Saint Paul/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Michael McRath, Jerin C. McRath,
and McRath Enterprises, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company.
Plaintiffs.
vs.
City of Saint Paul,
a municipal corporation,
Defendant.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the complaint.
and McRath Enterprises, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company.
Plaintiffs.
vs.
City of Saint Paul,
a municipal corporation,
Defendant.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the complaint.
posted by Bob at Thursday, May 06, 2010
77 Comments:
Hi All,
I am starting to lose count of these federal lawsuits.
For the newbies here. You can find the rest of the federal lawsuits against the city of Saint Paul on the front page of the town hall to the right of the screen under the "Scales of Justice".
There maybe copy errors.
Michael McRath, Jerin C. McRath and McRath Enterprises, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as, "McRaths" or "Plaintiffs")hereby jointly allege and
state the following Complaint against the City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This civil action arises under the laws of the United States of America and under the laws of the State of Minnesota. This Court has jurisdiction over McRaths' claims under 28 USC. Section 1331 (federal question). Section 1343 (civil rights), Section 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction), Sections 2201 and 2202 (Declaratory Judgment Act) and 42 U.S.c. Section 3613
(fair housing).
2. Venue herein is proper under 28 U.S.c. § 1391(b).
II. JURY DEMAND
3. McRaths demand trial by jury on each and every claim to which they are so entitled.
III. PARTIES
Plaintiffs
4. Michael McRath is a Minnesota resident residing in Dakota County and was the
title owner of real estate located in the City of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota from 2005 through
present.
5. Jcrin McRath is a Minnesota resident residing in Dakota County and the title
owner of real estate located in the City of Saint Paul. State of Minnesota from 2005 through
present.
6. McRath Enterprises. LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws
of the State of Minnesota and engaged in the residential rental business in the City of Saint Paul
with its business address at 7800 Metro Parkway, in the City of Bloomington, State of
Minnesota.
Defendant City of Saint Paul
7. Defendant City of Saint Paul (hereinafter, "City") IS a municipal corporation
existing under. and by virtue of, the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IV. INTRODUCTORY BACKGROUND FACTS -
STANDING TO BRING ACTION AND OVERVIEW OF CITY'S UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT AND DAMAGES SUFFERED BY McRATHS
8. Between June 2005 and July 2006, McRaths purchased six single family homes
and one multi-family home in the Citv of Saint Paul. ~ .
9. McRath's seven properties consisted of a two-bedroom home, a three-bedroom
home, 3 four-bedroom homes. a five-bedroom home and a multi-family, two-story home with 8
total bedrooms.
10. Six of McRath's homes were originally constructed between 1884 and 1900, and
the remaining home was originally constructed in 1916.
II. From 2005 through present, McRaths have provided federally subsidized, lowincome
rental housing in the City of Saint Paul through the residential homes owned by
McRaths.
12. All seven of McRaths' rental homes have been primarily occupied by individuals
with federally issued Housing Choice Vouchers (commonly known as, and hereafter referred to
as the "Section 8" program) and/or "protected class" persons.
13. Most of McRaths' tenants have been African-American women and children and
Native Americans (hereinafter referred to as "protected class" under federal law).
14. Since 2005, McRath's rental homes have been inspected by the Saint Paul Public
Housing Agency (hereinafter, "PHA") through its Section 8 program with physical inspections
of these rental homes governed by the federal Housing Quality Standards (hereinafter, "HQS").
Title 24, C.F.R. Section 982.401.
15. McRath's Section 8 rental homes have repeatedly passed the federal HQS
inspections performed by Section 8 inspectors at the commencement of a lease of McRath's
rental homes and annually thereafter.
16. Under the federal !-IQS provisions applicable to Section 8 rental housing, once
McRaths' rental units successfully passed the initial inspections, and or the annual inspections,
the rental units were considered by HUD to be "safe, decent and sanitary" federally subsidized
rental units under federal law for occupancy by the Section 8 voucher holders.
17. Although McRath's rental homes have consistently met the federal minimum housing standards set out in the federal HQS and have thus been considered "safe, decent and
provision of low-income housing by demanding and forcing an illegal City building code
enforcement scheme upon McRaths and their "protected class" tenants,
18. The City's illegal building code enforcement scheme, policies, procedures and
practices have included, and continue to include, aggressive designation of older rental homes in the City, including McRaths' rental homes located at 650 Sims Avenue and 1187 Reaney
Avenue, as "Vacant Buildings," when such homes were being prepared by McRaths for new
rentals during normal tenant turnover and were contracted for or otherwise available for reoccupancy
by "protected class" members,
19. The City's "Vacant Buildings" code enforcement scheme, policies, procedures
and practices have been and are contrary to the Minnesota State Building Code adopted by the
City, federal HQS provisions, national housing policy in the federal Section 8 program and the
City's affirmative duty to further fair housing ("AFFH duty") under its annual certifications to
the United States government through the City'S participation in the Community Development
Block Grant program, 42 U,S,C 5301, et seq,
20. The City's illegal building code enforcement scheme, policies, procedures and
practices have included, and continue to include, aggressive designation of older rental homes in the City, including McRaths' rental home located at 439 Lawson Avenue, East, as unsafe and/or
dangerous, and/or unsanitary, and thus subject to "Condemnation" and resulting displacement
of "protected class" tenants and/or interference with housing choice of "protected class"
individuals in the City,
21. The City's "Condemnation" code enforcement scheme, policies, procedures and
practices have been and are contrary to the Minnesota State Building Code adopted by the City,
HQS provIsions, national housing policy in the federal Section 8 program and the City's
affirmative duty to further fair housing ("AFFH duty") under its annual certifications to the
federal government through the City's participation in the Community Development Block Grant
program,
22. The City's illegal building code enforcement scheme has included and continues
to include aggressive designation of older rental homes in the City. including McRaths' rental
home located at 650 Sims Avenue, as "Nuisance" properties subject to demolition.
23. The City's "Nuisance" code enforcement scheme, policies, procedures and
practices have been and are contrary to the Minnesota State Building Code adopted by the City,
HQS provisions, national housing policy in the federal Section 8 program and the City's
affirmative duty to further fair housing ("AFFH duty") under its annual certifications to the
federal government through the City's participation in the Community Development Block Grant
program.
24. The City's illegal building code enforcement scheme, policies, procedures and
practices has included and continue to include requiring older rental homes, including McRaths'
rental homes located at 650 Sims Avenue and 1187 Reaney Avenue, subject to the City'S
"Vacant Buildings," "Condemnation," and/or "Nuisance," policies, procedures and practices to
meet the City's "Code Compliance" certification process, a City building code enforcement
policy, procedure and practice requiring older (existing) homes to meet "present building codes".
City officials have admitted the City's "Code Compliance" Certification process has been, and
continues to be, based on "present building codes".
25. The City's "Code Compliance" certification process and related policies,
procedures and practices requiring older (existing) homes to meet "present building codes" have
been and are contrary to the Minnesota State Building Code adopted by the City, HQS
provisions, national housing policy in the federal Section 8 program and the City's affirmative
duty to further fair housing ("AFFH duty") under its annual certifications to the federal
government through the City's participation in the Community Development Block Grant
program.
26. As a result of the City's forced application of its illegal building codes and related
policies, procedures and practices upon McRaths' low-income rental properties, including the
"vacant building," "condemnation," "nuisance," and "Code Compliance" certification building
code policies, procedures and practices, McRaths have been forced to drastically reduce the
number of rental units available to Section 8 voucher holders in the City.
27. As a result of the City's forced application of its illegal building codes and related
policies, procedures and practices upon McRaths low-income rental properties, including the
vacant building, condemnation, nuisance, and "Code Compliance" certification building code
policies, procedures and practices, "protected class" tenants renting from McRaths or intending
to rent from McRaths have been displaced and/or their housing choice negatively affected by the
reduction of available Section 8 housing.
28. As a result of the City's forced application of its illegal building codes and related
policies, procedures and practices upon McRaths low-income rental properties, including the
vacant building, condemnation, nuisance, and "Code Compliance" certification building code
policies, procedures and practices, McRaths have suffered extensive damages including lost
rents, increased but unnecessary expenses in operating their low-income rental business, lost
investments and profits, and other economic losses.
V. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEME
A. Local and State Building Code I Federal Housing Ouality Standards
29. During the period of 1996 through present, residential homes in the City including
those homes occupied by "protected class" members have been subject to the Minnesota State
Building code provisions, Minnesota Statutes § 16B.59-16B.75.
30. During the period of 1996 through present, residential homes in the City including
those homes occupied by "protected class" members have been subject to the building code
provisions of the St. Paul Legislative Code, namely Chapters 33, 34,43, and 45.
31. During the period of 1996 through present. privately owned residential rental
homes in the City occupied by "protected class" members with federally issued "Housing Choice
Vouchers," formerly and commonly known as "Section 8" vouchers, have been subject to
minimum housing standards inspections under the federal "Housing Quality Standards"
("HQS"), Title 24, C.F.R. Section 982.401.
32. During the period of 1996 through present, residential homes in the City including
those homes occupied by "protected class" members with federally issued "Section 8" vouchers
have been subject bv the Citv to the building code provisions of the St. Paul Legislative Code,
namely Chapters 33, 34, 43, and 45.
33. During the period of 1996 through present, the Saint Paul Public Housing Agency
("PHA") has been responsible for the HQS inspections of privately owned Section 8 rental
housing.
34. During the period of 1996 through present, the PHA Section 8 housing inspection
system has required an initial housing inspection and successful correction of any noted
deficiencies as set forth in the federal HQS before the rental unit will qualify for federal rent
subsidies.
35. During the period of 1996 through present, the PHA Section 8 housing inspection
system has also required an annual housing inspection and successful correction of any noted
deficiencies as set forth in the federal HQS before the rental unit can continue to qualify for
federal rent subsidies.
36. Under the federal HQS provisions applicable to Section 8 rental housing, once a
rental unit successfully passes the initial inspection, and or the annual inspection, the rental unit
is considered under HQS to be "safe, decent and sanitary" for occupancy by the Section 8
voucher holder.
37. During the period of 1996 through present, the federal HQS has provided that a
rental unit is considered "safe, decent and sanitary" if the unit does not contain serious defects.
38. Certain of the HQS provisions provide that, "Ceilings, walls, and floors must not
have any serious defects such as severe bulging or leaning, large holes, loose surface materials,
severe buckling, missing pm1s, or other serious damage." 24 C.F.R. 982.401 (g) (2) (i).
39. Certain of the HQS provisions also provide that, "The exterior wall structure and
surface must not have any serious defects such as serious leaning, buckling, sagging, large holes,
or defects that may result in air infiltration or vermin infestation." 24 C.F.R. 982.401 (g) (2) (iii).
40. Under the federal minimum housing standards, examples of items that are incorrectly identified as violations of Housing Quality Standards are: minor drip in wash basin or tub; one burner out on stove; condition of appliances; types of locks; heat shut off from certain
rooms; crack window pane (which are not a safety problem or cause drafts); location of outlets
and light fixtures; peeling paint; worn carpeting or other floor covering; stained wall paper; lack
of screens; no air conditioning; occasional roaches or mice.
B. Community Development Block Grant Program -
City's Affirmative Duty to Further Fair Housing
41. Since approximately 1976, the City has been a yearly recipient of federal
Community Development Block Orant funding (hereinafter, "CDBO") for low income and
moderate income housing in the City, among other purposes.
42. As a recipient of CDBO funding. the City undertakes a mandatory duty to
"affirmatively further fair housing choice" ("AFFH duty") in the City as required by the
City's annual Certifications to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
("HUD") under the federal Community Development Block Orant ("COSO") funding program.
c. "Analysis of Impediments" (AI") to Fair Housing -
City's Building Codes and Related Policies, Procedures and Practices
As Impediments to Fair Housing
43. Between 1996 and 2010, as part of Defendant City's "AFFH duty," the City was
required to, and annually certified that it would, conduct an "Analysis of Impediments" to fair
housing choice for "protected class" members in the City (hereinafter referred to as "AI" or
"AIs").
