Custom Search

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Magner vs Gallagher Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits/ Asking for public participation to resolve the fair housing lawsuits.

posted by Bob at Wednesday, February 29, 2012

6 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

A simple solution to a complex issue?

First of all, I haven't spoken with the plaintiffs or the city regarding a settlement in the fair housing lawsuits. My intentions are to attempt to provoke thought in terms of seeking resolution to settle this issue.

The Federal fair Housing Lawsuits have been a burden financially on the city and the plaintiffs, The lawsuits have effected many people's lives in adverse ways. The politics of this issue has been heated and embarrassing for both sides of the struggle. The fight has put civil liberty's at risk.

I believe I have a settlement concept that would benefit the city, the citizens, and the plaintiffs. My concept if feasible would save the tax payers money in litigation fee's and the cost to the city would be minimal to settle this lawsuit. Also we could get some of these vacant homes occupied with responsible low income families and get the homes back on the property tax roll.

I heard through the grapevine (A Democracy Town Hall) the city attempted to settle with the plaintiffs for $500,000. I am sure the city has spent quite a bit more than this to date defending against this lawsuit.

Our city council and mayor truly believe they are acting in the interest of the citizens of Saint Paul. The plaintiffs truly believe they have had their civil rights and the rights of their tenants violated. It's a stale mate! What if the city agreed to settle without admitting any liability? What if the plaintiffs and their attorneys formed a "housing cooperative" and the city gave them "X" number of vacant homes to settle the lawsuit, no cash, just homes? It is my understanding the city owns a good number of vacant homes.


Folk's your opinions are greatly appreciated! Maybe you have a better idea and could be the one to solve this complex issue for all of us in the Saintly City.

6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A housing topic and the cat has everyones tongue? Amazing!

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's say that "if" I were a former landlord and part of the "suit", I would be mortified, frozen-stiff and still in shock as to what the City had done to me "way back when". I don't know if I would be able to have to deal with any of those people who played such a major part in destroying not only my life "back then" but that of other lives that they so recklessly destroyed. Yes, they would owe me for taking away my livlihood and hard-earned business but, just thinking of it gives, or probably would give, me panic attacks. Of course this is only in theory only; if I was one of the landlords.

1:35 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I agree with you 1:35. The thought of a re-run of the past as you say would mortify some of the plaintiffs.

However, Dadders (Tom & Joe) is still in business in Saint Paul. I don't believe Tom and Joe have current issues with the city. I am guessing since Tom and Joe are investors this deal would be an easy sell to them. They would probably take their share of the homes and add them to their portfolio and opt out of a cooperative.

The cooperative would be a good deal for plaintiffs like Steinhauser, Johnson & their attorneys. Sell off some homes for immediate cash and rent the rest through the cooperative. A management team could over see operations, this means no hassles with the city or tenants for the cooperative share holders.

The cooperative objectives would be to provide low income affordable housing, maintain properties, generate revenue, "re-invest" and provide an equitable cash flow for share holders.

The city owns a lot of property that isn't on the tax role. This deal would generate revenue for the city in the form of property taxs. This deal would also come close to fulfilling the cities current obligations to HUD.

I posted this topic and took it down after 2 days. I reposted this topic about 2 weeks ago. I was surprised to see you guys commented. I am grateful to get the feedback.

I intend to forward this topic to the city after the comments quit coming in.

If anyone out there has a better solution please post it here.

11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No to public participation in resolving the fair housing lawsuit! It is not the public's fight so let the court, judge, and jury decide the case! The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit against the city, and the plaintiffs have chosen to appeal and drag it out. Let the court finish it, quit appealing it and let it end like it should have years ago! And no to giving the plaintiffs houses for a settlement! If the plaintiffs spent some of the money they get from the HUD program on the upkeep of their buildings, perhaps there would have been no excuse to sue the city to begin with! If what most people want is for the city to remove and/or control run down looking properties in order to keep the city looking presentable, then there should be no complaints about code enforcement! And if the landlords cared about the tenants and their living conditions, they should do what they have to in order to create and provide such for their tenants. Therefore the landlords should not have a problem with code enforcement. If the landlords wanted to avoid code violations, they should spend some of the money they get from the government on the upkeep of their buildings-which is what they should have to do by law to begin with! Let the landlords continue to spend their money on the lawsuit that they started, continually appealed and have are responsible for dragging the case on this long.

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:17, you don't know shit! Spend another 6 months here and you might get a clue.

8:56 PM  

<< Home