IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS/ Part 2 Steinhauser Fair Housing Lawsuit
posted by Bob at Monday, June 15, 2009
Custom Search
Monday, June 15, 2009
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Brothers Prove Cops Wrong With Video
- FRAZEE MN./ Civil Rights Take A Back Seat To Small...
- From our neighbors in Fargo.
- Port Authority drops effort to condemn St. Paul bu...
- Follow-up report says Metro Gang Strike Force didn...
- Minneapolis cops bust 'nice guys' sex ring
- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS/ Steinhauser...
- PHA/ Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Project-Bas...
- Document shredding puts Strike Force in doubt
- Saint Paul/ Re: Uniform Egress Window Policy
41 Comments:
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". APP1560-67.
Bill Cullen, former president ofSt. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords
(SP ARL) 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 - how would the landlords like it of
they didn't have to deal with tenants at the bottom ofthe market - "if all those tenants
that are at the bottom ... were no longer in St. Paul". Docket 217-25,p.l;217-26,pp.7-
9;217-27,p.14. Cullen remembers being "shocked" by Dawkins' comments.
Defendants knowledge of Minority Concentration in Inner City
Kelly and Dawkins were finally able to implement their 1995"Change of Ownership" strategy in the inner city of Saint Paul by adopting the "heightened
standard," applying "code to max" (Ex. 298, 3rd Shoemaker Aff.,50147-50158) and
bringing "heavy enforcement" (Ex. 84 ,3'd Engel Aff) down on i=er city property owners, primarily low-income landlords with so called, "problem properties," a
definition that varied from neighborhood to neighborhood. Docket 218-17, p.17.
Caty Royce testified concerning the history of City's discriminatory
demolition of protected class housing in the Lakewood and the many examples of
where neighbors used code enforcement to get rid of her Blacks tenants. APP1217-
1256.
Successful program PP2000 and City's continuing the working
relationship with Problem Property owner PHA is evidence of intentional
discrimination
The City Police worked with PHA on criminal behavior issues. Both the
City and PHA considered PHA rental properties to fall within the definition of
"problem properties." However, Defendants penalized private landlords for
alleged bad behavior, and abused their code enforcement authority in their claimed attempt to address bad behavior, all resulting in predictable disparate impact on
protected class tenants. APP 1117 [Hedquist Report].
City Abandoned successfully PP2000 program in Retaliation
Defendants suddenly decided to abandon the successful PP2000 Program
with private rental property owners that the inspectors called "successful".
APP428, 429-431. However the City continued its separate working relationship
with PHA, a program similar in many respects to PP2000. The abandonment of a
successful program (APP33-36) that reduced complaints, satisfactorily addressed
the interests oftenants, landlords, neighbors and the City, and the adoption of a
heavy-handed, forced sale policy surely could be viewed by a reasonable person as
retaliation against the PP2000 landlords and those who purchased their properties,
because Plaintiffs and other such landlords continued to rent to the same class of
tenants, the "protected class".
The Court also ignored the evidence that not one of the Plaintiffs received
and assistance or other resources from the City or federal government to assist them
in renovations or repairs to my older rental properties. No one from the city, including the inspectors, ever identified for them any programs that would provide
resources needed to continue to provide affordable housing in the City.
There is 30 some pages of this appeal left. I will get it up as soon as possible.
Caty Royce would never say "my black tenants," EVER! That would imply some type of ownership of another human being, or their essence, which of course i abhor.
i might have said tenant members of the community stabilization project, but "MY" tenants, NEVER.
Thank you for clarifying that Caty
Bob, just another good example of how the landlords have tried to manipulate what Caty and everyone else said to paint the case as race based when there is no evidence that it was.
I don't want to put words in Caty's mouth, but time and time and time again she expressed frustration to me that the City wasn't more aggressive in using the tenant remedies act to TAKE the properties from the bad landlords and use the rent monies to make the need repairs on the property so that low income tenants of all races could live in good places.
You guys never talk about those comments.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Or... the dozens of tenants who didn't have the advocacy of Caty. Those who simply lived within those conditions until they were able to move.
Now all we need is Sara Anderson to clarify her statement.