44. At all times since 1996, HUD has defined the CDBO "Analysis of Impediments"
("AI") to include particular analysis by the City actually directed to whether the City's "building
codes" and related policies, procedures and practices, were impediments to fair housing choice
for "protected class" members.
45. At all times since 1996, the City has continued year after year to provide its
COSO Certifications to HUD and the public that the City in fact was conducting an "AI" as
defined by HLJ 0 to include the City's "building codes" and related policies, procedures and
practices in relation to "protected classes".
46. Since at least 2002, the City has been able through its annual COBG
Certifications to HUO to continue to apply its "building code," and related policies, procedures
and practices against "protected class" housing, while receiving almost $100 million dollars in
annual "COBG" funding for direct use in City programs related to housing.
D. Federal Funding Of City Code Enforcement and other Operations
47. Since at least 2002, the City, through its annual COBG certifications to HUO, has
been able to use federal COBG funds in the City for "code enforcement" and "vacant buildings"
operations.
48. Since at least 2002, the City, through its annual CDBO certifications to HUD, has
been able to use federal ConG funds in the City for "demolition" of homes in the City including
rental homes that had been occupied by "protected class" members or rental homes that were or
should have been available to "protected class" members.
49. Since at least 2002. the City through its annual COBO certifications to HUO has
been able to use federal COBO funds in the City for "rehabilitation" of older homes. However,
the City has failed to make the COBO funds available to private owners of older homes to meet
the City's "building code" and related policies, procedures and practices, as described above,
where such o"mers were providing low-income and/or Section 8 housing for African-Americans
and other minorities in the inner city areas of the City.
50. Since at least 2002, the City through its annual COBO certifications to HUO, has
been able to provide COBO funding to sub-grantees of the City (a COBO grantee), including
COBO funding to district councils and neighborhood development organizations ("NOOs") in
the City working with City officials to reduce the number of low-income rental homes in the
inner city available for "protected class" members.
E. CDnG Citizen Participation Plan City Must Create/Maintain" AI" Records
And Allow Thc Public Timely Access To The City's "AI" Records
51. The City, as a COBG grantee, has been and continues to be, required to have a
Citizen participation plan in order to promote citizen involvement in fair housing planning
required of the City under COBG regulations.
52. Under COBG regulations, tbe City is required to create and maintain records
related to tbe City's "Analysis of Impediments" CAl") and actions taken to eliminate the
identified impediments CAl Records").
53. Under the CDBG regulations, the City'S "AI Records" are to be timely accessible
to the public.
54. During the summer of 2008, and continuing to present, the City in coordination
with HUD, has denied, or otherwise frustrated, public access to the City's "AI Records".
VI. CITY HAS FAILED TO CONDUCT ITS OWN "ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS"
TO FAIR HOUSING SINCE 1996, INCLUDING DURING 2008 THROUGH 2010
55. On infOlmation and belief, the City of Saint Paul last conducted a CDBG
"Analysis of Impediments" to fair housing choice focused solely on the City of Saint Paul in
approximately 1996.
56. Since the 1996 "AI", and continuing at all time thereafter, certain City officials
and employees, members of CDBG sub-grantees, and other third parties with influence over City
housing, building code and code enforcement policy ("City housing policies"), have agreed
through in-person contacts, meetings, conferences, telephone communications, and written
communications, including both intranet and internet e-mail communications, that the City
should not conduct a COBG "Analysis of Impediments" to fair housing choice actually directed to the question of whether the City of Saint Paul's own "building codes" and related policies,
procedures and practices, were, and continue to be, "public sector" impediments to fair housing
choice of "protected class" members",
57, Since the 1996 "AI", and continuing at all time thereafter, certain City officials
and employees, members of COBG sub-grantees, and other third parties with influence over City
housing, building code and code enforcement policy ("City housing policies"), have agreed
through in-person contacts, meetings, conferences, telephone communications, and written
communications, including e-mail communications, that the City should not conduct a COBG
"Analysis ofImpediments" to fair housing choice actually directed to the question of whether the
City of Saint Paul's own "Vacant Buildings," "Condemnation," "Nuisance," and "Code
Compliance" certification policies, procedures and practices, were, and continue to be "public
sector" impediments to fair housing choice of "protected class" members",
58, Since 2002 and continuing to present, when City officials and employees, select
members of COBG sub-grantees, and other third parties with influence over City housing
policies, were considering adoption, and thereafter continuation, of the "Vacant Building,"
"Condemnation," "Nuisance," and "Code Compliance" building code policies, procedures and
practices as described above, City officials intentionally failed to conduct an "Analvsis of
Impediments" to fair housing choice actually directed to the question of whether the "Vacant
Buildings," "Condemnation," "Nuisance," and/or "Code Compliance" building code provisions
and related policies, procedures and practices and other public sector actions by the City, either
individuallvor in any combination, would or could act as an impediments to fair housing choice
tor "protected class" members in the City and/or act as a disincentive to providers of low-income housing for "protected class" members,
59. The Citv failed to disclose to the public at any time during 2002 or thereafter,
including during the City's preparations for submission of its CDBG applications in 2005 and
again in 2009 and 2010, and in the City's annual HUD CAPER submissions between 2003 and
2009, the fact that City officials and employees, in coordination with select members of CDBG
sub-grantees, and other third parties with influence over City housing policies, had intentionally
failed to conduct a legitimate "Analysis of Impediments" related to the City's building codes,
and related policies, procedures and practices and other related "public sector" actions by the
City, including the adoption of the "Vacant Buildings," "Condemnation," "Nuisance," and
"Code Compliance" provisions as defined herein.
VII. CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN METRO FAIR HOUSING CONSORTIUM
60. During 2000 and 2001. the City as a member of an "inter-jurisdictional group" of
CDBG entitlement jurisdictions including cities, counties and the State of Minnesota,
participated in the discussions and decisions of the group that led to the issuance of a "MetroWide
Regional Analysis ofImpediments to Fair and AtTordable Housing" ("AI") in 2001.
61. In 2002, the "inter-jurisdictional group" issued a Metro Wide Fair Housing Action
Guide ("Action Guide") outlining specific steps that could be taken to address the "identified
impediments" .
62. In 2002, the "inter-jurisdictional group" helped to form the "Fair Housing
Implementation Council" ("FHIC"), a joint group of Twin Cities Metropolitan cities and
counties and stakeholders including nonprofit. advocacy and legal assistance organizations, to
coordinate implementation of the action steps that had been outlined in the "Action Guide". The
City has participated in the "FHIC" since 2002.
63. Since 2002 and continuing to present, the City has used its membership in, and
interaction with, the "inter-jurisdictional group" of CDBG entitlement jurisdictions, and their
"Regional Analysis of Impediments" process, as well as the City's membership in "Fair Housing
Implementation Council," as cover for the City's continued violation of the State Building Code,
violation of the City'S duty to affirmatively further fair housing, violation of the City'S CDBG
certifications, and the City's interference with national housing policy underlying the Section 8
housing subsidy program.
A. 2001 and 2009 Twin Cities Metro "Regional Analysis of Impediments"
64. The first joint "Regional Analysis of Impediments" report of the "interjurisdictional
group" of CDBG entitlement jurisdictions, including the City of St. Paul, was
completed with assistance from certain third parties from the Twin Cities Metropolitan area in
2001.
65. In 2009, a subsequent "Regional AI" report of the "inter-jurisdictional group" of
CDBG entitlement jurisdictions. including the City of St. Paul, was completed by Western
Economic Services, LLC, of Portland, Oregon.
66. Although HUD strongly suggests that CDBG entitlement jurisdictions, including
the City of Saint Paul, conduct a new "AI" every 3-5 years, after the 2001 Regional AI was
completed, the City failed to conduct a new "AI" for over 8 years until the Regional AI of 2009-
2010 was completed.
B. 2001 and 2009 Regional "AI" Process and Reports Failed to Analyze City's Building
Code Policies as Potential Impediments to Fair Housing and Fair Housing Choice
67. The 2001 and 2009 "Regional AI" reports did not identify, analyze or discuss any
of the City's building codes and related policies, procedures and practices in relation to
"protected class" housing in the City.
68. The 2001 and 2009 "Regional AI" reports did not identify, analyze or discuss the
City's building code and related policies, procedures and practices regarding designation of
certain residential housing as "Vacant Buildings" and whether such "public sector" policies,
procedures and practices were or could be impediments to housing
for "protected classes".
69. The 2001 and 2009 "Regional AI" reports did not identify. analyze or discuss the
City's building code and related policies, procedures and practices regarding designation of
certain residential housing as subject to "Condemnation" and whether such public sector
policies, procedures and practices were or could be impediments to housing for "protected
classes".
70. The 2001 and 2009 "Regional AI" reports did not identify. analyze or discuss the
City's building code and related policies, procedures and practices requiring older residential
housing go through the City's "Code Compliance" certification process. and whether such
public sector policies, procedures and practices were or could be impediments to housing for
"protected classes".
71. The 2001 and 2009 "Regional AI" reports did not identify, analyze or discuss
whether application of the City' s building code and related policies, procedures and practices to
privately owned, federally subsidized, low-income rental homes acts or could act as an
impediment to housing for "protected classes" where those homes have passed federal
inspections under federal minimum housing standards.
72. The 2001 "Regional AI" report did however demonstrate that City officials
knew the City's "AI" must specifically include the City's building code and related policies.
procedures and practices regarding "Vacant Buildings." "Nuisances" properties,
"Condemnation" of housing. and requirements for "Code Compliance" certification of such
housing because the City admitted that protected class populations had a greater need for
affordable housing, protected class members were disproportionately impacted by the City's
affordable housing crisis, and "protected class" members were vulnerable to such polices which
disproportionately impacted their fair housing choice.
73. The 2001 "Regional AI" report stated, "Because prolecled class populations have
a greater need/i)r affordable housing. [public sector J polices that have the effect of excluding
affordable housing also have the effect of excluding protected class populations and restricting
their housing choices". 2001 "Regional AI," p. 82.
74. The 2001 "Regional AI" report stated further that, "Affordable housing is kept out
0/ commlmilies not only Ihrough zoning rules and decisions made by municipalities during the
zoning process, but also Ihrough the imposition o//ees and other costs. Costs rise, jar instance,
as local building codes place more restrictions on developers . ... With each layer o.f fees and
costs, the development of affordable housing becomes more unallainable". 2001 "Regional AI,"
p.83.
75. The 2001 "Regional AI" report stated that, "The central cities ... are working to
maintain and or increase middle-income homeowners, stabilize their tax bases, and deal with
properties that have become substandard. The strategies employed 10 do so, however, sometimes disproportionately impact people of color, large families, and disabled individuals; the effects
are heightened by the current affordable housing crisis." 2001 "Regional AI," p. 90.
76. The 200 I "Regional AI" noted that, "Some demolition and redevelopment
activities undertaken by local units of government throughout the Twin Cities Region have
resulted in the displacement of protected class members and a reduction in the amount of
affordable housing available in many communities ". The 2001 "Regional AI" p. 94.
77. At no time between issuance of the 2001 "Regional AI" report and the issuance of the 2009 "Regional AT" report, did the City of Saint Paul or any representative of same,
conduct an "Analysis of Impediments," as defined by HUD, directed to the question of whether
the City's "building codes" and related policies, procedures and practices, or other related public
sector actions by the City, were and continue to be impediments to fair housing choice of
"protected class" members".
78. At no time between issuance of the 200 I "Regional AI" report and the issuance of the 2009 "Regional AT" report, did the City or any representative of same, conduct an
"Analysis of Impediments" actually directed to the question of whether the City's designation of
certain residential housing as a "Vacant Buildings," or as "Nuisance" properties, the City's "Condemnation" of residential housing, and/or the City's requirement that such older residential housing go through the City's "Code Compliance" certification process, acted or could act either individually or 111 some combination, as an impediments to housing for "protected classes".
