicken shit who lived a sheltered life harboring a mind filled with misinformed opinions of others. I fit in any social group. Good, Bad and UGLY! I like people and they generally like me and see me as a friend once they have met me. Nobody in my family is a bigot. I have a interracial family. Whites, blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians.

The problem we have in our neighborhoods is many minority families are being reported to the police and code over what amounts to BIGOTRY. Many of the families condemned out of there homes over behavior issues were NEVER charged with any crime. There is some what of a pattern to the white renters who have been condemned out of their homes. Many of them had a lot of black friends coming and going.

It sure as hell wouldn't hurt to have someone who knows people well attempt resolve some of these neighborhood issues. Sure there is bad people. They come in all races. It wouldn't be a mediators place to snitch out citizens. I believe ethically anything said to a mediator by opposing neighbors should be confidential. There is issues of trust that would need to be guarded. (I know, I told a story here of a neighborhood dispute I mediated). I did with hold the addresses! I done this in an attempt to prove mediation can work.

I think a mediator should never take sides and have a list of support groups if they see potential trouble in a family.

I don't care who you are there is good in everyone. And DUDE (1:43)I have been around dangerous people often. When I was younger I was a bad bad boy! years later I was a registered volunteer infrmant working violent crimes. I have assisted in the apprehension of not one but several homicidal maniacs. NEVER AGAIN! Citizen informants should NEVER be used. Thats another story. Like I said I do not and have not live a sheltered life.

1:43 said;
personally, I like the idea of the city getting rid of these suspected thugs before they cause problems.

My response;
I saved this for last. The problem with your opinion is. IF there is a "real" criminal issue, a condemnation with no charges spreads crime to other parts of the city when the renters take up residency someplace else. Then the city gets to come in and claim victory to a new group of neighbors a SECOND TIME for cleaning up a neighborhood. So there is political rewards for this rogue policy. The city rallies citizens against landlords who rent to the poor relieving political pressure off the city bureaucrats to do something about crime because it appears they are doing something about it running citizens labeled undesirable from one neighborhood to another. On top of all this, the city gives a "code to the max" on a landlords property to bring the home up to a value no longer affordable to low income renters. OR ruins the investor financially because he can't meet the burden of repairs. Is it good for the city? You would have to be retarded to believe it is.; 9:09 PM
Bob said...: I couldn't let this one get away.

1:43;
You have a duty to report crime, not try to cover it up by mediating their suspected criminal activity.

My response;
NONE of us have a DUTY to report crime. It is our elected officials and the police responsibility to investigate, prosecute and convict criminals.

WHO said anything about covering up crime?; 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't the city in fact covering up the crime. Using your own analagy Bob the city must think there is a crime component to these behavior problems and rather than arrest people for nosie, disorderly, trash and littering, etc. they just use the back door and falsely condemn the plae and move the renter on to another neighborhood kowing full well the problem associated with the target. Then the same old stuff starts all over again and the city does the same thing all over again.; 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob, there is this new thing its called civilization. The idea of it is that we each have a partial responsibility for our fellow man.

We don’t eliminate that responsibility by electing someone to public office and hiring a few police officers.

I know that your friends live off of the exploitation of the poor and profit from drug money so you have a commitment to make sure that those profits continue to flow, but Bob, really to advocate giving up on civilization as a concept is pretty much over the top.

Yes as a citizen and as a part of civilization you have a responsibility to report a crime. You have a basic responsibility as a part of this civilization to be a part of it and to support its success.

Otherwise go back to the woods.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:02 PM
Anonymous said...: I am with Chuck on this one !; 10:48 PM
Bob said...: Chuck, show me the statement I made advocating against investigating, prosecuting and convicting criminals. Show me the statement Chuck! You can't.

Chuck, I know the Coppage boy who turned rat and as a consequence his family was fire bombed to death. He regrets ever being the cops stoole. The police could have investigated this small time drug ring without the assistance of a citizen and if they had all those kids wouldn't of burned to death.

There is a number of informants who have been murdered over the years and the police KNOW the people who have committed these crimes. They have no proof and the serial killers run free. Know worry for the general public, they only kill rats.

Do I believe a citizen should be watchful over neighbors, you bet. I called in a possible burglary at the auto repair shop on my block. I called the cops when I thought the PHA home across the street was being vandalized. When immediate life or safety issue come up most certainly call the police. For all I know someone could have been stealing the gas pipes out of the PHA home causing an explosion and killing or injuring folks. For all I know the owner of the auto repair shop could have walked into a burglary in progress and been murdered.