I expect Bill Cullen to stick to his fabrication.
Eric
City's Destruction of Written Communicatious Related to Intent, Motive
After this litigation commenced, Defendants destroyed virtually all of their written internal and external cOlmnunications - these written communications naturally were relevant to Plaintiffs' claims and Defendants claims of immunity. Moreover, the
destroyed written communications clearly related to intent and motive under the disparate
treatment analysis.
Frank Steinhauser:
Frank Steinhauser owned 15 rental homes with 23 rental units providing housing
primarily to very low-income women with children that were placed through the
assistance of Project Hope, a low-income tenant housing agency promoting permanent
housing options for the homeless, with partial funding from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. APP460. More than ninety (90) percent of
Steinhauser's tenants were African-American women and children and other members
of the "protected class". Id. Steinhauser was a long-time participant in the federal
Section 8 program and during 2002 through 2004, he had three Section 8 tenants. Id.
In 1999, Steinhauser was assigned a code inspector to work with him on reducing complaints under the City's major initiative called, "Problem Properties
2000" or "PP2000".APP.460. Complaints against Steinhauser's properties dropped off considerably during and after the PP2000 program due to the working relationship
between Steinhauser and City inspectors Jeff Hawkins and later Joel Essling. rd.
During the PP2000 program, Steinhauser continued monitoring his rental properties on
a daily basis. rd ..
During 2001 through 2004, Steinhauser did not change his successful approach
to providing low-income housing under "PP2000"; he continued to frequently monitor
his rental homes, timely respond to requests from tenants, worked with City inspectors
and City police on all issues brought to his attention, and continued to invest in his
properties where necessary to maintain all properties to City codes. rd.
Councilmember Kathy Lantry has known since 1998 that Steinhauser rented
primarily to low-income African-Americans and prior to fall 2002 Lantry would
frequently call Steinhauser to inform me that neighbors of his rental properties were
complaining about his tenant; she stated that he was single handedly destroying the
property values in the neighborhoods where those rental properties were located. rd.
Starting in about the fall of2002, the City suddenly increased its code enforcement activity on five of Steinhauser's fifteen rental homes. rd. The
increased code enforcement attention directed against his rental homes and business
included exterior and interior inspections, fabricated correction orders, shortening of time lines for fixing any claimed deficiency, false condemnations and the illegal
requirement of "Code Compliance certifications" on two homes, two civil lawsuits,
a retaliation against Steinhauser after he commenced suit in this case through
criminal charges by Martin and fellow PPU member Maureen Dolan for claimed
failure to complete exterior painting during an extremely wet spring 2004. Id.
Dawkins created a "Distressed Properties" and published the list on his City
website - the list included Steinhauser's 910 6th st., 1024 Euclid, 719 Sherburne,
118 Litchfield and 953 Wilson. APP460. Steinhauser's rental properties were not
distressed in any sense as they were all occupied by African-Americans, or mixed
race couples except for one unit, were well-maintained, were cash-flowing prior to
Defendants commencement of targeting, taxes, mortgage and contract for deed
payments were current and all City charges were paid. Id. Dawkins' action injured
Steinhauser's business. Id.
LaChaka Cousette testified that Martin and Koehen made statements that other properties of Steinhauser's were going to be condemned.
This show a predetermined outcome by PPU and Dawkins carrying Lantry's water.
Martin encourage Cousette to sue Steinhauser. Cousette and her children were
displaced, having an adverse impact on the family.
Martin, Keohen and Dawkins issued false code violations claims on
Steinhauser's 910 6th street and 1024 Euclid, when most of demanded repairs had
already been completed by time Martin Dawkins condemn duplexes. APP460.
Dawkins and Martin then demanded code compliances on both properties saying
the code compliance would be to existing code in order to reoccupy. Steinhauser
agreed to the code compliance only to learn the City would only allow reoccupancy
when a Code Compliance Certification to "present code" was
completed. That removed the grandfathering protections and resulting in significant
costs. APP460.
Steinhauser commenced suit in federal court and within a few weeks Martin issued two criminal tags for failure to paint the outside of homes during wet spring.
A pp460. Steinhauser was required to hire attorney to defend himself at considerable expense. Id. On the day of trial, the City simply dismissed the action.