79. The sole reference to the City's building code and related policies, procedures and
practices in the City's 2010 Consolidated Housing Plan is the City's plan to "assist residents
with limited English proficiencies, the City's Code Enforcement division ... issues its Correction
Notices with a reference ./i)r language translation service in Spanish and Hmong." City's
Consolidated Plan and Submission, 2010-2014, p. 32.
80. At no time between issuance of the 2001 "Regional AI" report and the issuance of
the 2009 "Regional AT" report, did the City or any representative of same, conduct an "Analysis
of Impediments" actually directed to the question of whether application of the City's building
code and related policies, procedures and practices (as described herein) to privately owned,
federally subsidized, low-income rental homes was an impediment or could be an impediment to
housing for "protected classes" where those homes had passed and continued to pass federal
inspections under the federal minimum housing standards known as "HQS".
VIII. CITY APPLIES ITS BUILDING CODE POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND
PRACTICES ON "PROTECTED CLASS" RENTAL PROPERTIES WITHOUT "AIs"
A. City Building Code Policies Contrary to State Building Code, National
Housing Policy and City's CDBG Certifications and AFFH Duties
81. Officials and employees of Defendant City working in coordination with certain
CDBG sub-grantees and other third parties with influence over City officials, created and
maintained a fraudulent scheme to falsely and aggressively label as many older homes in the
inner city areas of Saint Paul, including Plaintiffs' rental homes, as official "Vacant Buildings"
in order to remove these older homes as available "rental properties" for "protected class"
members and convert as many of these homes to home owner occupied, non-rental properties, or
to vacant lots following demolition of said older homes, and later conversion to home owner
occupied properties.
82. At the time of the City's designation of the older homes as "Category II or III"
"Vacant Buildings" many of these homes, including Plaintiffs' homes, were in fact legally
occupied by "protected class" members, such properties either under current lease and occupied,
or such properties simply in the process of change over from tenants to replacement tenants,
including replacement tenants ready to move-in to the rental homes.
83. The City's designation of such older homes as officially "Category II or III"
"Vacant Buildings" subject to the City's "Code Compliance Certificate" process, took said
homes, including Plaintiffs' rental homes off line, caused displacement of "protected class"
housing stock, and/or interfered with "fair housing choice" of "protected class" members.
84. The City's building codes and related policies, procedures and practices applied
to "protected class" housing in the City also included, but was not limited to, the unlawful
designation of low-income rental housing as "Condemned" thereby prohibiting occupancy of
said housing units and properties, when such "condemnations" were based upon City building
codes, and related policies, procedures and practices that were contrary to the Minnesota State
Building Code, in violation of federal housing statutes and regulations and in violation of the
City's duties under federal funding certifications to HUD that the City would "affirmatively
further fair housing" in the City.
85. Officials and employees of Defendant City working in coordination with certain
CDBG sub-grantees and other third parties with influence over City officials, created and
maintained a fraudulent scheme to aggressively target older low-income rental homes in the
inner city areas of Saint Paul for "Condemnations," force entry to the interiors of said
properties, falsely state the actual conditions of the homes, and falsely claim such conditions
constituted violations under state law and thus met the standard for "Condemnation," under the
City code and State law, "all in order to remove these older homes as available "rental
properties" for "protected class" members and convert as many of these homes to home owner
occupied, non-rental properties, or to vacant lots following demolition of said older homes, and
later conversion to home owner occupied properties.
86. The City's designation of such older homes as officially "Condemned" structures
subject to the City's "Code Compliance Certificate" process took said rental properties off line for extended periods of time, caused displacement of "protected class" tenants, prohibited
placement of "protected class" persons into said low-income affordable housing stock, and/or
interfered with "fair housing choice" of "protected class" members.
87. Defendant City's building codes and related policies, procedures and practices
applied to "protected class" housing in the City also included, but was not limited to, the
unlawful designation of low-income rental housing as "Nuisance" properties subject to the
City's "Code Compliance Certificate" process requiring substantial renovations, including to
"present code" thereby prohibiting occupancy of said housing units and properties, when such
"Nuisance" designations were based upon City building codes, and related policies, procedures
and practices that were contrary to the Minnesota State Building Code, in violation of federal
housing statutes and regulations and in violation of the City's duties under federal funding
certifications to HUD that the City would "affirmatively further fair housing" in the City.
88. Officials and employees of Defendant City working in coordination with certain
CDBO sub-grantees and other third parties with inf1uence over City officials, created and
maintained a fraudulent scheme to aggressively target and label older low-income rental homes
in the inner city areas of Saint Paul for "Nuisance" properties designations, falsely claim that the
conditions of such homes met the standard for "Nuisance" properties" all in order to remove
these older homes as available "rental properties" for "protected class" members and convert as
many of these homes to home owner occupied. non-rental properties, or to vacant lots following
demolition of said older homes, and later conversion to home owner occupied properties.
89. The City's designation of such older homes as "Nuisance" properties subject to
the City's "Code Compliance Certificate" process and threat of demolition, and in many cases
actual demolition, took said rental properties off line. caused displacement of "protected class"
tenants, prohibited placement of "protected class" persons into said low-income affordable
housing stock, and/or interfered with "fair housing choice" of "protected class" members.
90. The City's building codes, and related policies, procedures and practices applied
to "protected class" housing in the City where said homes had been occupied by, or had been
available for occupancy by, "protected class" members, also included, but was not limited to, the City's "Code Compliance Certificate" process of forced expensive renovations of older homes,
whether designated "Vacant Buildings," "Condemned," or "Nuisance" properties, with
renovations required to "present codes," thereby illegally removing the State Building Code
grand fathering protections for "existing" buildings.
91. The City's "Code Compliance Certification" process forced low-income housing providers, including Plaintiffs. to undergo substantial, prohibitively expensive, and time
consuming renovations and "present code" modifications to older rental homes, that resulted in
removal of said rental properties from active rental for extended periods. caused displacement of
"protected class" tenants, prohibited placement of "protected class" persons into said low-income
affordable housing, and/or interfered with "fair housing choice" of "protected class" members.
92. In January 2002, the City claimed that one half of the City's housing was built
before 1940, the condition of its housing stock was stable, the level of reinvestment remained
constant, there were few indicators of disinvestment, and that the City had a low number of
"vacant buildings".
93. Following the City adoption in 2002 of the new building code policies, procedures and practices related to "Vacant Buildings," "Condemnations," Nuisance," and Code
Compliance Certification." many of the older rental homes in the City subject to these policies,
procedures and practices were abandoned by owners over the following six to seven (6-7) years
because of the high regulatory costs directly related to the City's building codes and related
policies, procedures and practices.
94. The City's building code policies, procedures and practices related to "Vacant
Buildings," "Condemnations," Nuisance," and Code Compliance Certification," applied during
2002 through present to older rental homes in the inner areas of the City, has contributed
substantially to the high number of vacant and abandoned homes in those areas and has
adversely impacted the housing choice of "protected class" members.
95. For example, on March 31, 2003, there were 367 listed "vacant" homes in the
City of Saint Paul. By September 10,2008, the number of "vacant" homes in the City had risen
to 2,107.
96. The City acknowledges that "people of color" and other "protected class" persons
have a disproportionate need for affordable housing in the City. In 2005, the City reported to
HUD that 37,000 households had unmet housing needs.
97. According to Jon Gutzman, Director of the Saint Paul PI-[A, a large number of
"protected class" persons wait years for affordable housing in City.
98. [n 2005, PHA reported to the City that 6,219 people were on PHA's waiting lists
with a 2-4 year wait for housing; a disproportionate number of minority residents were on PHA
lists - 61 percent were African-Americans.
99. In 2005, PHA reported to the City that there were 2,747 Section 8 applicants but
the Section 8 list was closed. During 2002 through present, City officials have known that
African-Americans have constituted approximately 70 percent of those on the waiting lists for
Section 8 subsidized housing in the City.
100. Between 1989 and 2000, the City acknowledged that when including new units
constructed, vacant units rehabilitated and units demolished, the overall change in housing went
up merely 468 units. In 2000. the City acknowledged that the number of new units added to the
stock over the decade just barely exceeds the number that were demolished.
101. By 2005, the City reported that owner occupied units had increased by 1,993 units
since 1990 while occupied rental units decreased by 133 units.
B. City Admitted Its Regulatory policies Can Pose a Barrier to Affordable Housing -
City Promised to Examine Its Building Code Policies - City Failed to Conduct the "Als"
102. In 2000, the City admitted that its regulatory policies, including what some may
consider "above standard' development requirements, can pose a barrier to affordable housing -
City cited its own building code as one such barrier.
103. The Metropolitan Council had determined that Cities regulations, ordinances and
fees as well as administrative practices may exceed reasonable protection of public health and
safety and contribute to housing costs. The City of Saint Paul promised that it would continue
examine its enforcement of the building code.
104. In 2000, the City admitted that with stepped up code enforcement there should be
matched additional resources for repair and rehabilitation, yet at all times thereafter, the City
failed to provide the resources for repair and rehabilitation to private owners of low-income
rental housing occupied by Afican-Americans and other racial minorities, including those
holding Section 8 vouchers, to meet the City's building code enforcement scheme, policies,
procedures and practices, as described above.
IX. FURTHER BACKGROUND FACTS
Defendant City a Recipient of Federal Grants for Low-Income Housing
105. By 2002, the City had received approximately $280 million in CDBO funding.
Each year since 2002, the City has applied for, received and used over ten million dollars of
federal CDBG funds.
City's Annual Certification to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
106. The City is required by federal law and regulations of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (hereinafter, "HUD"), as a mandatory condition of applying for and
receiving CDBG funding, to provide certifications to HUD each year that the City will
affirmatively further fair housing (hereinafter, "AFFH") in all activities of the City, including in
City activities not funded by CDBG (hereinafter referred to as "AFFH Certifications").
City Must Conduct Analysis of Impediments (AI") to Fair Housing,
Take Actions to Eliminate Impediments and Create and Maintain Records
107. As part of the "AFFH Certifications," the City expressly certifies each year that
the City will (a) conduct an analysis of impediments (hereinafter, "AI") to fair housing choice,
(b) take appropriate "actions to eliminate" the identified impediments to fair housing choice and
(c) maintain records of the "AI" and actions taken.
108. The City claims that it "continually evaluates its housing policy and housing
practices to determine whether the City has deliberately or inadvertently prevented people from
living where they choose". However, the City has continually failed since 2002, to address one
of the largest factors adversely affecting the housing choice of "protected class" members in the
City: the City's own "public sector" regulations found in its building code policies, procedures
and practices, as described above.
HUD's "Fair Housing Planning Guide" for St. Paul
109 Between 1995 and 1996, and all times thereafter, HUD has provided the City, as a
recipient of CDBG funding. with the "Fair Housing Planning Guide" (hereinafter, "FHPG")
and updates to the FHPG, in order to assist the City in meeting its "AFFH" duties and Fair
Housing Planning duties under CDBG statutes and regulations.
110. The FHPG provides that the City, as a CDBG entitlement jurisdiction, has a
duty to conduct Fair Housing Planning including the three mandatory tasks under the City's
COBG certification: (a) The City must conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing
choice, (2) the City must take actions to eliminate identified impediments, and (c) the City must
maintain records.
1ll. The FHPG provides that, "[t]he AI involves an assessment of conditions, both
public and private, affecting fair housing choice for all protected classes."
112. The FHPG provides that a recipient of CDBG funds such as the City of Saint Paul
also has the responsibility to analyze "any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race,
color, ... , disability, familial status, or national origin that restrict housing choices or the
availability of housing choices" or "any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of
restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, ... ,
disability, familial status, or national origin."
113. The FHPG also states that, "Policies, practices, or procedures that appear neutral
on their face but which operate to deny or adversely affect the provision of housing to persons of
a particular race, color, ... , disability, familial status, or national origin may constitute such
impediments" to fair housing choice for protected class members in the jurisdiction.