I don't think it would be a wise idea for a neighbor to confront another neighbor about suspected drug activity. If busted the confrontational neighbor would be the first suspect. The police are good at dealing with these issues even if you take away the code enforcement tool of condemning suspected folks to the street.

Chuck, in YOUR world, the government fulfills all the citizens needs and the citizens should be subservient to the government.; 10:56 PM
Bob said...: Anonymous said...
I am with Chuck on this one !

10:48 PM

Apparently you are cut from the same cloth Chuck is. I wouldn't wear your JACKET.; 10:59 PM
Bob said...: INTRODUCTION OF THE CITY’S WORKING RELATIONSHIP AND PREFERRENTIAL TREATMENT OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY
The St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA) owns and manages 4300 units of public housing in the City. PHA’s public housing includes high-rise properties, family town home developments, and 450 scattered site properties, which are single family or duplex properties located throughout the City. Plaintiffs claim these scattered site properties are similar to their rental properties. According to PHA documents, the scattered site properties’ tenant base is about 32% African-American and 58% Asian/Pacific Islander. ADD. 5-6.
PHA has been chronically underfunded for almost the entire existence of public housing. PHA admits that it has to prioritize the repairs - life safety and exterior envelope to keep out the moisture. APP. 19. Hester testified that every year for PHA staff have to ask how much money they have – have to prioritized the work – in a general sense there are a lot of needs that are being deferred because of insufficient funds. APP. 20.
Gutzmann testified that PHA has been in crisis mode due to federal funding cutbacks and PHA had to sell off on two recent occasions many of its homes, where
22
on average those homes needed $40,000 in repairs. PHA conducted an internal analysis of the costs needed for each of almost 20 homes, with the estimates running from a low of $13,000 to a high of $199,000. Gutzmann said the average costs to repair was $40,000. APP. 21. PHA needed to sell these properties to get the money out of them and to avoid making expensive repairs. APP. 22.
City TISH evaluators conducted city code review prior to PHA sale of those homes and found that many of PHA’s homes were in fact not compliant with City Codes. APP 23-105. Further, the City has acknowledged through a TISH report study conducted in 2005 that “as many as 60% of all properties sold in the city in 2005 had serious code violations. APP. 107.
The City and PHA admit that at no time has the City designated any PHA home as vacant, required a “Code Compliance” or condemned any of its homes. Docket, 228, Ex. 304. There has never been a requirement by the City that PHA homes be substantially renovated. APP. 108.
PHA and the City have long recognized that PHA, while maintaining “high performer” status under HUD regulations, owns and manages significant numbers of “problem properties” due to criminal behavior of residents, guests and third parties on PHA properties. Docket, 224, Exs. 202, 203. Since 1991, the City and PHA have had a special partnership called “ACOP” whereby a platoon of City police are devoted
23
solely to policing PHA family developments. The City police services under ACOP are above and beyond the “baseline” police services PHA is provided with like any other resident or business in the City. The City has received over $8 million from PHA for supplemental police services since 1991. Docket, 224, Exs. 159, 160, 161. The City and PHA detail the significant criminal activity at PHA properties that supports their conclusion that PHA owns and manages “problem properties”. Docket, 224, Exs. 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 193, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205.
In 1994, the City proposed to PHA, its long term partner, that the City’s Property Maintenance Code (City Code) be substituted for the federally mandated Housing Quality Standards (HQS) applicable to federally subsidized, Section 8 low income housing in the City. During this process, the City and PHA discovered that the City’s code was actually “more stringent” 82% of the time when compared to the federal code. APP. 109-115.
In 1994, PHA informed City leaders that “local HUD staff feared more stringent standards would reduce the supply of affordable housing for Sec 8 holders.” Docket, 224, Ex. 172.; 11:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Your to small of a man to wear my jacket Bob.

You cut yourself up with your own words, why ?

I happen to think Chuck makes good sence and he is a man who would be more apt to reach out to the poor and less fortunate than you.

I think you care Bob, but in different ways.

What motive does the city have to treat PHA better than the rest of us ?

Is it because PHA is underfunded and can't afford to maintain its properties ?

No, that can't be because they pass inspections with flying colors.

Try again.

The city works just as hard to rid PHA of crime as they do elsewhere.

These RICO landlords are a prime example.

Public Housing is a potluck of crime waiting to happen, and the police need to clean this up as a priority.

The city doesn't throw anybody out on their ass that doesn't deserve it.

How come we don't have more lawsuits for this shit if you really say it goes on ?

The RICO guys are fighting for themselves using minorities as pawns to move through the courts.