Martin stated on a probable cause worksheet "This is the PO that has sued us in federal court for harassment!!
FRIVILOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting how these self serving nothings sit around like arm chair quarter backs snickering that what these people went through was frivolous but if half of it happened to them they'd want to barbeque someone and they wouldn't care who!
Folks READ what is in the statements...
Steinhauser owned 23 properties in Saint Paul and almost all of them were having problems. So, much so that a City staff person was assign FOR TWO YEARS (2000-2002)to baby sit Steinhauser and try to get him to take care of his properties.
So, for two years Steinhauser has his private staff person assigned by the City to try and help him manage his properties free of charge.
So, two years later the City quits providing this free service to Steinhauser and guess what the number of violations goes up! Imagine that... what does that tell you?
Well if you believe this crap it is that all of the sudden the City started a criminal conspiracy to get poor Mr Steinhauser and rid the City of the 40% of the population that is of color....or if you had a brain in your head they were fed up with his mismanagement and weren't going to hold his hand any more.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Hi All,
I have received one phone call and 2 emails doubting Caty Royce posted here. I emailed Caty and I am waiting for her reply to see if an imposter used her name.
Chcuks statements would actually mean something if he were to take into account that this guy was the only constant in the equation. What Chuck forgets to tell you is that also in the mix is the behavior of the renters, the predjudice of the neighbors, the damage caused by the renters and the political agenda going on behind the scenes with city council members among other things. Private staff? What's that about? It seems the city had a problem too with all these racist neighbors that the city council had to appease plus the behavior crap on top of that. What should the city have done Chuck? Nothing?
Look I have almost twenty years of dealing with neighborhood complaints in one issue or another.
The plaintiff tried to use as evidence a council member and a staff to a council member confronting racism of neighbors as proof that the City was racist. That is how upside down the case is.
Elected officials and community based organizations if they are worth their salt figure out which landlord is trying to work with the community and which isn't. Which is giving eviction notices to tenants that destroy their property and which ignore it. And they also learn what neighbors are racist crackpots and which have real concerns.
A lot of us weren't born yesterday and I'm guessing that is the way the court reads this stuff.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck refuses to look at this situation in its totality but rather tries to compartmentalize things and isolate them thus making the whole thing easier to dosmiss. The court will not read it this way Chuck. They'll consider the totlaity of the illegla acts.
Hi All,
The comment in question by Caty. It was Caty's comment.
4:37 - what "illegal acts..."
That is the point in my comments. You have to actually read what is said by the plaintiffs and say is that real and did the actually show any evidence? There is a difference between and accusation and evidence.
You can accuse anyone you want of corruption but you actually need evidence to have a case.
Like this:
Steinhauser's 910 6th street and 1024 Euclid, when most of demanded repairs had already been completed by time Martin Dawkins condemn duplexes.
When you actually READ it, the key word is MOST. So, it wasn't done and they aren't even saying it was done, just that MOST of it was done by the deadline, so the City shouldn't have condemned the properties as they told him they were going to do if the work wasn't DONE... they should have given him another extension. You see the law shouldn't apply to Steinhauser...it just shouldn't and to make the law apply to him is somehow to have acted "illegally."
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck sarcastically said:
When you actually READ it, the key word is MOST. So, it wasn't done and they aren't even saying it was done, just that MOST of it was done by the deadline ... if the work wasn't DONE... they should have given him another extension . . . to make the law apply to him is somehow to have acted "illegally."
Chuck, the city has been acting arbitrary, capricious, erratic, and unprecedented in it's enforcement. Nobody has ever even attempted to enforce all codes because it's impossible. Your arguments don't hold water.
No, but when the City has written orders on my property (thank you very much) I had to do the work. There were orders to paint my house and I had to paint it.
No excuses. No the sun got in my eyes so I couldn't do it... the law applied to me, because they wrote me up.
It should be the same for Steinhauser except for one thing. He has enough money that he is use to getting his way and not being told what to do by anyone. So, he is pissing away all this money on lawyers to try and show the City that the law shouldn't apply to him because he has the dough to do what he wants to do.