114. Between 1995 and 1996, and at various times thereafter, HUO provided the City,
as a recipient of CDBG funding, with computer software and updates to the software and/or
replacement computer software, referred to in the "Fair Housing Planning Guide" to assist the
City in meeting its "AFFH" duties.
"AI" Must Include Analysis Of Whether City Building Codes and
Related Policies, Procedures, and Practices Are Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice of "Protected Class" Members
115. The FHPG defines the "AI" as "a comprehensive review of a jurisdiction's laws,
regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and practices affecting the location,
availability, and accessibility of housing, as well as an assessment of conditions, both public and
private, affecting fair housing choice".
116. All versions of the FHPG since 1996 and supporting federal regulations, have
consistently defined the required "AI" to include an analysis by the CDBG recipient of whether
its own "building codes" and related regulations, policies and practices are in any way acting as
impediment(s) to fair housing choice of "protected class" members in the entitlement
jurisdiction.
117. All versions of the FHPG since 1996 and supporting federal regulations have
provided the City with notice since at least 1996 that the subject areas of the analysis of
impediments CAl") to fair housing choice for "protected class" members must include analysis
of the jurisdiction's:
(a) "Local building, occupancy, and health and safety codes that may affect the
availability of housing for minorities, families with children, and persons with
disabilities";
(b) "Public policies and actions affecting the approval of sites and other building
requirements used in the approval process for the construction of public (assisted)
and private housing such as ... Building codes... Local zoning law and policies
... Demolition and displacement decisions pertaining to assisted housing and the
removal of slums and blight (relocation policies and practices affecting persons
displaced by urban renewal, revitalization, and/or private commercialization or
gentrification in low-income neighborhoods);
(c) "The administrative policies concerning community development and housing
activities, such as: Multifamily rehabilitation ... Activities causing displacement
(e.g., revitalization of neighborhoods, property tax increases, and demolition of
subsidized housing) which affect opportunities of minority households to select
housing inside or outside areas of minority concentration".).
City's "AI" Records Must be Subject to Timely Public Access
118. The City's records concerning its "AI" and actions taken to eliminate the
impediments identified in the City's "AI:' are subject to public review under provisions of
federal law including HUD regulations that require the City to provide the public with "timely
access" to such records upon request.
119. Federal CDBG law and regulations require the City to retain its records
concerning CDBG funding and uses as well as the City's "AI" records, for three years past the
close out of the grant, and if litigation is commenced that concerns these records, the City must
not discard, destroy or otherwise make inaccessible these records until final court determination.
City's Consolidated (Housing) Plan and Submission to HUD Every Five Years
120. As a recipient of CDBG funds, the City is also required to prepare with
community input and submit a Consolidated Plan and Submission (hereinafter, "Con Plan") to
HUD once every five years. The City's Con Plan is to be available for public review.
121. Under federal law and HUD regulations, the City is required to conduct an "AI"
every five (5) years. In the Fair Housing Planning Guide ("FHPG"), HUD suggests the City
conduct or update its "AI" every 3 to 5 years consistent with the five year Con Plan Submission
requirements.
122. HUD maintains that certain of the information in the City's "AI" can be used in
preparation of the five year Con Plan Submission to HUD including how the City's building
codes, and related policies, procedures and practices may be "barriers" to fair housing.
123. The City's Con Plan submitted to HUD and the public every five years must contain data and other information on:
"Barriers 10 affordable housing ,. which the FHPG defines as "an explanation of how the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve
affordable housing are affected by public policies, particularly those of the local
jurisdiction . . , "Such policies include tax policy, land use controls. zoning
ordinances, building codes. fees and charges, growth limits, and other policies
that affect the return on residential investment." (emphasis added).
124. Since 1999, the City has submitted its Con Plans to HUD on three (3) occasions: a
five year Con Plan for the 2000 to 2004 period; a five year Con Plan for the 2005 to 2009 period;
and a five year Con Plan for the 2010-2014 period.
City's Annual CAPER Submission to HUD
125. As part of the five year "Con Plan" process, the City is also required at the end of
each fiscal year to file a "Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report" (commonly
referred to as, "CAPER") with HUD to detail the City's accomplishments toward meeting the
City's Fair Housing Planning goals outlined in the City's five year Con Plan.
City Receives and Utilizes CDBG Funds for Code Enforcement,
Vacant Buildings, Demolition and Funding of NGOs
126. The yearly PAPERs filed by Defendant City during the periods of 2000 through
2008 detail the use of federal CDBG funding for City code enforcement operations, city "Vacant
Building" programs, City housing "rehabilitation" programs, City "demolition" of housing,
operational expenses of City code enforcement, and funding of non-governmental organizations
("NGOs") in the City that partner with the City, such as District Councils, Block Clubs and
community development organizations,
City Annually Certifies in CAPERs That It Will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing,
Conduct "AI," and Take Actions to Eliminate Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
127, As part of the City's CAPER filing with HUD, the City files a new "AFFH"
Certification each year stating that the City is complying with its duty to conduct an analysis of
impediments ("AI") to fair housing choice within its jurisdiction, the City is taking appropriate
actions to eliminate those impediments and the City is creating and maintaining records related
to the "AI" and actions,
128, HUD suggests that as part of the City's Fair Housing Planning and "AFFH"
duties, the City review its "AI" on an annual basis to determine if the "AI" needs to be updated
due to changes in how "Public Sector" requirements, including building codes, may be
impediments to fair housing choice of "protected class" members within the jurisdiction,
Application of Two Housing Inspection Standards to Protected Class Housing in City:
City Building Code Standards vs }<'ederal Minimum Housing Quality Standards
129, During at least 2002 to present, the City has consistently taken the position that all
rental properties in the City, including PHA's rental properties and privately owned Section 8
rental properties, must meet the City's building codes, policies, procedures and practices,
130, The City and PHA have long recognized that the City'S building codes, policies,
procedures and practices constitute a substantially higher standard than the federal minimum
housing standards utilized with the rental propel1ies owned by PHA and those rental properties
subject to the Section 8 federal rent subsidy program,
131. The selective application by the City of its higher standard local building codes,
policies, procedures and practices along with application by PHA of the federal HQS to federally
subsidized, privately owned, rental housing, has caused confusion and frustration among Section
8 housing providers on which code standard applied to their properties, has raised the costs of
providing such housing, has acted as a disincentive to provide Section 8 housing, has directly
caused displacement of "protected class" members from needed housing and has adversely
atIected housing choice of "protected class" members.
132. Private Section 8 rental property owners were inspected by PHA's housing
inspectors using federal minimum standards, owners then made required repairs or changes to
subject rental prope11ies to qualify their rental properties as "decent, safe, and sanitary" under
federal law, "protected class" members received critically needed housing in the City, and
private owners received federal rent subsidies.
133. During at least 2002 to present, the City has consistently taken the position that
just because PHA inspectors using "HQS" have qualified a Section 8 rental property as "decent,
safe, and sanitary," does not exempt the same rental property from having to meet the City's
higher - more stringent building codc policies, procedures and practices.
134. The application by the City and PHA of two different inspection standards to
HCV -Section 8 housing, significantly raised the costs of private owners providing such federally subsidized housing: there were increased costs of complying with the City's higher - more stringent standards even when the private owner was compliant with "HQS" and compliant with
the provisions of the Minnesota State Building Code, adopted by the City decades earlier. Such
City actions were contrary to the City's AFFH duties and interfered with national housing policy.
135. Application by the City and PHA of two different inspection standards to HCV-
Section 8 housing created disincentives to private owners of housing to continue with the Section
8 program and to other private owners who could enter the program and were actions contrary to
the City's AFFH duties and interfered with national housing policy.
136. During at least 2002 to present, selective application by the City and PHA of two
different inspection standards to HCV-Section 8 housing, including the City's higher code
standards, reduced the availability of private rental homes in the City that were available for
"protected class" members with housing choice (Section 8) vouchers and were actions contrary
to the City's AFFH duties and interfered with national housing policy.
137. Application by the City and PHA of two different inspection standards to HCV Section
8 housing, including the City's significantly higher code standards, caused displacement
of "protected class" members and were actions contrary to the City's AFFH duties and interfered
with national housing policy.
138. Application by the City and PHA of two different inspection standards to HCV Section
8 housing, including the City's significantly higher code standards, frustrated and
reduced Section 8 voucher holders ability to locate rental units where private owners would
accept their vouchers, and where "protected class" members wanted to live in the City. Such
actions by the City were actions contrary to the City's AFFH duties and interfered with national
housing policy.
139. Application by the City and PHA of two different inspection standards to HCV Section
8 housing, including the City's significantly higher code standards, adversely impacted
the availability of privately owned larger rental homes with 3 to 5 bedrooms, reducing the
availability of those large family units, and negatively impacting large "protected class" families
seeking large family units. Such actions by the City were actions contrary to the City's AFFH
duties and interfered with national housing policy.
140. Application by the City and PHA of two different inspection standards to HCV Section
8 housing, including the City's significantly higher code standards, acted as a
disincentive to the private market to provide affordable, subsidized housing in the City and were
actions contrary to the City's AFFH duties and interfered with national housing policy.
141. The City and PHA failed to conduct an analysis on whether the policy, procedure
and practice of the City and PHA in selectively applying two inspection standards, including the
City's higher code standards, to Section 8 scattered site homes in the City, was acting, or could
be acting, as an impediment to fair housing choice of "protected class" members in the City. The
failure of the City and PHA to conduct the "AI" was contrary to their AFFH duties and national
housing policy.
City Repeatedly Notified Its Building Codes, Related Policies
and Practices Were Impediments to Fair Housing
142. City claims that it "continually evaluates its housing policy and housing practices
to determine whether the City has deliberately or inadvertently prevented people from living
where they choose."
143. In the late 1990's, during public discussion of City proposals for further
regulation of the private rental housing market in the City, and during private discussions with
City selected low-income rental property owners, the City was informed by rental property
owners and others that if the City raised the level of code standards and or enforcement of the
City's building codes applicable to rental properties, including federally subsidized housing, the
higher cost of complying with the heightened standards would cause abandonment of housing in
the City and force the private owners from the market.
144. In the late 1990's, during public discussion of City proposals for further
regulation of the private rental housing market in the City, the City was informed by low-income
tenant advocates that further regulation of private rental properties could adversely impact the
availability of affordable housing in the City.
145. In the late 1990's, Council Member Mike Harris stated that a proposed City
ordinance expanding interior inspections applicable to larger apartment buildings to govern
single family and duplex rental properties "would impose overly strict standards for aging
properties that may be adequate, if not up to code."
146. Between May 2002 and present, the City has received further notices and
complaints from rental property owners, tenants, tenant advocates and other interested citizens
and organizations, that the City's building codes and related policies, procedures and practices as
applied, and as described above, constitute impediments to the availability and provision of fair
housing within the City and have adversely impacted fair housing choice of "protected class"
members occupying or wishing to occupy affordable housing within the City.
147. During 2002 through present, City officials have known that aggressive building
code enforcement policies, procedures and practices would lead to abandonment of older homes
in the inner City including rental homes and such policies were an impediment to fair housing
choice of "protected class" members in the City.
148. During 2002 through present. City officials have known that the City's building
code policy of aggressively designating homes as "Vacant Buildings" was an impediment to fair
housing choice of "protected class" members in the City.
149. During 2002 through present, City officials have known that the City's building
code policy of aggressively condemning homes and ordering such homes vacated, was an
impediment to fair housing choice of "protected class" members in the City.
150. During 2002 through present, City officials have known that the "Code
Compliance Certification" process required substantial renovation to older homes by private
owners.
151. During 2002 through present, City officials have known that the "Code
Compliance Certification" process was financially oppressive to typical owners of older housing
stock providing "protected class' housing in the City.
152. During 2002 through present, City officials have known that the City's building
code policy of applying the City's "Code Compliance Certification Process" to older homes in
the City, was an impediment to fair housing.