Why if any of these landlords were black, maybe then someone might pay attention to them.

Your really out there Bob.

Keep your jacket on, you might need it when they throw your ass out.; 11:29 PM
Anonymous said...: "I know that your friends live off of the exploitation of the poor and profit from drug money so you have a commitment to make sure that those profits continue to flow"

Fuck you Repke. Your dirty slimy city is the ones doing the exploiting. Rather than arrest these so called criminals or drug dealers or whatever you want to call them, they just move them around town to spread the crime so the slimy politicians look good and take credit for a problem they have actually created. It's not the landlords who profit from the drug money, it's the city and they profit big time through all the fees they charge realted to their criminal and predatory code enforcement. You should be ashamed of yourself. You pretend to be so "pro tenant" and slamming landlords who you accuse of exploiting them and on the other hand you are just fine with the city circumventing all due process rights of the same tenants when they city wants to falsely condemn their homes and throw them on the street.; 12:33 AM
Bob said...: 11:29;
I happen to think Chuck makes good sence and he is a man who would be more apt to reach out to the poor and less fortunate than you.

My response;
You do not know Chuck or I do you? I FEED and give shelter to the poor, often at my own expense. I donate countless hours doing free repairs on citizens homes who can't afford it. And I do it so code enforcement doesn't give them a bad time.

11:29;
Your to small of a man to wear my jacket Bob.

My response;
I have more self esteem and courage than most men I know. My sole runs deep, my conscience drives me, nothing shallow about me. I am as big as they come! I could be 3" tall and I'd be a bigger man than someone who sides with the criminal conduct of this city against it's citizens.

11:28;
How come we don't have more lawsuits for this shit if you really say it goes on ?

My response;
Because the city goes after the most vulnerable among us. Citizens who can not afford a lawsuit.

11:29;
The city doesn't throw anybody out on their ass that doesn't deserve it.

My response;
Who's word are we to take for that? Yours, "anonymous"?; 12:38 AM
Anonymous said...: "How come we don't have more lawsuits for this shit if you really say it goes on ?"

It's not Bob saying this shit goes on, it's the city's own inspectors and the city own documents and the city's own actions in destroying emails and inspection reports that would have been harmful to them.; 12:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuk what should be or should I say what is you rental application criteria?
Could you please enlighten us.

We all know that landlords can have a stiffer rental criteria now the the housing market went bust so why don't you tell me yours now and also tell me what it would have been 7-8 years ago on the eastside when your tenants were few and far between.Also a thing to remamber is you have a mortgage to pay,a vacant to fill or the city will blue tag it and xcel and water bills piling up.Tell us please!

Tom; 12:54 AM
Anonymous said...: He can't tell you and he won't unless it's some stupid BS that he's known for. On one hand the city tells the landlords who they do not want them renting to and when the landlord leaves the palce empty for a period of time so he can find a better tenant then the city comes in and does the blue tag so they can start raking in fees off of all the charges associated with it. Then their union masters have lots of work so they naturally contribute to the politicians at election time. Don't rock the boat here brother.....the city will keep them coming and the union will keep them broke.; 2:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh I forgot.........

The the politicians get to put on their smiley faces and start writing letters and emails to people thanking them for insuring their re-election.; 2:20 AM
10thCir Calif 42USs1983 said...: 10th Cir Interesting Read

Appeals Court Dismisses Section 1983 Suit against Municipal Officials Alleging Eminent Domain Was Used in Retaliation

Posted: 16 May 2009 08:14 AM PDT

In 1995, Sable purchased a parcel of property immediately north of a City public-works facility that included a fenced-in strip of land that had been the south half of a City street. Sable’s...
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2009/04/07-6286.pdf; 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: 12:41 AM said "How come we don't have more lawsuits for this shit if you really say it goes on ?"

The Ramsey Country Judges control lawsuit that are filed, and call them frivolous lawsuits, then they are rejected without merit.
The Lawyers have the Judges in there pockets, so how can anyone win when the odds are against them.; 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...: to 8:23 AM
That's a lie.
We have the most honest judges and attorneys in the nation, so don't say trash if you don't know.
This city had two Coleman's as mayor, that shows our attorney's are honest.
They had to be honest, they ran as Democrats.
"Hmmm" did they.; 8:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob, read the last five comments above this. That's why a focused discrimination suit wasn't filed I guess. People are damn determined to paint a county-wide conspiracy that's unprovable and unsupported with any evidence. They don't care about the discrimination afterall, they can't make money off policy changes.