To argue that because the City does not have the ability to write everyone in the city up for every violation all at the same time, so that we all are treated fairly and if not then it can't write anyone up is insane.
That is the essence of the issue here. Any discrimination is that because the guy down the street didn't get written up then I shouldn't either.
Its garbage.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Mark Meysembourg: In November 2002, Meysembourg received correction
orders on his duplex at 970 Euclid St. after Martin and Keohnen forced entry to
both units. APP657-766. The lower unit was rented by African-Americans. Martin then issued orders to Meysembourg which included false claims of
code violations. Id. When Meysembourg challenged the entry and false orders at a
City hearing with assistance from his tenants, "Koehnen stood up and stepped into
the isle in direct line with the tenant, spread his feet, folded his arms and glared at
each tenant, all in an attempt I believe to intimidate my tenant witnesses. Id.
Koehnen continued this intimating conduct through the testimony of my tenants."
APP. Keohen has a history of using his "size" to influence situations at properties.
APP15.
Martin, Magner and Koehnen and Dawkins retaliated even though
Meysembourg had completed many of ordered repairs. APP657. Magner, Martin
and Dawkins falsely claiming the duplex had no boiler relief valve, and on that
false basis, condemned the duplex, prohibiting Meysembourg from renting the
duplex to protected class tenants. APP657. Magner, Martin and Dawkins required
a Code Compliance Certification, represented to Meysembourg "as built" when in
fact the City was using a "present code" with removal of grandfathering
protections. APP657. As a result the duplex was removed from the market for
months and Meysembourg sustained significant costs to meet the illegal demands.
Id.
45
Inspector Seeger testifies that the Code Compliance did not require any work
to the boiler. Docket 220-8,p.7-8.
Hedquist reported that the claim by Defendants was false as there were relief
valves on the boiler as required by code. APPI037. Hedquist also opined that the
claimed violations for the February 3, 2003 condemnation did not rise to the level
of a condemnable structure. APPI037 (page 19-10 report).
Kelly Brisson:
Robinson condemned Brisson's entire duplex on October 9, 2003, for five
claimed code violations related solely to the upper unit; he did not have access to
the first floor unit. APP1206-1213 (pp.203, 212, 219-222, 237-238). Robinson's
10-9-03 Condemnation Notice was copied to PHA - Section 8 - so he and NHPI
inspectors did know at the time of condemnation that the lower unit was federally
subsidized. Id. At the time ofthe Condemnation, the City considered Brisson's
duplex remodeling project to be 95% complete. APP767 (Exh 12 Brisson Aff., pg
7); APP1206-1213 (pp. 229-230).
Brisson appealed Robinson's condemnation but the City denied his appeal
and Robinson had sent it to vacant buildings and they had made it a category 2
vacant building requiring a code compliance inspection. APP 1206-12l3 (p.218).
46
Leo Sider, Brisson's Section 8 tenant testified that shortly after Robinson and
Dawkins condemned the entire duplex, Sider's disabled girlfriend moved in to the
lower unit, Sider then moved to the upstairs unit, as both units were inspected and
approved for HQS Section 8 payments. Docket 217-5, pp7-9.
Earlier in August 2003, Magner was seeking to have Brisson's rental duplex
stay in condemned status, order to vacate stay in place and building referred to
vacant buildings and a code compliance required. APP 1206-12l3 (pp.23 8-39.
Martin, Koehnen and Dawkins notices of condemnations of 297 Burgess in
July and August 2003 had stated that due to the number of violations, a code
compliance was required. APP 1206-1213. Brisson stated that many of the items
claimed by Martin and Dawkins as code violations in the summer 2003 were
actually false. APP767; APPI037(pp8-9).
Sandra Harrilal
In 2003, Harrilal purchased 704 Lawson from Ray Hessler. APP828. Thereafter,
Martin, Dawkins, Magner and Koehnen continued to consider the 704 Lawson
property a "problem property long after Hessler had sold the home. APP885.
Harrilal's tenants in 704 Lawson were African-Americans. APP828. She
registered her property with the City. Id. Harrrial also had a second rental property
47
with a Section 8 African-American from 2003-2004. Although Martin and
Dawkins had access to Harrilal' s rental registration - her Charles Street home
address - Martin and Dawkins coordinated a scheme of deliberately failing to use
proper notice methods on important code orders, civil suits, and excessive
consumption claims. APP828.
