Custom Search

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Saint Paul City Leaders Embrace Wealthy Alleged Slumlord

Please click onto the TITLE for the story.

264 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Figures, while city leaders are busy running out the landlords who house the poor, they give money to absentee landlords who manage their property form a 5 million dollar home in Naples, Florida? And the they turn around and bash landlords some more. Nothing suprises me any longer!

12:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This fits perfectly with the quality we see of the city's other 'services', such as declaring peoples' homes and people as refuse, and then demolishing it or them.

10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And then claiming it is providing a "Service!"

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

City Council members do not want you to rent an apartment to anyone who has a criminal past, and yet they give money to the very same people......YOUR MONEY! This shoudln't suprise anyone.

12:49 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

If you could think of the most ridiculous thing to do or the most stupid path to take - this would be the most likely path our City leaders would take.

2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you all reading the same article I am? He lives in Naples Florida and own all of his property in Minneapolis.

Some of these apartments sound like the ones I know of on the East side owned by one of you 'poor down-trodden landlords'. Until you as a group listen to your tenants and ban together against the slumlords (and not join them in phony lawsuits), then you will be nothing but nickel and dime version of this guy.

Eric

2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Eric why don't you go Fuck yourself.Putting the people in the lawsuit and other landlords with slumlords is like calling you a gang banger!

Name all 10 people in the lawsuit so you don't sound so ignorant.You can't!Have you ever seen their property?


Kwit steriotyping G!!


Sid

3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa, Sid.
You kiss your boyfriend with that potty mouth of yours?

Now do you want me to go and f*ck myself or name you ten landlords in the suit?

How about I name the one in particular I'm talking about that owns the property in the Lower Payne Neighborhood with some of the same conditions?

You want that?
Or are you more interested in seeing me try to perform something that is anatomically impossible?

Eric

4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought I made myself crystal clear.You come on here and attack the suits with insults of the word slumlords.I'm waiting for ten names.

Eric haven't we learned something about judging one group based on a minority group.

Your doing exactly what whites did to blacks back in history and even today.


My point is this, unless you know every landlord and their properties in the suits then you are painting them all with a broad brush.

So if you what to be treated fairly maybe you should give these guys the benefit of the doubt.Remember these guys are doing exactly what their supposed to do when you feel violated.Produce your case and let the jury rule.So untill then you really don't know a damn thing.


Thanks,
Sid

6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said Sid!

7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is how the city works.
the slumlord that are real bad get
the money from city. And good ones they screw with. More you try to fix your place the more they want to do. Then they will take it from you. If do nothing than you can get anythings from the city.

Kick are the good ones out of St.Paul and have more vacants.

Now can tear down more homes and pay the for the lots At $26.00 a lot.

Have are buddys build low income house on it. So they can money
and give some of the money to us later. That the city councils thinks.

7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's about time someone taught Eric some mannors.

7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So tell me what's phoney about the lawsuits with the landlords Eric?

7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to see you call out the name Eric.....that is, if you can. Since it is public record who these poeple are, there should be no issues with naming the name....or is there?

7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He can't cause he doesn't know any of them. He's just making his point with empty words, like he always does, like the city always does, like the DFL always does.....just call someone names or slander them so it creates a bias in people's minds and then it is easier to have the lies you tell become believeable.

8:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. The Plaintiffs in the suit are Dadder (three or four different entities), Gallahger, Allison, Johnson, Vue, Harrilal, Steinhauser, Brisson, and Meysembourg. Now isn't that better than watching me trying to f**k myself as you first suggested?

2. My only mistake was thinking that Jim S. was part of this suit.(He's Bob's friend so this may be my last post. Bob's in a banning mode) It doesn't appear that he is and I would certain put him in the category of slumlord with one property in right off of Payne ave. Dadder's properties are shit as well in my opinion. Thanks for the info. Click here for locations

3. Its not my job to prove what's phony in your cases. Its your job to prove its merit. Yet to be done. Since your so involved with the system of jurisprudence, you should know that filing a suit is one thing but proving your mettle is another. In my subjective viewpoint, I have heard and seen cases similar (albeit not as bad) in St Paul. I have heard the horror stories from tenants and neighbors. I have not heard anything about the landlords until this suit. Since the suit, I have heard nothing on its merits except from those who stand to benefit. So, you'll have to excuse me if I personally am not ready to go the seven hills of Saint Paul and sing the praises of the RICO suits.

4. It's 'manners' 7:44(burp!).

5. Sid, there is no case until there is a call made. No call has been made. Like I said, look at who you align yourselves with AND tell us where are you when these landlords are abusing your industry's reputation. Nowhere to be found. You don't self regulate your own industry, yet get mad when regulatory policies are handed down because of the bad apples in your bunch. You should marginalize them and expose them, then you'll get the support of the people. Until then, they will only think what i said outloud.

6. Nobody, with the exclusion of Chuck, gets insulted and defamed more than I. I don't expect respect from this site.

7. 8:03, I think you mean the 'defamation' instead of slander. Technically since its written it would be libel. If there was a defamation torts case in this entire board, it would be up to me and Chuck to decide to do it. We are libeled here weekly and several times a day. Not to mention the city employees named here daily as being corrupt and incompetent. They would probably have a good suit as well.