Eric; 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: I have heard there are troubles of more than one kind.
Some come from ahead and some come from behind.
But I've bought a big bat. I'm all ready you see.
Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me!

~Dr. Seuss; 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow, sure got this thread fired up didn't I?

Thank you Bob for clarifying your position. It appeared at first that you were advocating that people shouldn't call the police when they saw criminal behavior going on and that crime was simply the problem of elected officials and the police department and if they would just wave their magic wand it would all go away.

I am pleased to see that once you thought about it you could see that calling the cops on suspected criminal behavior is a good thing.

As to being a "snitch" or a "stooley" and what happens in retaliation. Bob, I worked in corrections (half-way houses) from 1974 until 1989. For the last five years of that I was the guy that would call the cops into the building and have them escort some pretty heavy dudes back to prison for parole violations, for not completing the half way house. Nobody ever came looking for me for sending their ass back to prison.

But, (without knowing the details of the case you mentioned) there sure have been guys who were friends of bad actors, who hung with them, did drugs with them, did crime with them and then "snitched them out," who have had retaliation against them. There is something in the criminal mind that says that kind of action of befriending them and then stabbing them in the back that gets them upset. I would suggest that people don't regular hang out with thugs as a rule... (amazing the things one has to explain here, isn't it?)

As to the question about who someone should rent to or criteria one should use, I don't think that is the issue. The issue is what are your expectations of your tenants once they move in. How many police calls to the house are too many police calls? How much damage to the property is too much damage? And, how willing are you as a landlord to go through the eviction process because of behavior issues? Some landlords will suck it up and give someone the boot for police calls, others won't do a damn thing as long as the cash comes in.

That is the crucks of the issue with "code" and behavior problems. It sounds to me that landlords that boot people with behavior issues avoided being "coded to the max." Landlords who said, it isn't my problem if shots were fired into or from the house, got coded to the max.

JMONJTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Sharon - thanks for posting the link to the 10th cir case...

It is an interesting read and another example of two things:

1. Elected officials are giving immunity to allow them to govern without fear of personal law suit. This guy threaten new elected officials that they would be personally added to the suit if they didn't take action to support his view. This will be a text book case for those issues.

2. Eminent Domain...this land is your land this land is my land from the redwood forests to the gulf stream waters... It is one country owned by the people and the people have the right to reacquire their land as long as they give you just compensation. There is nothing in the constitution that gives you the kind of property rights that the Adam Smith's of the world would think you have.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:42 AM
Bob said...: Chuck, every "little" neighborhood issue doesn't need to be reported to the government. Often neighbors suspect who called them in to the city and a neighborhood feud of sorts comes of it. Then these neighbors start calling the cops and code enforcement on each other for anything they can think of. What a waste of city services entertaining pissed off neighbors whims for revenge.

Chuck in the past you advocated town house multi housing so neighbors in effect could keep an eye on each other. However, when you have been reported for your violations at your rental property you get mad as hell. I know for a fact if you knew who was turning you in they would have problems. So what is it, are you for neighbors snitching each other or against?; 12:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob, first as a community organizer and neighborhood activist, I always encourage neighbors to talk to each other. That is the point of the block club work that we do. In the neighborhood I work in, we actually invited the landlords to the meetings and we actually have gotten participation.

Yes, we have all seen the neighborhood spats that have become pissing matches that waste code enforcement and police department time. There isn't much anyone can do about that.

As to my place, what I have been ticked about is that it isn't my neighbors that have ever raised an issue, it has been the clowns on this list. It has been psycho's from here that want to prove that anytime they want to they can make the code people show up at my house and they do it again, and again and again... the last time they had them come for "over crowding" one week after the inspector had been there for "over crowding" and of course the inspector shows up and needs to get in to inspect the "over crowding" issue that was reported for the fourth time...

Yes, Bob ass holes are annoying, what can I tell you?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 1:03 PM
Bob said...: There maybe copy errors

INTRODUCTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs Thomas Gallagher and Joseph Collins were born and raised in St. Paul and in 1998 began providing rental housing in the City of St. Paul. Gallagher and
24
Collins are co-owners of Dadder’s Properties, LLC. Dadder’s Properties, LLC is the owner of three subsidiary limited liability companies, Dadder’s Holdings, Dadder’s Enterprises, and Dadder’s Estates, LLC. Their rental portfolio is diversified among these subsidiary limited liability companies owned by Dadder’s Properties, LLC. At the height of their business, they 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. Their tenant base had a majority of people of color and included Section 8 recipients. During the period of approximately 2002 through 2005, about Eighty percent (80%) of their tenants were African-American and mixed race couples. Approximately 10 of the 29 tenants have or did receive federal rent subsidies under the Section 8 program. In each of their rental properties that housed Section 8 tenants, they 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. APP. 117-119.
Plaintiff Troy Allison was born and raised in St. Paul and in February of 2005, started in the business of providing rental housing in the City of St. Paul. Allison is an independent business owner, having operated a handyman business and dumpster roll-off business since 2004. Allison was the owner of seven (7) rental properties within the City of St. Paul. Four (4) of his seven (7) tenants received Section 8 assistance or
25
other assistance. Four (4) of his seven (7) tenants were members of a protected class. In each of his rental properties that housed Section 8 tenants, he passed the PHA inspection before being approved for receipt of Section 8 rent subsidies. Due to the Defendants’ conduct, he lost each of these properties to foreclosure in 2006. APP. 292-294.
Jeff and Sara Kubitschek are residents of White Bear Township. The Kubitschek’s started in the business of providing rental housing in the City of St. Paul in 1999. The Kubitschek’s were owners of four (4) rental properties within the City of St. Paul. Seven (7) of their eight (8) tenants received Section 8 assistance or other assistance. All eight (8) of their tenants were members of a protected class. In each of their rental properties that housed Section 8 tenants, they passed the PHA inspection before being approved for receipt of Section 8 rent subsidies. APP. 343-344.
26; 10:24 PM
Bob said...: There maybe copy errors.

Disparate Treatment
Plaintiffs make a claim for disparate treatment under the FHA. Disparate treatment, which occurs when some people are treated less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, “is the most easily understood type of discrimination.” Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 n.15 (1977). Proof of discriminatory motive is crucial to a disparate treatment claim. Id. Plaintiffs may survive summary judgment on their disparate treatment claims by presenting either “direct evidence” of discrimination or “creating the requisite inference of unlawful discrimination” under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973). See Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004); East-Miller v. Lake County Highway Dept., 421 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing between “direct evidence” and McDonnell Douglas framework in FHA context).
A plaintiff with direct evidence that illegal discrimination motivated the adverse action does not need the three-part McDonnell Douglas analysis to survive summary
40
judgment, even if the strong evidence is circumstantial. See Griffith, 387 F.3d at 736. A plaintiff who lacks evidence that clearly points to the presence of an illegal motive, however, can only avoid summary judgment by creating the requisite inference of unlawful discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Id. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Gilbert v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll., 495 F.3d 906, 914 (8th Cir. 2007). If the defendant offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to put forth evidence showing the defendant’s proffered explanation is a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Id.
Although Plaintiffs did not cite the McDonnell Douglas case until their analysis under their §1981 analysis, Plaintiffs still provided a three-part McDonnell Douglas analysis in their discussion of the Fair Housing claims: the City operates with a discriminatory environment and attitude in housing code enforcement, the City claims that the actions are legitimate to achieve their policy objectives, and there is a reasonable alternative in the PP2000 program to achieve those policy objectives through non-discriminatory means.
In the facts section above, a December 19, 2005 email message from Jane
41
Prince, legislative aide to former council member Jay Benanav, is discussed in which Ms. Prince states: “the issue of how a complaint based system may unfairly target people of color is a huge one, and I’m not sure what we do to get at it...they can help us think through the very real possibility that people color are targeted by the city’s complaint based system.” APP 7. The reason a complaint based system can possibly target people of color is because the complaint based system is used for reasons other than housing code enforcement, “to achieve particular outcomes” as stated by Mr. Kessler, such as addressing behavior issues better suited for Police.
With respect to PHA, “The parties agree that African-Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of low income tenants in both private and PHA housing.” Order p. 12. From at least 1995, the City and PHA have known that the City’s more stringent code standards are applied to Section 8 and privately owned rental properties occupied disproportionately by “protected class” members.; 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: This attorney is spinning your city buddies down the river Repke. You'll have some bullshit spin about why the city is right but in the end the landlords are going to win and some of these city officials will go to jail for their part in this ordeal. Wanna make a wager Chcuk?; 12:08 AM
Anonymous said...: This example..."Prince, legislative aide to former council member Jay Benanav, is discussed in which Ms. Prince states: “the issue of how a complaint based system may unfairly target people of color is a huge one, and I’m not sure what we do to get at it...they can help us think through the very real possibility that people color are targeted by the city’s complaint based system.” - is why the landlord's case has no chance.