The first code notice from Martin was mailed to the rental property not
Harrilal's home and predictably Harrilal received no notice. rd. Martin and
Dawkins then prepared a civil suit against Harrilal for failure to correct claimed
deficiencies. rd. CSP posted a flyer on Harrilal's rental home showing that
Dawkins office had informed CSP that the Code Enforcement was considering
condemning the home because the City considered it to be a nuisance problem
property. Docket 212-4, p3. Harrilal had not had any nuisance activity at her rental
property since she purchased it. APP828. Dawkins and Martin orders and civil suit
papers included false claims of code violations. rd.
Harrilal was forced to defend herself in Ramsey County District and hired an
attorney to protect her interests. APP828. Harrilal made observations of her
neighborhood that there were many homes and garages in similar condition to her
rental property and homes and garages in bad condition, not like her home. rd.
48
During the civil suit, Martin continued to write orders on Harrilal's 704 Lawson
rental property and then she and Dawkins used a delayed mailing scheme whereby
postmarking and mailing of important code orders, excessive consumption of city
services and rental registration appeal information were delayed 15 or more days.
Id. The delayed mailings came after Harrilal's attorney was forced to aggressively
defend Harrilal before fellow Problem Property Unit member Maureen Dolan, a
City Prosecutor. Id. Dawkins and Martin's delayed mailing were in retaliation for
Harrilal defending her tenants and her properties interests. Although Harrilal had
been able to work with Section 8 and had passed HQS inspection on her second
rental property, as a receipt of the City's heavy enforcement and illegal notice and
false claims tactics, loss of rental income from extended code fights with Martin
and Dawkins, she was forced to sell her so-called "Problem Property" just as
Dawkins had pla=ed. APP828.
Hedquist opined that based upon his review of the evidence, both of
Harrilal's rental properties were well maintained and managed. APPI075. Hedquist
stated that his opinions were also based upon his inspections of the properties of
Harrilal and Plaintiffs, as well as visual inspection of properties of the neighbors of
Plaintiffs included Harrilal, review of photographs of homes in the City owned by
49
PHA, City officials and employees and others and his professional experience.
Hedquist stated that based upon the continued code enforcement actions from the
City, the City's lawsuit against her and related costs, the costs of time and required
repairs, and interference with her rental business, Harrilal was force to sell both her
rental properties. Id.
Hi All,
I deleted some off topic comments. Please don't take this personaly. I am only trying to keep this subject on topic.
What's FAIR ABOUT HOUSING IN ST.PAUL, IF YOUR NAME ISN'T -----
OR -----
So, 970 Euclid is a great example of the new spin the landlords have done in the last few months of their case concerning new code vs as built code; they said:
"Magner, Martin and Dawkins required a Code Compliance Certification, represented to Meysembourg "as built" when in
fact the City was using a "present code" with removal of grandfathering"
So, with a quick check one finds that 970 Euclid was built in 1885.
So, what would have been the building code in 1885? Was there indoor plumbing then? NO! Was there electricity in Saint Paul? NO! Gas lights or candles; fire place for heat, shit in the outhouse, no review of the wiring.
Yes they have a great case there that Dawkins and company were picking on them to require that they had a working furnace, up to code wiring, indoor plumbing...
The nerve of those guys...
These lawyers are taking Morris v Sax to its ultimate insanity and it will never hold water.
Big L on the forehead for that one.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
FYI - the White House didn't get electricity until 1889... you could look it up.
So, if you buy this case the FEDERAL judge would have to agree that cities are discriminating against landlords if they require them to have electrical service and their house was built before 1915 (which would have been about when the first electric service came to Saint Paul).
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Steve Johnson:
Johnson's owned over 40 low-income rental properties consisting of primarily
single family and duplex rental homes located in the neighborhoods adjacent to the
City's inner core in the neighborhoods with heavy concentrations of minorities.
APP887. During 2002 through 2004, Johnson's tenants included a majority of"people
of color" and included a high percentage of Section 8 recipients. Id.