Any more questions?

Eric

12:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have my respect Eric. Even though I don't agree with you most of the time, I have learned some things from you being here.

This blog is a regular lunch hour subject in the cafeteria where I work, and I can tell you there are several people who do not post anything here, but appreciate your perspective.

4:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

Thank you for bringing up the issue of slander. This touches on the purpose of this website -unaccountability of city personnel.

The fact is that the city inspectors and officials are unaccountable due to 'Government Immunity'. They can and do commit crimes of slander, and many other offenses, because they are immune. The only accountability is through immense legal actions, such as RICO and civil rights, wihch the plaintiffs have originated. The only hope for regular citizens is for these lawsuits to prevail. Due to the expense, the large lawsuits are out of the reach of most people.

The city has also taken steps to remove accountability, such as replacing a full volunteer impartial board with a single paid employee, Administrative Hearing Officer Marcia Moermond, who lacks the deep background necessary to determine the issues.

6:59 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric said; 7. 8:03, I think you mean the 'defamation' instead of slander. Technically since its written it would be libel. If there was a defamation torts case in this entire board, it would be up to me and Chuck to decide to do it. We are libeled here weekly and several times a day. Not to mention the city employees named here daily as being corrupt and incompetent. They would probably have a good suit as well.

My response; You or nobody else has a libel case against this forum Eric. "The Truth Always Prevails Here". The attorneys who sponsor me reviewed the board before they signed on as sponsors.

If you think you can afford a libel case bring it on. We can use the PUBLICITY. I would counter sue, and I have resources just for such an action.

Short of assaulting someone on this forum Eric, I don't foresee you ever getting banned. Let's hope you don't get angry enough to commit such a crime because we would miss you.

8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The word tort typically means that a civil wrong has been committed in which the courts can award a monetary compensation for the wrongful conduct of an individual whether it be the result of an intentional or negligent wrong doing. The law of torts comes from the common law which is the body of law we have developed by means of our state courts.



C. Disparagement of Business Reputation or Property. Every business enterprise is entitled to compete with other firms free from wrongful disparagement of its reputation or the products that it sells.
1. Disparagement of a firm's reputation is also referred to as defamation (publication of anything injurious to the good name or reputation of another).
a. Defamatory language tends to adversely affect a person's interest in reputation.
1) This may result from impeaching the person's honesty, integrity, virtue, sanity, or the like.
a) General name-calling is not actionable.
2) The plaintiff must establish that a reasonable listener, reader, or viewer would understand that the defamatory statement referred to the plaintiff.
3) A statement is not actionable unless it has been published. A publication refers to a communication to a third person who understood it.
4) The communication to the third person may be made either intentionally or negligently.
a) Once publication is established, it is no defense that the defendant had no idea that (s)he was defaming plaintiff.
b) Intent to publish, not intent to defame, is the requisite intent for liability.
b. The tort of defamation has two distinct subcategories: libel and slander.
1) Libel is a defamatory statement in writing or some other permanent form.
2) Slander is spoken defamation. It is distinguished from libel in that it is less permanent and less physical in form.
3) Determining whether a defamation is libel or slander may be difficult, e.g., defamation on radio or television. The courts generally consider several factors to make the determination, including
a) How permanent is the form? The more permanent, the more likely the statement will be held to be libel.
b) How broad is the area of dissemination? The broader the area, the more likely the statement will be characterized as libel.
c) How premeditated was the defamation? The more premeditated, the more likely it will be characterized as libel.
c. Defamation of a public figure or public official regarding his/her conduct, fitness, or role in that capacity requires that the defendant knew that the statement was false and defamatory or recklessly disregarded those matters.
d. In most jurisdictions, truth is an absolute defense to defamation regardless of the defendant's intent.

8:50 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

d. In most jurisdictions, truth is an absolute defense to defamation regardless of the defendant's intent.

Like I said; "The Truth Always Prevails Here".

A DEMOCRACY

"WE ARE ON A TRUTH SEEKING MISSION"

9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric so you are speaking more or less on what you have heard not seen....correct? A person in your postion should know better then that, you taking someones word and making a claim out of it. That is not proper for a person that is suppose to represent individuals and discrimination, do you realize how many tenants make false claims against a landlord as an excuse are not to pay rent when they facing a UD? If you look closely at the cities track record you will also find that many of their allegations on the stated properties you are referring to are also false. You may want to look a bit closer at what you are saying to make damn sure you have your info correct and are not rlying on the false allegations of another individual. Evidence speaks very well court and I think you will be surprised at some of the evidence that will be coming out in time.

Heard but not seen in fear of retalitory actions from the city.

9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric you just proved to everybody you know shit about the suits and the people in it.

You copied the names off the suits and googled Dadders Properties and picked number one for a property location.I just did it.Were smarter here then the friends you hang out with Eric.

I know many of us might not have thought you could read and google but I was asking did you know these guys and there properties?

With your answers and how long it took I still think many of us believe your full of shit!

Sid

9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can't we all just get along"?

Rodney

9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, what do you think of the city giving up our tax dollars to this guy?

Mike Smith

9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe that guy was a friend of Mr. Thunes, sounds like their properties are very similar!