It is a statement from the City that they are conscience of the potential of a complaint based system being discriminatory and were working to make sure that it didn't have discriminatory outcomes. There is another example that they use where Thune says in effect, in an email to someone the same kind of concerns.

You can't have a better defence for the City than to show them consciously policing the system.

Sorry folks that is evidence that the City was watching to make sure the system was fair.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...: You've got two sides on here:
Side One:
Is open out front with everything. You know their real names, where they live and their political affiliations.

When side one posts, they usually pull out a specific premise and either deconstruct it in a procedural explanation, or highlight a logical fallacy in the opposing viewpoint.

Side Two:
Post Anonymously or use a fake name. No one knows if they are citizens or not or what their stake in this is. Point to a court filing as their case for their position and use anonymous sources to back up the non-points they present.

When directly confronted, they attack the race and/or political affiliations of the opposition, but, rarely if ever engage on the evidence.

Side two uses inflammatory rhetoric alone to try and make their point.

Who's spinning who?

Eric; 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: The system was and is anythng but fair Chuck. Fixed courts, fabricated violations and bending the rules to advance agendas does not equal fair.; 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob, you of course are excluded as you seem to have individual case/cases that are not related to the lawsuit but gin up that same sentiment toward the public servants.

Bill Cullen is also excluded as he uses his real name and his agenda is different.

Eric; 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: The system was and is anythng but fair Chuck. Fixed courts, fabricated violations and bending the rules to advance agendas does not equal fair.-
-
-
-
And in three plus years, no one has been able to sustain proof of any of those accusations, well beyond accusations.

1. Fixed courts?
Then why sue in the first place. Are you retarded? Who has the sway to 'fix' a FEDERAL court? These courts take down billionaires, terrorists, crooked politicians and judges, and deadly mobsters. Who? Who? Who has that kind of power in little St Paul?

2. Fabricated violations?
I hear the accusations but, yet to see any evidence that questionable violations were not coupled with real violations.

3.Bending the rules to advance the agenda?
What rules were bent to advance what agenda?

Eric; 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...: "2. Fabricated violations?
I hear the accusations but, yet to see any evidence that questionable violations were not coupled with real violations."

Fabricate violations are not questionable violations and coupling them to real violations doesn't make the city city actions of lies = violations right.; 12:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Unless you have experienced first hand of just what it is that Judges in Ramsey County do when pro-se litigants bring cases, then you have no idea what they go through when their cases are thrown out of court as frivilious.

Of course there are some frivilous filers, but the ones that do very well and attack the Government get harassed by court clerks, filings get lost, judges grant summary judgement against you contrary to the law and facts, sheriffs improperly serve or fail to serve on time,pleadings, AND, if you can get to the court of appeals, I personnaly have learned that some of these judges are no better.

Someone here said and I happen to believe it, that judges are schooled on how to harass and get rid of pro-se litigants.

If you do not believe me, the internet is a great source for stories that support my conclusions and the facts about judicial corruption.

So, St.Paul has its judges in their back pockets to put down
those who fight the city.

Judge Johnson,Gearin,Mott,Lindman,
Stephenson for starters.

Not that the federal Court Judges are any better, but as far as the RICO plaintiffs are concerned, they were smart to stay out of Ramsey County courts.

Eric, you don't have a clue about Ramsey Court Judges.; 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: www.caught.net/prose/bias.hth; 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: I have no doubt that almost any court in the country has problems with pro-se litigants.

I would hazard to guess that with an overflowing court docket that most judges cringe when they see a pro-se litigant because it means that they will often be faced with someone who knows little or nothing of the law and absolutely nothing about proper procedures in court.

They have a hard enough time with people who can't afford representation in civil matters and have to just shake their head when they walk into the court room facing a private citizen that thinks they have a federal case.

Having to over explain themselves and to have to try and get proper responses for the pro-se litigants who far to often are a little bit teched or at least have a cross to bear...

It can't be pleasant.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric, you don't have a clue about Ramsey Court Judges.
12:29 PM-
-
Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That has nothing to do with this particular case.

Want to guess why?

This was dismissed by the FEDERAL bench. Not the county bench.

You are part of the problem and why so many here are bitching about everything but the suit- which is the only thing Chuck and I have said from the beginning was going nowhere.

You want to correct yourself or just lump it in with all of the baseless bitching?

Eric; 2:19 PM
caught_judicial misconduct said...: Correct URL

http://caught.net/; 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck or Eric, you guys care to comment on the website ?

Guess this shit really happens, and, both of you are in denial.

Except maybe Chuck a little.