Following the illegal posting by Inspector Kalis of Johnson's 469 Whitall in
early 2003 as "vacant building" and requirement that he go through a "code
Compliance Certification, Johnson attempting to defend his rental business from
targeted and coordinated attacks on his properties and tenants through appeals. Id.
Debbie Doolittle deposition -Ms. Doolittle testified that due to Lippert's
condemnation and immediate order to vacate, she and her disabled partner were
displaced from their home they were renting from Plaintiff Steve Johnson.
50
Defendants targeted Johnson and his tenants for illegal code enforcement
through a number of coordinated schemes with corresponding illegal fees.
APP887. The evidence shows the schemes were not only illegal, but also designed
to deprive Johnson of his properties and displace large numbers of "protected class"
tenants. Defendant Kalis unlawfully declared one of his homes "vacant" when in
fact it was occupied, then demanded a "code compliance". APP887. Later Martin
and Dawkins unlawfully condemned that same home and demanded a "code
compliance" inspection certification. APP887. Defendant Lippert also unlawfully
condemned the rental home occupied by Ms. Doolitte and then demanded a "code
compliance" in violation of State law. APP887.
Johnson's Affidavit details at length the harassment and false code claims by
various Defendants including Kalis, Martin, Dawkins, Lippet and Seeley. APP887,
When Johnson attempted to appeal these abuses of power to City officials, the
harassment increased and costs of attempting to meet the Defendants unjustified
and illegal demands mounted, all raising the costs of Johnson who was providing a
valuable and necessary service to the community - providing extremely low-income
with housing. rd. The Defendants' coordinated their illegal tactics against Johnson
and his African-American tenants, and forced Johnson to sell building after
51
building to cover his increased costs from the illegal demands. rd. Johnson's
tenants also suffered through displacement from their homes. Due to Defendants
actions in repeatedly issuing false notices and orders of code violations, Johnson
and his family were forced to expend much time in defending against these illegal
actions, and thus had less time to attend to the needs of their tenants, or to meet with
and rent to other "protected class" tenants in need of housing. APP887. Johnson
details the terrible experience he went through in trying to protect his tenants'
housing rights and his property interests. rd. Defendants' "forced sale" policy was
successful against Johnson and his tenants and clearly had a disparate impact on the
protected class renting his homes. The evidence also shows that Defendants
intended to target Johnson with their illegal schemes and unlawful conduct.
Wow and this last one is better still it says absolutely nothing!
It sites no evidence at all, just accusations with no details at all.
What a joke.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
...though he was able to say in that short of space, illegal or unlawful fourteen times...
JMONTOMEPPOF
chuck
No evidence?
What do you think the mentioned "APP" numbers are?
2:10 as we have seen before the APP numbers are nothing more than more written accusations from the plaintiffs. The evidence that something is illegal is that the plaintiff says it is. The evidence that it was discriminatory because the plaintiff says it is. The evidence that it was a conspiracy...the plaintiff says it must be because they can't find any evidence.
There are no facts to back the allegations.
If the goal of the City is to have safe, healthy housing, one house at a time, then that means that one house at a time will be written up. If the landlord repairs the house in a reasonable time, nobody hits the street. If the landlord chooses to not do the repairs, then someone hits the street. To say that the City's desire to have safe, healthy housing is why they hit the street is a lie. They hit the street because the landlord either couldn't, or wouldn't make the repairs.
It not a case.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck I think you are one of those simple minds that someone was talking about a while back.
b. 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
52
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
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 classof-
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
53
Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).
Here, Plaintiffs presented considerable evidence that demonstrated at the
summary judgment stage, that they may prevail on their class-of-one claim before a
jury through the evidence that can reasonably be seen as proving Plaintiffs were
"intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no
rational basis for the difference in treatment." rd.; see also Costello v. Mitchell Pub.
School Dist. 79,266 F.3d 916, 921 (8th Cir. 2001).
§1981 and §1982
Plaintiffs are required to show discriminatory intent to prevail on their claims
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982. See Dirden v. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., 86
F.3d 112, 114 (8th Cir. 1996).