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

I have seen many, but not all of Dadder’s properties. I strongly disagree with you that they are “slumlords.” Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/slumlord) defines slumlord as “a landlord who receives unusually large profits from substandard properties”. So, to avoid libel, you must prove both “unusually large profits” and “substandard.”

Rent411 reports the rent at Princeton Place as: Studio: $450, 1br: $550 - $595, 1br+den: $550-$595 and 2 br: $700-$745. You can read it yourself here: http://www.rent411.com/St-Paul-apartment-Saint%20Paul-MN-apartments-Princeton-Place-Apartments-25235.htm.

The market research data I have says the AVERAGE St. Paul rent in 3rd quarter of 2007 is $832. You could certainly challenge me for using “average” rent as a comparison, but hey doing a market survey is time consuming. However, I know the market well enough to say that Dadders is $50 or more below many competitors within one mile of their building. If you disagree, will gladly bet you $100 that I can find 10 apartments within 1 mile of Princeton Place where rent is $50 or more than a comparable unit at Princeton Place. Come on – I dare you. Appraising apartments is a significant part of what I do everyday – it will be an easy $100 for me. So, Eric, you certainly failed the first part, eh?

I searched on-line databases for code issues at Princeton Place and the majority of the fire department complaints I found were tenant extension cords. The only significant complaints I found were disabled smoke detectors in a few apartments (usually, but not always, that is tenant caused.)

So, Eric, I have seen the inside of their buildings and believe they are nice, safe and sound. Their rents are under market and the fire department doesn’t seem to be complaining about the buildings. What do you KNOW that we don’t?

What is your real complaint? Lets not sling mud, state specifically what you don’t like about Dadders properties (or the rest of us). If you don’t like the residents (which is really all that is left), then why don’t you like our residents? What would you recommend we do differently?

Regards, Bill Cullen.

9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Bill...

10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda promised me a spanking and then welshed on the promise.

10:21 AM  
Blogger AMANDA said...

Listen boy's... Rent to responsible people and maintain your homes and you won't have any trouble.

Do criminal background and credit checks. Call previous landlords for references.

Work with the neighbors and law enforcement when an issue comes up.

Don't just collect rent and call it a day!

Nancy L. had nothing to do with my sabbatical from this corny forum. She couldn't debate her way out of a paper bag. Chuck won every debate she had with him. I suspect this is the real reason she quit this forum. Defending Bill Dahn didn't make sense. But then again nothing here makes much sense.

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

You to take some law classes about
three years of classes to know what is in law.

One fact is that you do not know
it personal. That the person(s)
you are talking about are slumlordland or not. Just because someone said that person(s) is a slumlordland. Does not mean to be.

Did the landlord have been taken to court and the court found that the landlord have did something wrong and fine or order him or her
fix the problem(s) or order to to keep tenant in the unit(s).

Just because some tenants have a problem(s) with him or her.

On the hand hand did the city order the landlord to fix it or
lose it. Or be fine by the city.

Now the landlord have some rights not as many as a tenant has.

Your statment are libel. You could
face court actions if ones want to.

Being a lordland for 12 years i have see it all. And been call everything. But when effect my famliy than I will do some thing about the problems.

I have enough of all of you people
thinking that all landlords are same that is just bull shit.

It is way change the subject matter. Blame it on the landlords , hook and drug dealers.

But do not fix the real problem.

Its the tenants themselfes that are the problems.

They are one put trash in the yard, tear out screens, deastroy the proprety values. Not the landlord they are ones that bring up values of the proprety when they keep thing up. I spend 50 hours a week working on my propreties and why should I now with decrease values of proprety.

Who cause this problem the city council and there code enforements programs.

And some homeowner that are mad at landlord for doing business that wish that they should done it too.

Eric you need to get your facts first then decide what is the real problems. Talk to some landlord and talk to legal aid and then go
to the judges. Sit in housing for three or four days

then you will enough informations to make a judgment on who is the blame.

Leslie K. Lucht

10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda,

I completely agree with your maintenance comment.

But, Amanda, where should all the people live that have a minor criminal record, poor credit, single eviction or poor income history? Are you advocating they should be homeless?

Eric & Chuck always enter into discussions out here and I respect and admire both of them for it. My experience with you is that you drop simpleton statements like this and then refuse to back them up. Lets see if this time is different. (I won't hold my breath).

Amanda, where should the very large segement of society live that don't meet the rental criteria you advocate for?

Bill Cullen.

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

amanda
you need to sit in housing court too. You like to blame the landlord too. Maybe you should try being a landlord. Its hard work and you some many people want you to do things and give the money you make to them or take you to court.

You do not make alot money now days. Because you need have lawyer, general contract, caretaker
a handyman and lawn person.

Plus screening services and run want ads. Then you a lot nonprofits asking for money and to rent to someone givce them chance.

Then you have code enforcement and
inspect from fire safty people.

Then if you rent to sec.08 then you have any inspection.

I havr about three or four inspection from differentd groups
city .

Then the increase in proprety taxes in the least three year of 128 % and increase in the mortgages
oop I forgot one the insurance increase and He or she telling you
You will inspection by the insurance company, To tell you still have policy.