153. During 2002 through present, City officials have known that African-Americans
were disproportionately represented among the City's homeless, emergency shelters and other
transitional housing in the City, and among those occupying the City's low-income, affordable,
privately-owned, older housing stock. and that African-Americans made up approximately 50-70
percent of those on the waiting lists for Section 8 subsidized housing in the City.
154. Since at least the mid-to-Late 1990s, the City of 51. Paul has had an affordable
housing crisis. especially for "protected class" members, and even more pronounced need for
such housing for low -income African-Americans in general and more specifically for African-
American women and their children.
Adverse Impact on "Protected Class" members and Their
Low-Income Housing Providers From City's Application of its
Building Code Policies, Procedures and Practices
155. The result of the City's facially neutral code enforcement policies, procedures and
practices related to "Vacant Buildings," "Condemnations," removal of "Certificates of
Occupancy," "Nuisance properties," "Code Compliance Certifications," "Demolition" of
residential homes 111 the City, and application of double inspection standards to Section 8
housing, was to
(a) raise the costs of low-income landlords, including Plaintiffs, providing "protected
class" members with housing;
(b) "force the sale" or other disposition of Plaintiffs' and other owners' low-income
rental properties;
(c) force or otherwise create displacement of "protected class" tenants, including
Plaintiffs' tenants;
(d) directly or indirectly remove privately owned, scattered-site large bedroom family
housing from the housing stock of the City that had been available as affordable housing
for "protected class" members; and
(e) create impediments to fair housing choice for "protected class" members.
156. "Protected class" members in the City were intentionally and disparately impacted
by the City building code policies, procedures and practices described above.
157. If the City had not breached its AFFH duty to fairly and accurately conduct its
"AI" and thereby identified the City's own building code policies, procedures and policies as
described above, as "Impediments to Fair Housing Choice," these impediments to fair housing
would have been eliminated if the City would have then simply complied with its further CDBO
obligation to take appropriate actions to eliminate the identified impediments to fair housing.
CDBG Funds to District Councils, Block Clubs and Neighborhood
Development Organizations - AFFH Duty of Those Organizations -
Failure of City to Monitor
158. During 1995 through present, the City has provide CDBO funds to sub-recipients
within the City such as district councils, block clubs, and certain community development
organizations.
159. As recipients of CDBG funding, each of these sub-grantee organizations have had
an AFFH duty to further fair housing choice in the City.
160. The City district councils, block clubs, and certain community development organizations have taken consistent actions since 1996to significantly influence City ordinances,
policies and practices against private owners of low-income rental housing occupied by
"protected class" members.
161. District councils, block clubs, and certain community development organizations
in the City have taken actions since 1996 that have created disincentives to the private housing
market to provide housing for Protected class" members in the City.
162. District councils, block clubs, and certain community development organizations
in the City have taken actions since 1996 that selected private owners providing housing to
"protected class" members, including those owners participating in the Section 8 program, for
heavy-handed code enforcement operations by the City against those targeted owners, including
using a "problem property" definition that varied from neighborhood to neighborhood in the
City.
163. District councils, block clubs, and certain community development organizations
("NGOs") in the City have taken actions in concert with the City since 1996 to select housing in
the City occupied by "protected class" members for "vacant building," "condemnation," and
"nuisance" designations by the City, and requirements for "Code Compliance" certifications, all
leading to threats of demolition and actual demolition of such housing.
164. District councils, block clubs, and certain community development organizations
have taken other actions that drove private owners from the market and which adversely effected
the housing choice of 'protected class" members.
165. During this same period, homes owned by influential members of said NGOs and
City officials have not been compliant with City codes and related policies, procedures and
practices.
166. The overall actions of District councils, block clubs, and certain community
development organizations in the City when taken individually, in combination, or in totality,
adversely affected fair housing choice of "protected class" members in the City, and drastically
reduced the availability of affordable rental housing in the City and fair housing choice of said
"protected class" members, especially concerning African-Americans and disparately impacted
the "protected class" members including African-Americans and other racial minorities.
167. As part of the CDBG funding certifications and HUD regulations, the City has
agreed since 1996 to monitor all sub-recipients of CDBG funding within the City, including the
City district councils. block clubs, and community development organizations to ensure those
organizations comply with their individual AFFH duties.
168. The City has failed to monitor or take remedial action against the sub-grantee
district councils, block clubs, and community development organizations, or any individual or
individuals within said organizations, to ensure they have complied with their AFFH duties in all
activities undertaken by such organizations.
169. On information and belief, representatives of one of the City's District Councils
were directly involved in the selection of at least one of Plaintiffs' rental properties for a
"nuisance" and demolition designation by the City in early 2008 and certain members of the
NGOs working in concert with the City have sought financial benefit through coordinated
application of the City's heavy-handed code enforcement policies, procedures and practices.
Additional Factual Allegations Concerning McRaths' Section 8 Housing
170. During 2005 through 2009, Plaintiffs' rental properties were inspected by "HCV"
housing code inspectors under direction of the St. Paul Public Housing Agency (hereinafter
referred to as, "PHA") using federal Housing Quality Standards ("HQS") as set out in 24 C.F.R.
982 ..
171. Following each "HCV" inspection, Plaintiffs took the actions identified by
"HCV" inspectors to attain and maintain certification of Plaintiffs' rental homes and units during
2005 through 2008 as "decent, safe. and sanitary" for federal funding in the form of "HCV" rent
subsidies (f/k/a, "Section 8").
172. At all times during 2005 to present, Plaintiffs' triplex property located at 1002
Minnehaha Avenue, East. a triplex structure, has been subject to the City's Certificate of
Occupancy ("C of 0") ordinance and related code inspection ordinances and policies.
173. In 2007, the City expanded the "C of 0" ordinance and related code inspection
ordinances and policies to include single family and duplex family rental homes in the City,
including Plaintiffs' six single family rental properties.
174. Prior to the expansion of the C of 0 ordinance in 2007. Plaintiffs' rental
properties were subject to City "sweep" inspections of exterior areas on such properties, but said
homes were not subject to interior inspections by Section 8 or City inspectors unless a compliant
was made by a tenant, neighbor, or other third party.
175. During 2005 through present, Plaintiffs have experienced a high degree of wear
and tear to their rental properties and tenant and guest caused damage to their property. The high
degree of wear and tear and intentional damage was similar to the wear and tear and damage
experienced by other providers of low-income rental units in the city, including PHA and Section
8 project based landlords.
176 Plaintiffs' rental properties have been subjected by the City to heightened code
standards and increased code enforcement activities, including repeated attempts to gain access
to interiors of rental properties, multiple inspections, and "white glove" code standards.
177 Plaintiffs' rental properties located at 650 Sims Avenue and 1187 Reaney
Avenue, were subjected by the City to mandatory "Vacant Building" designations and
subsequent registrations and fees, followed by demands for "Code Compliance" certification"
inspections and related fees.
Sims Avenue Property
178. Plaintiffs purchased 650 Sims Avenue East, a single family, four bedroom home
in February 2006. Thereafter, they rented the home to an African-American mother with four
minor children and a housing choice voucher from May 2006 through July 2007 Plaintiffs
incurred $500.00 in repairs in order to comply with HQS and meet certification for federal
housing subsidies on the home. Plaintiffs' tenant did not renew her one year lease and moved
out of the home in July 2007.
179. Plaintiffs were in the process of "turning over" or getting the rental home ready
for the next tenant and had already leased the home to a new African-American tenant when a
City code inspector designated the home as an official "Vacant Building" within the definition of
the City Building Code, and placarded the home with a blue City "Vacant Building" sign. The
inspector made this "Vacant Building" designation without conferring with Plaintiffs who did
not consider the home to be vacant but merely between tenants and almost ready for the new
tenant family's move-in.
180. Plaintiffs protested to the City concerning the City's designation of the Sims
home as a "Vacant Building," but such protests were to no avail Plaintiffs were ordered by City
inspectors to register the home as a "Vacant Building" with payment to the City required for
such registration, City inspectors informed Plaintiffs that they could not re-rent or otherwise
occupy the property, Plaintiffs paid the Vacant Building fee and completed the City
registration,
l8L Plaintiffs received a March 3, 2008 letter from Steve Magner, the City's Vacant
Buildings Supervisor, starting the City process of designating the home as a "Nuisance"
property, Thereafter, for many months, Plaintiffs were forced to defend against the City's
attempt to demolish the Sims properly,
182, Magner and other City code enforcement personnel informed Plaintiffs that their
Sims property must go through the City's "Code Compliance" certification process before the
home could be reoccupied,
183, Plaintiffs applied for and paid the City fee for a mandatory "Code Compliance"
certification inspection, and opened the home to inspectors from the City's License, Environment
Protection office (LlEP) to conduct the "Code Compliance" certification inspection,
184, Following the Code Compliance Inspection in early 2008, Plaintiffs received from
the City a Code Compliance Inspection Report dated May 5, 2008, The Code Compliance
Inspection Report required Plaintiffs to undergo substantial and expensive renovations to the
Sims property, and such City demands were not mandated by the State Building Code and were
contrary to the City's AffH duty and national housing polices.
185. As part of the City's "Nuisance" abatement procedure, the City demanded that
Plaintiffs provide the City with a $5,000 performance bond, pay all City fees demanded of them,
and provide the City with a renovation plan outlining how Plaintiffs planned to meet the
requirements of the City's Code Compliance inspection report.
186, Plaintiffs thereafter met each of the City requirements to abate the claimed
Nuisance" conditions.
187. Plaintiffs were required to spend over $25,000.00in an attempt to meet the City's
demands for "Code Compliance" certification on the Sims home. The Sims property had
previously been approved for Section 8 subsidies as "safe, decent, and sanitary."
188. During 2008 and into 2009, Plaintiffs continued to attempt to comply with the
City's "Code Compliance" certification process on both their Sims and Reaney rental homes.
189. Due to increased expenses of owning the Sims A venue and Reaney Avenue rental
properties as a direct result of City demands, and the City's elimination of rental income from
these homes, and due to other code enforcement actions by the City against other rental homes of
Plaintiffs during 2008 and into 2009 that removed rental income from those homes and increased
expenses to own such homes as a result of the "Vacant Buildings," "Condemnation," "Nuisance"
and "Code Compliance" polices, procedures and practices, Plaintiffs' entire rental portfolio was
severely affected resulting in loss of rental homes.
190. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result of the City's building code policies,
customs and practices, including damages to their business and property interests, including loss
of income, profits and investments, physical disruption of rental and repair activities, forced
payments, unnecessary expenses and costs.
Reanev Avenue Property
191. Plaintiffs purchased a three bedroom single family home located at 1187 Reaney
Avenue in St. Paul on August 1, 2005. Thereafter, Plaintiffs rented the home to an African American
mother with two minor children and a housing choice voucher. Plaintiffs incurred
$250.00 in repairs in order to comply with HQS and meet certification for federal housing
subsidies on the home. Plaintiffs tenant did not renew the one year lease and relocated to
Wisconsin.
192. The City issued Correction orders on the Reaney A venue home on August 27,
2007. Plaintiffs performed repairs pursuant to the \written notice of claimed violations.
193. During a second code inspection by the City, the City inspector ordered Plaintiffs
to contact the City's Vacant Buildings division and submit the home to the City's "Code
Compliance" certification process requiring an inspection.
194. Approximately one week later, Michael McRath was at the Reaney rental
property when a second City inspector arrived. The second inspector informed McRath that he
was from the City's Vacant Building division and after inspecting the home, he informed
McRath that the home should not have been referred to the Vacant Buildings division as there
was nothing wrong with the home. The inspector informed McRath to call the original
inspector's supervisor the following week. Thereafter, McRath was unsuccessful in his further
attempts to convince the original City inspector and her supervisor to rescind the referral to
Vacant Buildings.
195. On or about October 2,2007, the City categorized the rental home as a "Category
II, Vacant Building" requiring vacant building and Code Compliance fees to be paid to the City.
196. Thereafter, Plaintiffs received written notice from the City of its action to
formally declare the Reaney rental property as an official "Vacant Building" subject to the
registration fee of $1,000 for a vacant building.