But, you both miss the point that really, just because judges can get frustrated by some pro se litigants, is not justification for judges to ignore the law and resort to illegal conduct and collusion with court staff and law enforcement to get rid of them.

I have done some very,very good pro se legal work in court and still, they find a way to muck up the works for you.

If, and I say IF, you are lucky enough to get past the pre-trial stage and get a court trial, watch out, because a corrupt judge will will then make unwarrented evidentiary rulings against you, allow the other side to introduce evidence and testimony not normally permitted, and do everything in his power to over rule your objections, mis quote the law and make unreasonable demands upon you that he wouldn't for the opposition.

Ask your attorney lover Chuck.

And Eric, it has everything to do with this case because if the RICO guys can win, that will say alot about what I am saying here.

These judges were caught siding with Government because theeir Government. Thats wrong.; 11:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Making unwarranted evidentiary rulings and misquoting the law?

HA!!!!!!

The judges do it all the time even when people have attornies.; 6:20 AM
Anonymous said...: judges to ignore the law of pro se people has been a common practice, by Judge Larry Cohen.
If you don't have a attorney, they don't even give you the time of day.; 7:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Anyone that knows an Attorney will tell you that even the Attorneys complain about Judges that just do what they want and the hell with what the law says. Ramsey County is especially bad.; 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: And Eric, it has everything to do with this case because if the RICO guys can win, that will say alot about what I am saying here.

These judges were caught siding with Government because theeir Government. Thats wrong.-
-
-
And what if they lose? Oh wait, they are appealing a ruling that already dismissed them. So, they lost. That also says a lot about what your saying.

Judges are government. You may have forgotten that the Judicial branch is the third branch of government.

Because you don't agree, don't make them wrong, all the time.

You are big fool if you show up to court without an attorney. I don't dispute a traffic ticket without advice from counsel.

Eric; 7:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Not everyone can afford an Attorney Eric. In fact I would venture to say that the majority of the people in the country cannot afford Attorneys. At $300. to $400. an hour, who could?; 8:07 AM
Anonymous said...: I mean it would NOT have taken three years...

Besides, why are people still arguing RICO when it appears that FAIR HOUSING is the suit du jour now?

Eric; 1:33 PM
Stavros Kiriakos said...: Why are no social service agencies, non-profits, civil rights, legal aid or any organizations that fight the powers that be in the name of the protective classes involved in this?Because they are all in bed - literally and figuratively - with the City Council and the City DFL?; 1:58 PM
Bob said...: There maybe copy errors

Constitutional Rights.
§1983
Plaintiffs make claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for alleged violations of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Success on a §1983 claim requires a showing of: “(1) [a] violation of a constitutional right, (2) committed by a state actor, (3) who acted with the requisite culpability and causation to violate the constitutional right.” Shrum v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773, 777 (8th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs allege violations of their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection as a result of the City’s code enforcement policies. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires state actors to treat similarly situated people alike and permits state actors to treat dissimilarly situated people dissimilarly. Ganley v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., 491 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 2007). As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs must establish that Defendants treated them differently from similarly situated landlords. Id. In addition to unequal treatment, Plaintiffs must also show intentional or purposeful discrimination. See Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007).
The facts and evidence submitted in support of discriminatory intent to prove their FHA claims also supports Plaintiffs §1983 claims. The City’s discriminatory environment and attitude in housing code enforcement, force ownership change
45
strategy and eviction strategy were known by the City to eliminate affordable housing and to have a disproportionate impact on protected class members.
Plaintiffs make a “class of one” equal protection argument based on the City’s preferential treatment of the St. Paul Public Housing Agency. The purpose of a class-of-one equal protection claim is “to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.” Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Plaintiffs may prevail on their class-of-one claim by showing they have been “intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Id.; see also Costello v. Mitchell Pub. School Dist. 79, 266 F.3d 916, 921 (8th Cir. 2001).
The parties agree that African-Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of low income tenants in both private and PHA housing. ADD. 12. From at least 1995, the City and PHA have known that the City’s more stringent code standards are applied to privately owned rental properties occupied disproportionately by “protected class” members. The City’s “minimum housing maintenance code” was actually “more stringent” 82% of the time when compared to the federal mandated Housing Quality Standards (HQS) applicable to federally subsidized, Section 8 “low
46
income” housing in the City. APP 109. The City and PHA privately admitted that HUD would not approve a City and PHA plan to substitute the City’s higher code for HQS in Section 8 inspections of privately owned low-income rental housing because HUD, the City and PHA recognized that application of a higher code standard to City housing stock would adversely affect availability of affordable housing stock. APP 416.; 9:44 PM
Bob said...: There maybe copy errors