Leslie K. Lucht

10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill,
I don't think Amanda's maintenance comment is logical at all. She said "rent to RESPONSIBLE people".
Yet the only people who don't have problems are city officials and their friends, who are clearly not responsible. Look at Thune's house for example.

11:03 AM  
Blogger AMANDA said...

Bill said- But, Amanda, where should all the people live that have a minor criminal record, poor credit, single eviction or poor income history? Are you advocating they should be homeless?

*No Bill, I do not advocate for homelessness. There is programs for these people.

I guess we lay in the bed we make for ourselves don't we.

A question for you. Are you suggesting felons shouldn't have a home to live in? I sense this in your statement.


Bill said- Amanda, where should the very large segment of society live that don't meet the rental criteria you advocate for?

Bill, name one homeless person you know who couldn't get housing because of their irresponsible behavior. The fact is there is housing for people with felonies and a poor credit history. People are released from prison everyday and they find housing. If they didn't we would see the after math in our streets.

11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where's Nancy L.? She needs to put these idiots in their place.

11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok I am now upset and must speak up....

Amanda I am one of them people with a criminal background, are you saying that My child and I do not deserve to have a roof over our head because of some poor choices I made in my past? I have news for you, I have turned my life around 100%+ in the past four years.

If you think you are better then some of us with a grim past history you are very wrong. I believe that this is the land of oppertunity and inorder to have oppertunity you have to be allowed it whether it be a risk or giving a person a chance at turning there life around or not. I even have some St.Paul police officers that direct tenants to me that they feel have been wronged by our lovely system and aren't given a fair chance in St.Paul to get there life back to become productive because they have seen my success and know I will help people instead of degrading them as you and many others do!

The justice system supposedly wants to see criminals become productive citizens yet these individuals are not allowed too. Have you ever tried to get a job without an address, and then have a criminal background to haunt you on top of it, its not an easy chore. Whether you like it or not everyone deserves a place to call home whether they made mistakes in their life or not.

Nancy O.

11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:03:

I don't have access to the discovery information many of you have, so you may have a point. Maybe it isn't about maintenance of properties at all -- but rather about how strong your connections are at city hall. I don't know.

However, since I believe (and I suspect you do too) that everyone should maintain their buildings, I don't want Amanda to now retreat and argue about maintenance standards.

I want to see if Amanda can explain the liberal of plan of rationing housing. Who, precisely should us landlords exclude from housing to assure we don't get harrassed by city officials? Come on, Amanda! Help us be good neighbors, who does the city of St. Paul believe should be homeless?

I am not holding my breath that Amanda will ever respond... Simpleton comments is all we get from her!

But, I do hear you and understand 11:03.

Bill Cullen.

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:09, Nancy L. is out of here on sick leave with an illness termed EGONITIS.

11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Amandas perfect world, if the majority of the people in the city were responsible and had no problems, then we wouldn't need the government would we?

11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda is living in a fantasy world all of her own!

11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda,

Nope, I believe everyone deserves housing. EVERYONE. Sometimes criminals might find housing in jail, but I think everyone deserves housing.

However, at 10:37 am you, Amanda, wrote:

“Rent to responsible people and maintain your homes and you won't have any trouble. Do criminal background and credit checks. Call previous landlords for references.”

Clearly YOU are advocating that landlords refuse housing to those with criminal records, poor credit and bad rental references. If not, why do you want us to do the background check?

I apologize if I misunderstand you. Maybe you could clarify why you advocate landlords do a background check if not to ration housing to those that fail the check.

You are unaware there is a homeless problem? You are the first I have ever heard say this. I see homelessness in our streets.

Bill Cullen.

11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And that is one of the problems with your dirty nasty city and its leaders Amanda.....we are seeing the "aftermath" on the streets!

11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Bill if you aren't aware this is about PUBLIC SAFETY.

My neighbors are homestead home owners. They go to work. Pay their tax's and don't bother anyone. The people you advocate for are your source of income. They generally use city resources provided by the tax payer and they are a deficit to the city and not an asset. I for one would like to see the last remaining rental house on my block torn down. Notin ever rents there but pant sagging gang bangers bringing down my property value and scaring the neighbors.

Whether you like it or not the city is improving the look of the things and the class of people who reside here. And we all will be better off for it.

Bill, do us a favor and buy some acreage WAY UP NORTH and build low income housing for felons.

It's a new world and the people who aren't on the path of the American Dream will have a rough road to travel and I do not feel sorry for them. I had to work for everything I have.

froggy

11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Froggy,

I am all for public safety. I think we ought to put “gang bangers” in jail for a long, long time. I have never, and will never, advocate for them.

However, until they are convicted of their crimes, they must live somewhere. Right? You propose they live “WAY UP NORTH.” Guess, what? They don’t want to deal with “gang bangers” either and are trying to move them to…. St. Paul!

In other words, the leaders of St. Paul try to move criminals to Mpls, Richfield, Roseville, Brooklyn Center, Fridley, etc while those communities are trying to move criminals to St. Paul. Is this a strategy for success? As I hear it, you are advocating for it.

Well, Froggy, you now understand the basis of the lawsuit. City officials (and their busy body friends) determined they did not like some families. The families actions were either legal or hard to prove. So, instead of working to arrest tenants or change behaviors, the city continuously harassed the landlord using code enforcement.