197. Plaintiffs completed the Vacant Buildings registration and paid the registration fee
on November 14, 2007.
198. Plaintiffs thereafter completed the Code Compliance inspection request form and
paid the City of the Code Compliance inspection.
199. Because of the City action to formally declare the Reaney Avenue rental property
as a Vacant Building, Plaintiffs were not allowed to re-rent the property until the property had
undergone the Code Compliance inspection, completed all work noted by the City during that
inspection process, and passed the Code Compliance certification process.
200. Plaintiffs lost rent in the Reaney Avenue home from October 1,2007 and
thereafter.
201. On November 29,2007, the City issued the Code Compliance inspection report
requiring expensive renovations to the home not mandated by the Minnesota State Building
Code.
202. During the remainder of 2007 and through 2008, McRaths negotiated agreements
with contractors, obtained permits from the City, including an electrical permit on May 6, 2008,
and monitored their contractors work on the property.
203. Plaintiffs were unable to complete the Code Compliance certification process
during 2008 and 2009 on the Reaney Avenue home due to the City's actions against other rental
homes that Plaintiffs' owned including against Plaintiffs' Sims Avenue rental home and their
439 Lawson A venue rental home, and the cumulative costs of meeting the City's code demands.
204. Although Section 8 inspectors had approved the Reaney rental home for federal
rent subsidies under HQS, Plaintiffs were forced to expend an additional $7,000.00 toward
meeting the City's Code Compliance demands plus the Vacant Building fee and Code
Compliance fee and all permit fees.
205. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result of the City's building code policies,
customs and practices, including damages to their business and property interests, including loss
of income, profits and investments, physical disruption of rental and repair activities, forced
payments, unnecessary expenses and costs,
Lawson Avenue Property - Illegal Condemnation
206, Plaintiffs' rental property located at 439 Lawson Avenue East, was subjected by
the City to condemnation on July 25,2008 without legal basis under the Minnesota State
Building Code adopted by the City,
207, None of the claimed violations either individually or in any combination rose to
the level of a valid condemnation under the State Bldg Code,
208, The City's wrongful condemnation of the 439 Lawson rental home reduced
Plaintiffs' rental income, needlessly increased Plaintiffs' expenses of owning and managing said
home, and had a cumulative adverse effect on Plaintiffs' entire rental home portfolio and
financial condition of their rental business,
City Actions Against Other Rental Properties of McRaths
209. During 2007 and continuing into 2009, City inspectors lied to Plaintiffs about
having conducted interior inspections of Plaintiffs' rental homes when in tact the inspections had not been performed but the inspector had simply copied a previous inspection report and reissued the report with substituted dates, Plaintiffs noticed the fraudulent scheme of the City because the
items listed on the subsequent inspection had already been corrected by Plaintiffs the previous
year.
210. During 2007 and continuing into 2009, City inspectors lied to Plaintiffs' tenants
that Plaintiffs refused (0 make required repairs and threatening the condemnation of the home,
Plaintiffs tenants feeling intimidated by the inspector, then packed up and left their rental home leaving Plaintiffs without tenants and vulnerable to the City's aggressive "vacant building"
policies.
211. In another Section 8 rental property owned by Plaintiffs, the home had
successfully passed the Section 8 HQS inspection. The tenants, an African-American mother
and her children were adversely affected by a subsequent City inspection and "condemnation" of
one bedroom with prohibited occupancy of that bedroom all because the City claimed the
window was not wide enough to meet the City's building code. The window had met the HQS
requirements.
212. The condemnation of one bedroom adversely affected the family due to loss of
the extra bedroom that was needed by the family and resulted in the Section 8 tenant paying
more in rent under the federal rent subsidies formula.
213. As a result of the code enforcement actions described herein directed against
Plaintiffs' rental properties, Plaintiffs lost rental income during the period of forced
condemnation, during periods Defendant City improperly characterized Plaintiffs' rental homes
as "vacant buildings" and during periods of forced renovations to meet the City's "present code"
requirements.
214. Without the rental income and with significant fees and expenses of mandatory
renovations to "present code," Plaintiffs were unable to meet other financial obligations
including mortgage payments and real estate ownership expenses and as a result Plaintiffs
defaulted on their financing contracts. McRaths incurred other damages as a result of the
discriminatory actions of Defendant.
215. Plaintiffs' tenants were displaced from their rental units by the City's code
enforcement actions directed against Plaintiffs and their tenants. Potential tenants for Plaintiffs'
unoccupied rental units were unable to move-in due to Defendant's actions.
COUNT I
42 u.s.c. SECTION 1983
CITY'S VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.c. SECTION 3608 - FAIR HOUSING ACT
AND CITY'S VIOLATION OF ITS CDBG CERTIFICATIONSFAILURE
TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING, TO CONDUCT
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING, TO TAKE APPROPRIATE
ACTIONS TO ELIMINATE PUBLIC SECTOR IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING
AND TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN RECORDS ACCESSIBLE TO PUBLIC
216. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 215 as set
forth above.
217. Defendant is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.c. § 1983, and its actions
through its officials, employees and representatives were taken under color of state law.
218. As a recipient of federal CDBO funding during 1975 through present, the City has
certified each year that it has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing in the City, conduct an
"Analysis of Impediments" to fair housing choice of protected class members, take appropriate
actions to eliminate those identified impediments, and create and maintain records regarding
those actions.
219. The City violated its AFFH Duty by failing to conduct "Als," as defined by HUD
and required by federal statute and HUD regulations and guidelines.
220. Under HUD's definition of what constitutes a lawful "Analysis of Impediments"
to fair housing choice, the City was required during 1996 through present to conduct "AIs"
specifically addressing whether any of the City building code policies, procedures and/or
practices, either individually applied or when applied in any combination, were acting as
impediments to fair housing choice of "protected class" members.
221. The City failed to conduct the "Als" specifically related to whether its building
codes, and related policies, procedures and practices, including but not limited to, its policies,
procedures and practices related to "Vacant Buildings," "Condemnations," "Nuisances," removal
of Certificate of Occupancy," "Code Compliance" certification requirements, "Demolitions," and
application of such City policies, procedures and practices to Section 8 rental properties
considered "safe, decent and sanitary" by federal standards, were when either individually
applied, or when applied in any combination, impediments to fair housing choice of "protected
class" members in the City.
222. Defendant City's intentional failure to conduct the "Als" demonstrates the intent
of City officials and employees and the City to intentionally discriminate against Plaintiffs'
"protected class" tenants and Plaintiffs as providers of housing for those tenants, both intended
beneficiaries of the federal requirement that the City conduct the "AIs" in good faith according
to federal law and regulations. Such failure of the City also demonstrates the recognized
disparate impact on African-Americans and other racial minorities in the City, including to
Plaintiffs' tenants, from application of such City building code policies, procedures and
practices.
223. Defendant violated its duty to affirmatively further fair housing by failing to take
appropriate actions to eliminate the public sector impediments to fair housing the City had
created, as set forth above.
224. Defendant violated its duty to affirmatively further fair housing by failing to
create and maintain "AI" records timely accessible to the public.
225. Defendant violated its duty to affirmatively further fair housing by applying its
higher standard City building codes and related policies, procedures and practices to Section 8
housing in a manner that interfered with national housing policy of promoting a minimum
maintenance standard of HQS in order to ensure sufficient availability of affordable housing
stock and private owners willing to participate in the Section 8 program.
226. Defendant violated its duty to affirmatively further fair housing by interfering
with the housing choice of "protected class' members living in the City and those seeking
housing in the City.
227. Defendant City's policies of failing to affirmatively further fair housing, failing to
conduct legitimate "Als," failing to take appropriate actions to remove public sector
impediments to fair housing and failing to create and maintain appropriate "AI" records, were
policies that were facially neutral but which had a disparate impact on protected classes
including African-Americans.
228. Defendant City's intentional failure to conduct the "Als" on the City's building
codes, thereby directly injured such "protected class" members and had a disparate impact upon
them, as Defendant City continued to apply its facially neutral building code polices, procedures
and practices to "protected class" housing without conducting the "Als," all the while knowing
that honest "Als" by the City would in fact demonstrate the adverse and disparate impact upon
"protected class" members.
229. Said unlawful conduct resulted in actual damages to Plaintiffs and other low income
landlords and to their tenants. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result of said
policies, customs and practices, including damages to their business and property interests,
including loss of income, profits and investments. physical disruption of rental and repair
activities, forced payments, unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and other fees.
Plaintiffs seeks all their compensatory damages against Defendant City.
230. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its
provisions and Defendant cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against itself and its
officials, employees, representatives and agents. Plaintiffs seek their attorney's fees and costs
and expenses incurred herein,
231. Defendant is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by its officials,
employees. representatives and agents.
COUNT II
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT
232. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 231 as set
forth above.
233. The Declaratory Judgment Act. 28 U.S.c. 2201 (a), provides that:
"in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... any court of the United
States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and legal
relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further
relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect
of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such."
234. A federal question "arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United
States" is involved herein, 28 U.S.c. §1331, as Plaintiffs are seeking federal statutory relief
under the Fair Housing Act.
235. The dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendant presents a substantial controversy.
236. Plaintiffs seek a determination that the City's application of its building code and
related policies, procedures and practices, as set forth herein, are (a) in violation of the Fair
Housing Act, (b) are in violation of the statutory and regulatory provisions governing the City
through the Community Development Block Grant Program; (c) are in violation of the City's
affirmative duty to further fair housing; and (d) are contrary to national housing policy set forth
in the Housing Quality Standards applicable to Section federally subsidized housing.
237. Plaintiffs seek their attorney's fees and costs and expenses incurred herein.
COUNT III
42 U.S.c. SECTION 3613 - FAIR HOUSING ACT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST CITY OF SAINT PAUL
FOR VIOLATION OF Fair HOUSING ACT, CITY'S CDBG CERTIFICATIONS,
CITY'S DUTY TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING, TO CONDUCT
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING, TO TAKE APPROPRIATE
ACTIONS TO ELIMINATE PUBLIC SECTOR IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING
AND TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS
238. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 237 as set
forth above.
239. Section 3613 of the Fair Housing Act provides for the remedy of injunctive relief.
240. Plaintiffs continue to be owners of low-income rental properties in the City,
providing housing to "protected class" members in the City and Plaintiffs and their protected
class tenants continue to be subject to the City's building code and related policies, procedures
and practices as set forth above.
241. Plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 3613 to prohibit Defendant City. and its officials, employees and representatives from
continuing its wrongful conduct as set forth above, as Defendant's unlawful building code
policies, procedures and practices have existed for an extended period of time and presently
continue within the City.
242. Injunctive relief against the City of Saint Paul is necessary in order to preserve
affordable housing stock in the City that is being subjected on a continual basis to the City's
unlawful application of its building code and related policies, procedures and practices, as set
forth above.
243. Injunctive relief is necessary in order to prohibit the City's unlawful application
of its building code and related policies, procedures and practices, as set forth above, as the City
continues to refuse to comply with its AFFH obligations, the City fails to conduct a valid "AI"
on the City's application of its building codes and related policies, procedures and practices to
"protected class" housing in the City, the City fails to take appropriate actions to remove public
sector impediments to fair housing in the City, and the City fails to create and maintain
appropriate records as required by its CDBG certifications and federal statutes and regulations.
244. Defendant is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by its officials,
employees, representatives and agents.
245. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its
provisions and Defendant cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against itself and its
officials, employees, representatives and agents.
246. Plaintiffs seek their attorney's fees and costs and expenses incurred herein.
247. Plaintiffs seek appointment by the Court of a special federal master to oversee the
City's compliance with federal fair housing law, compliance with the City's CDBG
Certifications, compliance with the City's duty to affirmatively further fair housing, compliance
with the City's duty to conduct valid "AIs" including "AIs" related to whether the City's
building codes and related policies, procedures and practices set forth above are impediments to
fair housing in the City, compliance with the City's duty to take appropriate actions to remove
impediments to fair housing and the City's duty to create and maintain appropriate records.