The facts and evidence submitted in support of discriminatory treatment to prove
their FHA claims also supports Plaintiffs §1981 and §1982 claims. The City's
discriminatory environment and attitude in housing code enforcement, "forced
ownership change" strategy, eviction strategy, most importantly, illegal scheme and
policy to violate the State Building Code protections for existing building, were known
by the City to eliminate affordable housing and to have a disproportionate impact on
protected class members.
54
Plaintiffs cited and the District Court discussed 2922 Sherman Ave. Tenants'
Ass'n v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006), where the District of
Columbia's lack of explanation for how it narrowed a list of seventy-five properties
recommended for closure that were evenly distributed across the city down to five
apartment buildings located in neighborhoods having an average Hispanic population
4.4 times that of the city as a whole supported an inference of intentional
discrimination. 444 F.3d at 684.
The District Court isolated Plaintiffs' maps and failed to consider the evidence
from the FHA analysis - that the City's discriminatory environment and attitude in
housing code enforcement, force ownership change strategy and eviction strategy were
known by the City to eliminate affordable housing and to have a disproportionate
impact on protected class members. The discriminatory enviromnent Plaintiffs refer to
includes animus toward rental properties (Andy Dawkins' own statements), a
complaint based code enforcement system that has a problem with targeting people of
color (Jane Prince's email and Dawkins' memo) ,and getting rid ofthe bottom tier of
tenants and low income people in the City (Cullen's and Anderson's testimony.
RICO claims
Plaintiffs brought RICO claims against Defendants claiming violations of 18
55
U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d). Plaintiffs who bring claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) must
show that defendants engaged in (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern
(4) of racketeering activity. Handeen v. Lemaire, 112 F.3d 1339,1347 (8th Cir. 1997).
See also Atlas Pile Driving v. Dicon Financial, 886 F .2d. 986 (8th Cir. 1989); Abels v.
Farmers Cooperative Corp., 259 F. 3d 910 (8th Cir.2001); U.S. v. Leyden, 842 F2d.
1026 (8th Cir 1988)
"Racketeering activity" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), and lists as "predicate
acts" certain state law crimes, conduct that is "indictable" under various federal
provisions, and numerous other offenses. Handeen, 112 F.3d at 1353.
Plaintiffs based their RICO claims in their Complaint on seven predicate acts:
mail fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, the Hobbs Act, tampering, bribery, and interstate
travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises.
In Plaintiffs' brief, Plaintiffs added facts obtained through discovery to their
RICO claims against Defendants based upon their fraudulent scheme to illegally
deprive Plaintiffs oftheir properties and their tenants of their homes, including illegal
actions in furtherance of that scheme such as making false claims of housing code
violations, intentionally sending important City notices to wrong addresses, delaying
mailings in order to prejudice Plaintiffs, intentionally condemning buildings without a
56
basis in City codes or under State law, illegally removing "grandfathering" protections
applicable to Plaintiffs' existing buildings under of the State Building Code, and
corresponding unlawful application of "present codes" to Plaintiffs properties, with
fees and other benefits flowing to Defendants.
From the period of 2002 and thereafter, Defendants have, through a joint
enterprise, participated in conduct which qualifies as racketeering activity. Defendant
Magner engaged in excessive code enforcement and targeting properties with the intent
of forcing property owners to sell their properties. In each case, Magner enforced
numerous code violations which required thousands of dollars in rehabilitation work.
Prior to completion of the rehabilitation work, Magner approached property owners
offering to arrange for each to sell their property to either Magner or someone of
Magner's choosing. In both cases, Magner presented the property with an offer that
was grossly below market value.
Moreover, Plaintiffs have shown through uncontested testimony and other
evidence that Defendants were running a fraudulent scheme to deprive Plaintiffs of
their properties and tenants of their housing rights through Defendants use of false
code violations claims, illegal mailings that intentionally were designed by
Defendants to avoid due process notice to plaintiffs, illegal condemnations with
57
trumped up charges of code violations, illegal removal of "grandfathering"
protections and forced renovations to "present code," and intimidation and
retaliation against Plaintiffs and tenants who dared standup to Defendants abuses of
their public trust and powers or take their claims to court for protection.
Post a Comment
<< Home