The big surprise? It turns out the majority of the tenants the city (and their busy-body friends) “did not like” were African American. That is discrimination. Look up the phrase “disparate impact” and read about it.

So, Froggy, if the tenants you identified are gang bangers, why didn’t the police arrest them? Why aren’t you furious with the police? Or more likely, your neighbors were not breaking the law, they just did not fit in your “new world” and pursue the same “American Dream” as you? Heck, maybe they were even (gasp!) black.

But, lets make this a productive discussion. Eric, Amanda and Froggy, can you please elaborate on who we should not rent to? Who is it that – as Amanda wrote – gets landlords in trouble if we rent to them? Froggy how would you recommend we only rent to tenants that fit your “new world?”

Come on… What tenants do you think should have to move “way up north?” The black ones?

Eric & Amanda have gone quiet. I predict Froggy will now too. You dimwits are proposing we ration housing and that we do it based to who you do not like. I cannot believe such arrogance is presented with such righteousness.

Bill Cullen.

1:20 PM  
Blogger AMANDA said...

Bill said- Clearly YOU are advocating that landlords refuse housing to those with criminal records, poor credit and bad rental references. If not, why do you want us to do the background check?

I apologize if I misunderstand you. Maybe you could clarify why you advocate landlords do a background check if not to ration housing to those that fail the check.

* Amanda- If I was a landlord I would provide a safe secure environment not just for my tenants but for the neighbors also. To do this I would need a background check on prospective tenants. This is common sense.

I hope you don't have any rentals near my home Bill. You clearly feel you have a right to rent to people who have a history of anti social behavior.

So this debate has come down to, a landlords belief he has a right to rent to anyone with the cash (because in his mind the worst among us has a right to live next door)vs responsible citizens right to live a peaceable life.

And you call me a simpleton Bill.

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just drove by the princeton place
of dadder's to see if Eric is right or Bill Cullen.I was shocked.I thought I'd see a building falling over.Well people I'll tell you the property looked better than anything in the neighborhood.Bill Cullen you are 100% right.Great property.

Eric what are you talking about?Do you know?Seriously.You just throw up a statement of slander that doesn't fit.How could any of us trust this guy anymore when he states lies?The sad thing is I saw minorities and whites at this address that looked civilized and happy.I also checked the city web site on these properties and they received A's.


Eric I think you owe these tenants and dadder's an apology for your crude statement of their homes.


This just proves that Eric doesn't like rental no matter how its ran.


Linda

1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, you having interesting support.

BIGOTS like Froggy!

1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cullen probably doesn't know what he's talking about right Eric?

Looks like Eric got caught telling some lies.

Eric you should be ashamed.And you mentor kids and work with the community.

Well Eric you are the problem and not the solution.


Sid

1:51 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Minnesota has by far the highest disparity -- blacks in that state are incarcerated at 23 times the rate of whites. In the District of Columbia, blacks are incarcerated at 34 times the rate of whites. Even in Hawaii and Vermont, the states with the smallest racial disparities in incarceration rates, blacks are still incarcerated at more than twice the rate of whites.26

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm

1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, keep your pants on. There is enough of me to go around.

Bob, I don't have plans to sue anyone for anything. This forum is protected as its advertised as a place for commentary and opinion, not fact. You start swearing by these words on here as fact, and you will have a problem. You won't have problem finding a lawyer to defend you and/or another one to counter sue. Its the American way, it doesn't mean you're protected. Wisely enough, you have enough statements about this being a public type place for all views which counters the truth mission. See truth is only backed up by facts and everybody doesn't get to have their own facts.

My point for bringing this up was that I was aware that I was about to name names and specific property. The particular 'slumlord' who owns the property I am thinking of, is known to support frivolous lawsuits. So my choice was to decide what cost do i want to be proven right among a bunch of people whom could give a damn less about me, as I do them. i decided to go with the not very much side of the coin.

To the wiki-guy who is trying to educate us about torts. Thanks, but I have a career and a little something hanging on my wall that implies factual, I know torts.

Bill, I happen to be one who tends to side with tenants and neighbors over the landlords if they are not living in the neighborhood. In my experience, the further removed they are from the property, the less likely the property is to be at the level of surrounding properties. Froggy, for once, makes a point that neighbors are bringing up over and over. It's not heard as much because there tends to be a racist undertone to it. The property that I mentioned is an eyesore. It sat vacant for some time and there were people breaking in leaving garbage and drug paraphernalia left inside (according to neighbors). In an area where there are lots of problems and you have this one block were they have turned things around, except this one house with a slumlord who doesn't care to talk with them or keep up the property without the city forcing him to do so. That's a specific case for you. Attempts to contact and invitations to meet with the neighbors down there were repeatedly turned down.

Leslie, I have done everything except go to housing court. My volunteer efforts end before that. i will repeat this to you as my position, words and intention are constantly in question here or are stated for me by others.

*There is a problem with low-income and no-income housing. Its the market and competition. The biggest competitor for those dollars is the government. Hence the the animosity against the government.

*There is also the perception that these properties attract tenants that bring several types of quality of life criminal issues. So there is the contention from surrounding property owners and law enforcement.

*However, I don't believe that the city has conspired with departments and agencies to target the above people out of the city. The DFL, according to those who don't know shit, depends on poor people to win elections. Why would they then work to run them out of town in the a DFL town?