COUNT IV
42 U.S.c. SECTION 3617 - FAIR HOUSING ACT
CITY'S COERCION, INTIMIDATION, THREATS AND INTERFERENCE
WITH PLAINTIFFS WHO WERE AND ARE AIDING AND ENCOURAGING
"PROTECTED CLASS" PERSONS IN CITY
248. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 247 as set
forth above.
249. Defendant's policy, custom and practice of code enforcement conduct did coerce,
intimidate, threaten and interfere with Plaintiffs and other owners of low-income "protected
class" housing, on account of such owners having aided, associated with or encouraged their
"protected class" tenants in exercise of these tenants' rights protected under Title VIII, 42 U.S.C.
Section 360 I, et seq.
250. Defendant's officials, employees, representatives and agents instituted a campaign
to interfere with and impair the ability of low-income landlords including Plaintiffs to provide
housing for "protected class" members in the city.
251. Defendant's officials, employees. representatives and agents instituted a campaign
of retaliation against low-income landlords including Plaintiffs because such owners continued
to provide housing for "protected class" members in the city even in face of clearly unlawful
conduct of the City.
252. Defendant's policy, custom and practice of code enforcement conduct was
intentional and malicious in Defendant's efforts to rid the City of "protected class" members and
Plaintiffs and other owners who were assisting these individuals by providing them with low income
housing that was in critically short supply in the City.
253. Defendant City retaliated against Plaintiffs for renting to "protected class"
members in the City including but not limited to African-Americans and Native Americans.
254. Defendant's facially neutral policy, custom and practice of coercion, intimidation,
threats, interference and retaliation. continues presently in the City.
255. Said unlawful conduct by Defendant has resulted in actual damages to Plaintiffs
and other low-income landlords. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a direct result of said
policies, customs and practices. including damages to Plaintiffs' business and property interests,
including loss of income, profits and investments, physical disruption of rental and repair
activities, forced payments. unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and other fees.
Plaintiffs seeks all their compensatory damages against Defendant.
256. The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its
provisions and Defendant cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against itself and its
officials. employees. representatives and agents.
257. Defendant is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by its officials,
employees, representatives and agents.
COUNT V
42 U.S.c. SECTION 3604 - FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT
CITY'S APPLICATION OF ITS BUILDING CODE AND RELATED POLICIES,
PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES ON "PROTECTED CLASS" HOUSING AS
DENIAL OF HOUSING - DISPARATE IMPACT AND TREATMENT
ON THE BASIS OF RACE
258. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 257 as set
forth above.
259. Commencing in about 2002, Defendant, through its officials and employees
including inspectors, commenced and thereafter continued a facially neutral policy. custom and
practice of application of the City's building code and related policies, procedures and practices,
that selectively targeted the low-income rental properties owned by Plaintiffs and other St Paul
landlords, who were aiding, encouraging and associating with individuals with protected rights to housing under Title VIII, Federal Fair Housing Act and Amendments, including African Americans,
other Black Americans, Native Americans and other racial minorities ("protected
class"), all living within the City of St Paul
260, Defendant's facially neutral building code policies, procedures and practices, as
set forth above, had, and continue to have, the approval of the City Council, the Mayor, many of
the City's other officials, as well as members of the City's district councils and other third parties
with significant influence over City policies.
261. The City Council, the Mayor, many of the City's other officials, as well as select
members of the City's NGOs and other third parties with significant inf1uence over City policies, intended that Defendant's facially neutral building code policies, procedures and practices would
have a discriminatory impact upon, and such conduct of the City did in fact disparately impact
members of the African-American community, other Black Americans, Native Americans and
other racial minorities, and adversely impacted Plaintiffs and other private owners providing
housing services to those "protected class" members.
262. Said Defendant's building code policies, procedures and practices made housing
unavailable for members of the African-American community, other Black Americans, and
American Indians, and other racial minorities living within the City, and for those similar
persons seeking housing in the City, and thereby denied housing to said members and interfered
with the fair housing choice of said members.
263. Defendant City's unlawful actions against Plaintiffs' low-income rental properties
and "protected class" tenants, directly resulted in severe economic losses to Plaintiffs' rental
business and denial of housing and fair housing choice for Plaintiffs' tenants and prospective
tenants,
264, The City's unlawful actions against Plaintiffs' low-income, Section 8 rental
business, has had an overall adverse effect on Plaintiffs' business and acted as a great
disincentive to their continuing to provide privately owned, low-income, federal subsidized
Section 8 housing for "protected class" members,
265, The City's actions related to its building code, policies, procedures and practices
have interfered with national housing policy as set forth in the Fair Housing Act, the Community
Development Block Grant program, the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program, other
federal housing programs, and related statutes and regulations,
266, Said unlawful conduct resulted in actual damages to Plaintiffs and other low income
landlords, Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result of said policies, customs and
practices, including damages to Plaintiffs' business and property interests, including loss of
income, profits and investments, physical disruption of rental and repair activities, forced
payments, unnecessary expenses and costs, attorney fees and other fees, Plaintiffs seek all their
compensatory damages against Defendant City,
267, The Fair Housing Act relies upon private attorney generals to enforce its
provisions and Defendant cannot be expected to enforce the Act's provisions against itself and its
officials, employees, representatives and agents, Plaintiffs seek their attorney's fees and costs
and expenses incurred herein,
268, Defendant is responsible for the violations of the Fair Housing Act by its officials,
employees, representatives and agents,
COUNT VI
42 U.S.c. SECTION 1981
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
269. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 268 as set
forth above.
270. Defendant, through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with
racially discriminatory intent, has denied Plaintiffs on account of race, the same right to make
and enforce contracts, and to have the full and equal benefit of all laws or proceedings for the
security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, all in violation of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.c. Section 1981.
271. Defendant through its officials, employees, representatives and agents, with
racially discriminatory intent, interfered with Plaintiffs' contracts, and right to make and enforce
contracts with non-white tenants, and with Plaintiffs' right to enjoyment of all benefits,
privileges, terms, and conditions of their contractual relationships with their non-white tenants.
272. As a direct result of said the wrongful conduct of Defendant's officials,
employees, representatives and agents, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the form of economic
loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and investments, unnecessary expenses, fees
and costs, and damages for deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs also seek
damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiffs seek all of
their costs, expenses, and attorneys fees from Defendant.
273. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
274. Plaintiffs seek their attorney's fees and costs and expenses incurred herein.
COUNT VII
42 U.S.c. SECTION 1982
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
275. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 274 as set
forth above.
276. Defendant City official, employees, representatives and agents, have denied
Plaintiff's, and their African-American and other "protected class" tenants, on account of race, the
same rights as are guaranteed to white persons to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and
personal property, all in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.c. Section 1982.
277. Defendant's facially neutral but intentionally discriminatory code enforcement
policy, custom and practice, as more fully described above, impaired Plaintiffs' property rights
and those of their tenants.
278. As a direct result of said Defendant's wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages in the form of economic loss, including out-of-pocket losses, loss of profits and
investments, unnecessary expenses, fees and costs and damages for deprivation of civil and
constitutional rights. Plaintiffs also seek damages for anguish, emotional distress, humiliation
and embarrassment.
279. Plaintiff's seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
280. Plaintiff's seek their attorney's fees and costs and expenses incurred herein.
281. Plaintiffs also seeks a permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant through
its officials, employee, representatives and agents from continuing Defendant's pattern of
unlawful conduct as described above.
STATE LAW BASED CLAIMS
COUNT VIII
CITY'S TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
282. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 281 as set
forth above.
283. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiffs had a rental business in
the City. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.
284. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage or benefit from
their rental business and rental relationships with their tenants and prospective tenants.
285. Defendant, through its officials and employees, engaged in wrongful conduct, as
more fully described above, that wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs' reasonable business
expectation and which had an adverse effect on Plaintiffs' rental business.
286. Defendant's wrongful interference was without justification and was maliciously
intended to cause the destruction of, or harm to, Plaintiffs' rental relationships and reasonable
business expectation.
287. Said Defendant's wrongful conduct was a proximate cause of the destruction of,
or harm to, Plaintiffs' rental business and business expectancy and the damages suffered by
Plaintiffs.
288. Without Defendant's wrongful acts of interference, it is reasonable probable that
Plaintiffs would have realized the economic advantage or benefit of their rental business.
289. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damage and losses as a direct result
of Defendant's wrongful interference with Plaintiffs' rental business: Plaintiffs have lost rental
income; Plaintiffs have incurred costs, fees and expenses in needless repairs; Plaintiffs have lost
their investments in said properties and profits from said investments; and Plaintiffs have
suffered other financial losses all due to Defendants' wrongful conduct.
290. Plaintiffs seek all of their compensatory damages against Defendant.
COUNT IX
CITY'S TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS' CONTRACTS
291. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 290 as set
forth above.
292. At all times relevant herein, there existed contracts between Plaintiffs and their
respective tenants for lease of private housing in the City of Saint Paul.
293. Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiffs' leases with its tenants.
294. Plaintiffs' primary tenants were almost exclusively "protected class" members.
295. Defendant intentionally procured breach of contracts Plaintiffs had in place with
"protected class" tenants: in one instance, Defendant's building code inspector informed
Plaintiffs' tenants that the City was going to condemn their rental home - as a result the tenants
immediately vacated their rental home when there was no basis for the City to condemn said
home; in other instances, Plaintiffs were in the process of a normal tenant turnover when
Defendant's inspectors illegally designated rental homes as a "vacant buildings" thereby
prohibiting a protected class tenants from occupying the home as contracted with Plaintiffs.
296. Defendant intentional interference with Plaintiffs' contracts was without any
justification.
297. Plaintiffs have been directly damaged by Defendant's tortuous interference with
Plaintiffs' contracts, as Plaintiffs have lost rental and investment income, and have lost profits,
incurred costs, fees and expenses in needless repairs due to the malicious conduct of Defendants'
officials and employees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment from the Court as follows:
I. A judgment pursuant to Count I of this Complaint as set forth therein.
2. A judgment pursuant to Count II of this Complaint as set forth therein.
3. A judgment pursuant to Count III of this Complaint as set forth therein.
4. A judgment pursuant to Count IV of this Complaint as set forth therein.
5. A judgment pursuant to Count V of this Complaint as set forth therein.
6. A judgment pursuant to Count VI of this Complaint as set forth therein.
7. A judgment pursuant to Count VIl of this Complaint as set forth therein.
8. A judgment pursuant to Count VIII of this Complaint as set forth therein.
9. A judgment pursuant to Count IX of this Complaint as set forth therein.
10. A judgment for Plaintiffs' compensatory damages to be proved at trial in this
matter on all Counts herein.
11. A judgment tor Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees, costs and disbursements
incurred, including in this proceeding as set forth in each Count herein.
12. A permanent injunction restraining Defendant and its officials, employees,
representatives and agents, from further violations as set forth herein.
13. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just in the
premises.
14. For trial by jury on all issues so triable.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C,
Bloomington, Minnesota 55425
(952) 224-4610
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Well Chuck,
The vultures of St. Paul Gulch continue to grow in numbers. They are circling lower and lower and they are starting to blot out the sun.
Soon they are going to start feasting on all the carrion in the inspections department and in city hall.
Maybe you can start a landlord appreciation club, before it's too late. . .
Same ols stuff people have been saying for years and years. I especially like the part about having a "master" come in here and oversee these criminals so they start following the law instead of breaking it all the time.
FRIVELIOUS
R
I
V
E
Lawsuit
I
O
U
S
OK - don't know the case, the only part of this that is interesting and different than the losers that we have seen here before is the arguement about the buildings having passed Sec 8 and then failed the City inspection.
It is not clear if these people took the issue to the City Council or not from what is stated here.