Substantive Due Process

Plaintiffs contend Defendants’ enforcement of the housing code violated their substantive due process rights. Plaintiffs must show that a governmental power was exercised arbitrarily and oppressively to succeed on their substantive due process claims. See Rozman v. City of Columbia Heights, 268 F.3d 588, 591 (8th Cir. 2001). The government action must be arbitrary in the constitutional sense. Id. “[T]he theory of substantive due process is properly reserved for truly egregious and extraordinary cases.” Id.
Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment because the City’s enforcement of the housing code in a discriminatory environment and manner is truly egregious - aggressive, force ownership change strategy and eviction strategies - even with a facially neutral housing code, were not necessary for achieving their policy objectives. In fact, it was documented that their PP2000
47
program was a great success in achieving their policy objectives.
Further, evidence presented to the Court also demonstrates that the Defendants applied an illegal “code compliance” requirement in violation of State law and selectively to Plaintiffs and other private owners, but not to PHA who was similarly situated with problem properties and poor housing stock. The City’s “Code Compliance Inspection Certification” requirement for older homes to be stripped of their “grandfathering” protections under the State Building Code and brought to “present code” is a significant burden to older homes and all other illegal and retaliatory actions are designed to accomplish that main illegal goal in the City’s discriminatory environment and attitude in housing code enforcement. Defendants have no discretion to violate State law, and have no legitimate policies, interests or objectives that justify the deliberate violation of State law by requiring code compliance certification and stripping grandfathering protections for older homes.
Portions of the City’s own code recognize the “Building Code under which” a building was “originally constructed”. For example, City’s 2002-03 Minimum Property Maintenance Standards for all Structures and Premises, Sections 34.09 (2) (a) and (b); and 34.10 (2), (3) (“maintained in accordance with the Building Code in effect when originally constructed”). Don Hedquist’s supplemental report details the Defendants’ violations of the State Building Code.; 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Repke it looks like it's all over now.; 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: A lot of people here think there's nothing to this case but I see some very serious issues and will be more than suprised if this doesn't go to trial. How could it not with issues liek these present?; 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: A lot of people will go to great lengths to be dismissive about this case, but the serious issues don't go away.; 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: But the "serious issues" are nonsense.

A select group of private land owners who have had code violations on their property and the governments public housing agency are not "similarly situated." They just aren't.

The City doesn't order other government agencies to comply with ordinances, it informs them and expects compliance. The City wouldn't send the parks crew to pick up trash on PHA property when PHA already pays people to to pick up the trash and the City can't add an assessment to the property taxes for work done when PHA DOESN'T PAY PROPERTY TAXES.

The only way that the City would intervene in another government owned building was if it was so bad it had to shut it down on the spot.

My only question is how much money are these lawyers stealing from the landlords because Nancy or Sharon could have represented them at least as well if not better.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:21 AM
Crimes Against Humanity said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: "The City doesn't order other government agencies to comply with ordinances, it informs them and expects compliance."

Oh really! What other government agencies do not have to comply with the building codes Chuck?

What other agencies force people to live in dealdy mold situations for years without correcting it?

What other slumlord besides PHA has homes so bad that they need $40,000.00 in repairs?; 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: OK. How about Kelly Brisson and Frank Steinhauser.; 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Where did it say that either of these two had 40 grand worth of vioaltions? I remember something about that they had violations but so what, everyone in the city has violations. I also remember something Bob had posted a while back where the inspectors themselves were saying all of these landlords were good landlords, so what's your point 4:07?; 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Steve Magner wanted Kelly Brisson out of the neighborhood because he was a junk collector and did not complete the rehab of his home in what Magner considered a timely manner. Brisson parked his dumpy looking tow truck in the street and often dragged home junk and placed it and dumpsters on the lot next store. The owner of the lot next door received a code enforcement demand every time Brisson had a dumpster or junk care or other unsightly item on the lot next door. Was Brisson a neighborhood nuisance? Yes. However, when Steve Magner took Brisson up to the "next level" as Magner refers to how he deals with problem property owners, Brisson's rights were raped and violated in a way that should never happen in any city. Every citizen of St Paul would be totally discusted if they knew how Brisson was treated. If they could force him to lose his house, they could and will do it to anyone they choose. The reason so few people come forward is some folks still have to deal with the code department and they know how they can single people out that they don't like.; 8:25 PM

A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL

Thursday, May 14, 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS/ Saint Paul Fair Houising Lawsuits

107 Comments:

Previous Posts