*There are slumlords out there who are not living in Florida. There are landlords who own property that they don't take care of, allow people to move in who further damages and bring down property value and quality of life issues (cops coming out weekly). In a period of several months you have a property that looks like shit with several violations, and a landlord that can't be found and a neighborhood that's ready to burn the place down. That's a slumlord and we have several over on the East side.

*I understand politics. I don't understand why the landlords haven't publicly banned together to go after those irresponsible property owners that mark them with a black eye. When tenants complain, why aren't there people like Bill and Leslie testifying on responsible property stewardship? That would go a long, long way in separating the good from the bad. That would make it easier for activist and politicians to publicly stand with you. But, you haven't separated yourselves in a public way- until someone like me groups you all together. You get the Watchhdog tabloid calling out politicos instead of the traitors to your industry. Not a very good political move.

*I work for a living and can't answer all things immediately. You don't like my respond time, hire me and I'll bill you for my time. Then you'll get a prompt, smart-ass free response.

Any more questions?

Eric

1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob so does that mean that Eric is promoting that landlords shouldn't rent to his minority of people?

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So......just so I can be "enlightened" Amanda, tell us what you think is anti social behavior? Is it balck people who barbeque in the front yard? Or perhaps black people that usually talk louder than whites and sometimes all at the same time? Or maybe it is black people with large close nit families that visit often? Or is it black people with saggy pants? Or unlike your white DFL activist Sara Jane Olson, would it be a black man with a criminal record who doesn't have a doctor with money for a spouse? Or could it be anything a white man says a black man did or said that you heard from another neighbor? Tell us will you? Please?

2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda,

This is surreal. I keep answering your questions and you keep ducking mine. Can you please just answer the obvious hole in your argument?

At 10:37 you said “Rent to responsible people and maintain your homes and you won't have any trouble. Do criminal background and credit checks. Call previous landlords for references.”

All I want to know is who you think all of us landlords should never rent to? Help me (and all of us) be better landlords. Tell us what tenants St. Paul wants us to exclude from housing.

I maintain that you (and Eric and Froggy) will never be able to create a list. Yet, you act as though there is one!

Bill Cullen.

2:04 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Folks do you really think the young black men here commit more crimes than else where or do you think maybe we have a racial problem and these folks are targeted more often? Thus the disparity.

In Minnesota and Iowa, blacks constitute a share of the prison population that is twelve times greater than their share of the state population. In eleven states -- Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming --the percentage of the prison population that is black is more than six times greater than the percentage of the state population that is black.

2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here we go again.

1. I don't advocate for screening as stated above. If you happen to rent to criminals, the police should be involved. its why I support more cops.

2. There is and has been a gang and drug problem up north. I've been as far as Orr and I-Falls. I went to school in Bemidji. There are crime and property issues abound up there.

3. Dadder;s property is not the one I named or described as being owned by the slum lord, re-read what I wrote so that i don't have start writing in crayon for some of you. I didn't know of it until I found their name on the lawsuits. I not only drove by it, but know people who live there. Linda, if its good enough for you, we must all be wrong. Glad to know you're the standard for what's livable. And all of that from just driving by and looking. You keep that kind of assessment up and you'll be working for the county in no time.

4. Bob, what has your stats to do with this discussion. I like how everytime we start talking about landlords someone interjects the merger into race. So what's your point Bob? No renting to blacks?

Once again everyone- its LIBEL not SLANDER! Slander is spoken, libel is written. Got it?

I didn't lie about anything. Unlike some of you, I don't need another lawyer to prove it. i called like i see it. i don't owe ANYONE an apology for ANYTHING I said/wrote.

Is that clear enough?

Eric

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for showing us we live in the most bigotted state in the union Bob. real nice to know.

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to inject one more facts Bob.

There are more black men 18-25 in college than prison today.

Eric

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have news for you Eric. Landlords spend many times the amount of money on their properties that your precious home owners do. It's the tenant that tears it down and rips it up, not the landlord. I dare you to tell me one homeowner who has told they saw the landlord breaking his own windows and tearing out his own screens. You and these neighbors expect us to start playing the vilin music because they have a vacant house that people are vandalizing? These neighbors sit and watch this stuff day in and day out and do nothing because of their lazyness and cowardice. They have watched this problem grow since the day it was so small they could have crushed it like a bug, but they chose to do nothing........and now they have a problem that someone else is supposed to be responsible for? Because the guy doesn't live there, some how it's his fault that he was victimized by criminal behavior of people beyond his control? For an Attorney Eric you don't seem very bright.

2:20 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric, the RICO suits are about a protected class of citizens and the landlords who rented to them. The majority of the rental homes targeted were minority, "blacks".

Most of the people complaining to the city council about their neighbors were old white folks Eric.

I just want everyone to know this is statistically the most BIGOTTED state in the union. Institutional and closet public racism abounds.

This is the ROOT of our housing problems.

2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

You sound reasonable to me.

I honestly do not know the answers to the problems I post out here. If our fine city maintains their policy of punishing landlords for renting to "problem tenants" (as Amanda and Froggy seem to like), then we will ultimately eliminate housing for those with imperfect personal histories. That sounds like a horrible public policy to me.