I think that you will find on these Federal cases that the court is going to want you to have first at least taken the issue to the City Council on the violations. Also, it is not clear that any of these properties were shut down by the City until they had already become vacant. If that is the case then they weren't passing a sec 8 if there was nobody living there.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Feom what I remember the old landlords did bring up the Sect 8 issue. Doesn't make any difference anyways. Even without that the city is still breaking the law. Thier housing code is illegal and in the end they are going to get their ass kicked by the courts. It's just like Repke to try and downplay it though. Next up we'll have Eric with his mantra about code violations and how everyone with a code violation should be subject to rights violations.
I predict that this will be the first of many to come.
2:00 - What I don't know about this one is, did these people get a violation on something that is OK for section 8 on a unit that was rented to section 8 and then appeal the repair to the council?
Because if they did, they may have an argument because of FFH.
If what happened is that the building has gone vacant and now they have repair orders and they are saying the shouldn't have to repair the building to code because they might rent to sec 8, they have nothing.
I have always thought that anyone housing sec 8 (private) should play with the same rules as PHA... but you have to take issues to the council to follow your legal rights. You can't sue the council for not resolving something they were not asked to resolve.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I don't think one has to go Kathy Lantry to resolve Federal issues. If the city acts in a way that violates civil right you can go right to Federal Court.
The part that's interesting chuck is at the end you'll be worng and the city will be flat ass broke with all the taxpayers screaming for the politicians heads.
why don't we hear about these lawsuits in the news?
For the same reason you don't hear about a lot of other things in the news. It doesn't suit their purpose because they are in bed with the politicians.
Repke,
Go in front of City Council?
Lantry, Helgen, Bostrom, ??
They do not want to hear from landlords. They don't like landlords. They have a bias towards landlords.....
Should we appeal to Marsha Moormoend? She is in bed with the City council. She is not an impartial person. She is part of the "inner" circle on floor 3 City Hall.
I realize that you were part of floor 3 in the past, so you probably think these guys are impartial. They are all part of the Mystery!!
Moormond would not keep her job if she did not do exactly what the city council wants her to do. That is a flawed system
Floor 3? Is that like Dept. 52 or something?
It is "Area 52", where all that alien stuff is going on.
why don't we hear about these lawsuits in the news?
9:58 AM
Frivolous lawsuits are not news. The suits were covered up to the point the landlords admit to not having proof of their accusations. Right up to the millions of emails and correspondence turned over found nothing.
It BS that's why.
Eric
Also meaningful, non-frivolous lawsuits like this are not news, but they should be.
Without sites like this epople would not be heard. But they do have to sort through administration BS.
Without sites like this, the very ones working against the interest of the people and only for their own pockets would not be heard.
Who's voice is being heard here? Mine, Chuck, Bob, Bill Cullen, Bill Dahn, and Sharon Anderson. Who else is here regularly posting?
Don't say you or anyone else. As you know, journalism 101, running a story on anonymous quotes is not going to happen.
The pioneer press covered this for a while, then after the federal judge gave the landlords all the leeway in the world and they admit they still have no evidence for conspiracy or systematic targeting. They saw it for what it was, a retirement project for the attorney, a waste of taxpayers dollars, and a bunch of quintessential slum lords trying to redefine themselves as civil right proponents.
Actually after re-writing that, its not news or anything new, but something I wish more citizens were aware of this.
Eric
It's nice you are so safe and secure posting here Eric. The landlords and citizens who are concerned about sleaze in government are gentlemen, who would not be vindictive against you.
It is quite another thing for those who would speak out against the city. The city has proven time and time again they are dirty and vicious. That is why the anonymity.
Who's voice is being heard here? Mine, Chuck, Bob, Bill Cullen, Bill Dahn, and Sharon Anderson. Who else is here regularly posting?
Les Lucht, Nancy Osterman, Bob Guasman and more
It's nice you are so safe and secure posting here Eric. The landlords and citizens who are concerned about sleaze in government are gentlemen, who would not be vindictive against you.
Wrong. Straight from this blog I've been threatened with calls from code enforcement. Someone even went and told me to shut it or they will expose me for some crime. After I explained that there are at least six guys with my name in my age range in the Twin Cities, good luck getting the right one. For the record, I am currently not in Stillwater prison for murder- that's yet another one with the same name.
And, we all know that Chuck has been retaliated against several times by people on here- who of course remain anonymous.
It is quite another thing for those who would speak out against the city. The city has proven time and time again they are dirty and vicious. That is why the anonymity.
Really? What about all of those people who supported Kelly for re-election against this Mayor? I don't remember a purge over at city hall. So, tell us what part of the city are you talking about.
Anyway for what you say to sound halfway like a good conspiracy you'd have to assume the anonymous posters are landlords or people with issues in front of the city. According to their posts, most are not and are just posing their position. A bunch of uninformed cowards, like the dipstick I quote next:
Eric and Chcuk know what is up. They just go for the city side because if they do not then they do not get any of that DFL money that gets handed out.
What 'DFL money' is that? Tell us all how it works. Please don't let me win by showing anyone reading this that once again you idiots got accusations but no proof or line of logic to back it up. Tell us.
Who hands out the money? How do you get it? Where does it come from? What is it for?
Eric
The truth will come out in due time, regardless of any jive turkey comments to the contrary.
"jive turkey"?
What is this? An episode from Sanford and Sons?
You must be like 75. Good to see you can turn the computer on.
Eric
I think it fits. According to the Wikopedia,
Jive Turkey: derogatory slang word in African American Vernacular English (Ebonics), used to refer to someone who was unreliable, made empty promises, or who was full of bluster.
Maybe you should get up to date, and focus on the truth.
These guys don't deal in truth. They deal in political spin and Bullshit and obviscation. Everyone in the damn city knows what's going on with code enforcement and these 2 birds are not so stupid that they don't know about it. All about damage control.
Wow. This is great. Anyone who doesn't understand what is going on here from the contents of this lawsuit is not smarter than a 1st grader. That means you Chuck and Eric.
7:16- The rest of that definition you left out from that same site:
Several funk groups in the late 1960s and 1970s used the term, particularly the Ohio Players in songs such as "Jive Turkey" on the album Skin Tight from 1974.
The insult became widely known in the 1980s, particularly via television comedies (e.g., The Jeffersons). The term has been used by later television characters (e.g., Homer Simpson) in order to demonstrate that they are out of touch with modern youth trends, culture, and language.
he term was also used in the film Semi-Pro starring Will Ferrell and in Weird Science starring Kelly LeBrock 1985. "Jive turkey" also garnered attention in the movie Trading Places. Jive turkey, however, was already falling into disuse when it was spoken by "hip" television characters in the 1970s, such as George Jefferson.
You then tell me:
Maybe you should get up to date, and focus on the truth.
Yeah, OK. You must have a flux capacitor attached to your DeLorean and already hit 88 MPH.
Pick up a newspaper, you're stuck in an episode of the Jefferson's.
Eric
10:47
These guys don't deal in truth. They deal in political spin and Bullshit and obviscation. Everyone in the damn city knows what's going on with code enforcement and these 2 birds are not so stupid that they don't know about it. All about damage control.
7:19
Wow. This is great. Anyone who doesn't understand what is going on here from the contents of this lawsuit is not smarter than a 1st grader. That means you Chuck and Eric.
There is no need for damage control. There is no conspiracy aimed at tenants of any group. The enforcement is aimed at property owners that don't take care fo their property but, for the most part, know how to get that government check (section 8) in their bank accounts every month.
There has been no evidence beyond hearsay that counters that. None. Zero. Zilch.
Anyone who believes in the Constitution and our system of jurisprudence have no choice but to dismiss this. Oh yeah, they did.
Eric
eric,
Let me tell you something. The fire inspector has no right to demand any thing. Because of Morrris vs Sax. You can not change your codes to say it life safety issues. You Need to the read the state fire codes. It dosen't have any thing about
painting or struction issues.
Need to inspected by the fire marshall and state building inspector.
Not someone so called fire inspector. By the city council.
You need to read the state building
code and state fire code.
The city will lose in court. pay big money
"If what happened is that the building has gone vacant and now they have repair orders and they are saying the shouldn't have to repair the building to code because they might rent to sec 8, they have nothing."
If the city makes them do a code compliance then they have everything. Code Compliances are illegal and the high court has said so.
Looks like this is in the home stretch to me. Bases loaded with landlords waiting for more landlords to hit a home run at the appeals court. I think your city is about to get turned upside down and shaken till all the jingle comes out of their pockets Chuck.
"Anyone who believes in the Constitution and our system of jurisprudence have no choice but to dismiss this. Oh yeah, they did."
What the hell Constiution are you talking about fool? The only time you care about the Constitution or the law is when it beneifts you or your side of the argument.
"This model could be effective for lowering the tensions between renters and landlords, not to mention giving a legal frame for both when it comes to leases, codes and damages."
And when have you ever been interested in lowering tensions? Or anything else that's decent for that matter? All you do is sing the city spin shit here and use the fact that some people have code violations (never mind the fact that most of the city has them also) and because of that it seems to be perfectly OK with you for the city to violate some people's civil rights, make up violations that do not exist and completely overlook the fact that a lot of if not most of the violations landlords have are actually tenant caused damage that result in violations. Your the last guy who should be talking about lowering tensions Eric.
I think the reason most of us post anonymously is to avoid retalliation from the city which I for one can attest to as happening. I also think that Sparl would be a good tool for landlords and that they should have taken a stand against the cities policies, but chose to take a wait and see position ( big mistake ). To be truly an advocate for landlords they need to stand up for what is right and code compliances and illegal code enforcement are not right.
St. Paul had better hope the landlords suing them do not prove their case because if they do then there will be criminal shit that flows from the civil. Happens a lot of times in civil cases.
Bob,
I still follow the issues on Ademocracy, and think you are performing a valuable service by providing communications in an area that is often lacking.
I have moved on to other things, although not in St. Paul. The city has taken a wrong turn and is no longer a nice place.
I simply cannot forget having my house condemned for work I thought was proper, and done under permit by a licensed contractor under city inspection (the earlier inspector left my house in an unsafe condition). I cannot forget other things as well. The misconduct of inspectors, having my wife beat up and in tears by false information provided by a person assigned by Marcia Moermond, the personal involvement of several key figures in the racketeering cases, the incredibly vague code compliance report, and finally the threat to my mother by a city official on this site for posting a quality complaint on Ademocracy.
A lot of other people do not forget, and it costs the city in may ways.
For myself, I was involved in a number of key efforts over 25 years to turn around the inner-city. The knowledge of what was done and why is invaluable information the city cannot buy, but they sure won't get it from me.
There are many wonderful people involved in the efforts to reign in a city out of control. Keep up the good work.
Bob G.
Are you people completely out of your minds? I am none of the people named above but I do post here on a regular basis. Who in their right minds would leave their names when complaining about the city of St. Paul? If you even try to assert your rights under the law they take it personal and then they are out to get you.
Repke said:
Forum moderator MR Johnson....
Shouldn't you have thrown Bob and Bill into the backyard long ago?
No pissing match here.
My answer: Everything I have said is well documented. In developing my complaint, I consulted people with top level experience in St. Paul housing and inspections. I also talked to top people in construction.
In initiating discussion with the Pacific Legal Foundation, everything discussed was based on fact.
I object to your dismisive attitude. Simply talking a lot does not make it so. I think your city is a disgrace.
Just a signature for my 3:18 comment.
Bob G.
Thank you Bob G. It helps our cause to hear stories from citizens like you.
Links from some friends years ago now current ie: Tulane
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/judicialfix_box.htm
Kinda chilly in here lately.
12:18
I agree it is highly contentious.
From what I've gathered, highly politicized housing policies are incompatable with the health of the city. Politics has got to respect housing which is fair and reasonable. This sets a basic level of trust and good will necessary for healthy city life.
Most landlords have a higher level of sophistication, and can see the problems, but everyone is affected.
Maybe some day people can focus on things that make a city great, such as human understanding, sensitivity, and teamwork. Until then it remains a mess.
Bob G.
bob g.-"Most landlords have a higher level of sophistication,"
3...2...1...GO!
I am afraid it is going to remain a mess until the ledership in the city changes.
Post a Comment
<< Home