I do not discount the real pain disruptive households have in neighborhoods, but am confused as to why we advocate for landlords being police (for real criminals) or forced nosey neighbors for disruptive, but non-criminal actions.

It seems to me that our leaders are making housing a privilege without saying so. I think we should have a true public debate on this issue.

Bill Cullen.

2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill says some of these problems are "dis-ruptive, but non criminal." If it's disruptive, then is it not disrurbing the peace? If the answer is yes, then it is criminal, and that brings me to another point. The city has promoted a policy for decades that has put the blame on the landlord. It hasn't worked as is evidenced by Eric's characteriztion of his neoghborhood problems. The only thing the city has recieved in return for their failed policies is a bunch of lawsuits that are suing them back to the stone age. WHy not have the police deal with the problem and send the message that if you are going to act in ways that are against the law, you are going to be prosecuted? Why do your neighbors not demand this Eric? How stupid can they be to sit by decade after deacade and still embrace the same old failed policies while they watch the neighborhood fall down around them? How much more of your kind of rehtoric are they going to listen to before they finally decide a new approach is needed?

2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if we started targeting truck drivers tomarrow the statistically arrest rate for meth amphimeans among this group would increase and truck drivers are mostly white guys. I feel blacks are targeted more than any other race in the metro area. pressure put on the powers that be by the citizens, if these citizens are predijudicial we have a bad outcome
you have a point Bob.

2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually someone did a study several years ago and found that the larcenous tendencies amoung people were almost the same accross all gender, racial and religous lines. The reason the blacks get arrested more is because they are the easiest to catch because their crimes are on the street which is much easier to notice than say a white guy in an office screwing someone out of twice the money, but using a computer to do it.

3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric says: 3. Dadder;s property is not the one I named or described as being owned by the slum lord, re-read what I wrote so that i don't have start writing in crayon for some of you. I didn't know of it until I found their name on the lawsuits. I not only drove by it, but know people who live there. Linda, if its good enough for you, we must all be wrong. Glad to know you're the standard for what's livable. And all of that from just driving by and looking. You keep that kind of assessment up and you'll be working for the county in no time.


I say: The property looks great so I don't know what you saw when you drove by it but maybe you just can't read addresses.The fire department gave it a grade A.Which is good.You associate with tenants there so their clientele must be good.If the people who live there know you they must be educated,right?So if conditions are so bad why do they live there?Can't they move?

What are the problems that these so called people you know there have?

I also think Bill Cullen said he was in these units and said they were nice.So what are you talking about?Where do you see problems as you drive by?

Eric you state you are educated because you have a degree on the wall but Sir I believe you're just an ass.

Before you type or talk know what you talk about.



Linda

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, I don't have an answer for you. The public debate on the macro level is the rights of ownership versus the rights of the commons. Or, where do individual rights move over for collective rights?
That's the debate. To narrow it down, where do landlords right to rent interfere with quality of life rights of the citizen?

In another forum we could have a good discussion on that. It can't happen here. You'll be surprise where i land on most of those points. For this discussion here, its about the RICO suits. That's where I am 100% that the city did not conspire with other agencies to target a group. That doesn't excuse the city if the vast number of the displaced are poor and people of color. I'm all for rectifying that asap. i have posted phone numbers on this site for government attorneys who I know would be interested. This is not about rectifying that. This is about money. This is about a pay out without even the push for ordinance change to keep this from happening again. So, knowing this and seeing the type off arguments put forth on this blog, justice for all is not the case. Its settlement for landlords and nothing for the displaced except a mention by Bob on his blog.
---
I never said I was so smart. i just know how to read and can see when people are talking out of their ass. If you're not 100% with you guys on here then we are enablers or participants in a corrupt city structure that has put all of its resources into bringing down the landlord and their tenants.
----
St Paul does not have a city council full of progressive Democrats. Minneapolis has a couple of Green Party members and independent DFLers. Though turnout was low, quality challengers were pretty low too. Three out of seven seats had challengers of quality and all three of those challengers were DFLers. If there is such an undercurrent of support for your views, where are they? Where were you? Why aren't people demanding this who aren't landlords?
Because you only use the city and politics as a scapegoat for SOME of your own ineptness.
---
My neighbors all support not only law enforcement, but were willing to have our taxes increased to pay for it. We not only contacted the landlords but, we demanded for more meetings with the police to follow-up on enforcement of criminal activity (we got those meetings too). We also try to have someone in court ready to testify against these criminals. We also supported stronger parameters for owning rental property in Saint Paul. So, I would say that those neighbors do a lot more than just call or blame the landlord. Again, what I don't see are the 'good landlords' supporting these efforts. So, when people group you together with the bad apples, you have to understand that few of you are ever heard from until YOUR property is
---
Linda,
If you have been around for a while you'd know that I had rental property in Maple Grove and found it to be a nightmare. I got out in short time and concluded that its not the industry for me, at least not part-time. I don't have it in for landlords, I have it in for the irresponsible ones.
----
Since no one else signs their name or even take the time to use an alias, you'll never get a benefit of doubt or serious discussion out of me. You are a bunch of cowards. So, what you say and what you call me is not of much consequence.

Eric

4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Linda,
Shut up.

YOU assessed the place by just driving by. I live over here and know it from more than just driving by. I only drove by to confirm it was the place i knew of. I don't where you looked or how far back you looked but it was on the radar in 2006 and part of 2007. Again, the shitty place I spoke of is not that one, though I (<----that means me!) would not want to live in Dadder's apartments. It may be nice relatively speaking but, its not for me and apparently some have been living there feel that way too.

Please hush up dear, you're not convincing.

Eric
ps- you could just write under another name to support your viewpoint. That works for others on here.

I associate with all kind of people. I don't know who's educated, smart, dumb or dirty.

Stop trying be Hillary Clinton and put words in mouth and assign intent to me. You're NOT smart enough to tangle with me that way. Stay on safe ground honey.

4:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric you didn't even answer my question good dodge.Do you need me to ask them again?

Regulation regulation regulation.The more regulation yoy put on landlords Eric the less affordable the housing gets.I looking at the large number of blacks that rent all you are doing is ultimatley putting housing out of reach for them.


We will agree on one thing though Eric----More police.If tenants are doing illegal activity let the police and the judges do their job.Policing is not the landlords job.

Lindaprosucutors

4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric the all mighty black man who turns his back to his own people.Do you have a problem with women like Linda and Hillary?Do you put your finger up when you drink tea?You are part of the problem and not the solution.To call someone a slumlord because you wouldn't live there.Does someone smell shit?

I drove by the place and looks good to me but wait I'm better then that.Your a disgrace and a slap in the face.


Sid

4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

What does on the radar mean?I also looked at the inspection reports and they look good.


Mr.Cullen were you lying about the condition of the princeton place or is Erics view alittle sideways?



Kevin

4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city did conspire Eric and your going to pay for it if you live in St Paul.

Just to correct you a little here, the debate is not about "where do landlords right to rent interfere with quality of life rights of the citizen?"

The debate is about a city that conspired behind closed doors to fix the outcome of cases they were planning to bring against landlords.

The dabate is about how all 3 branches of city government got together to pre-determine the outcomes of court hearings that are supposed to be fair, not to mention violating the "Separation of Powers Act."

It's about inspectors who lied about repairs to condemn propertiesand the list goes on and on and on. Read the complaints Bob has here Eric. You'll see what they did. What's in the complaints are just the tip of the iceberg. You haven't seen nothing yet.

5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric you have a foul mouth.Didn't your daddy teach you how to speak to a women?

I'm not trying to convince anybody.I'm trying to correct the lies you released from that foul mouth.

bill Cullen also said the property was in good shape.I believ he might know alittle more then you.



Linda

5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Supporting and paying for more police is a good frist step Eric. Now how about if they demand that the police do their job instead of passing the buck and blaming the landlord, or telling the neighbors how much the landlord is getting in Section 8 rent just to inflame the situation all the more. This community policing bullshit is just another politically correct to pass the buck and do nothing about the real problem. Any ideas Eric on the racial makeup of the tenants who are causing so much discourse in the neighborhood?

5:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you a good looking woman Linda?

Could we get a photo please?

5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Linda,
My father taught me how to talk to women (not 'a women'). He also taught me how to spot bs and be ready to call it out.

I don't know of all of Dadder's property, just the one closest to me. I don't like it. But this whole Dadder thing started with Sid asking if I knew who were the landlords actually on the suit. When i saw Dadder Properties, I knew that there was something about it. It was not the property that I described to be similar on a smaller scale to the one in the article and apparently you can only digest one thing at a time. That property is a duplex in the Lower Payne neighborhood. The owner is a supporter of the suit and other efforts connected here (like the watchdog) but, he is not a one of the Plaintiffs. I stand corrected on that assertion.

Sid,
I was Clinton guy and spent my early political organizing days doing it on behalf of Bill. I was on Hillary's steering committee until about five weeks ago. I even went down to Iowa and organized (as a volunteer) for Hillary. I left the campaign for several reasons one of them being the divisive tactics that they are not above (using racial 'code speak' when campaigning in the South) and the fact that the Republicans are not terribly excited about their candidates but, seem to rally quick around defeating Hillary. Obama has been talking moving forward as one nation. He has an 11 year record of working across the aisles and bringing the two sides together to get things done. That's what Washington needs. Besides, I spent years getting African Americans to vote for Democrats, how about Democrats voting for an African American now?

Hillary twisted Obama's words about Reagan. He simply said the man was a transcending figure. She made it into Obama liked Reagan and was a supporter of his policies. Linda know that I wrote I stand in doubt over the conspiracy RICO suits and she has twisted that into me being some advocate for corruption.

Sid is also going down this route now ringing in with the I don't care about my people. Hmmm. I won't bore the lot of you with what I do because then it become speculative on why I do it. Sid, I supported the ACLU's warning to the city last year. I support the activities going on at the Human Rights Commission, the NAACP and several community organizations fighting and working to keep the system fair and correct some of the actions of the city county and state. I'm just not sure how a lawsuit where the money goes to landlords and no new ordinance comes out of it helps the poor and people of color. BTW, talking to these tenants you will see that there is no love for their landlord. They are not complaining about the city, they're complaining about their landlord.

The comment at 5:00 is exactly what I don't believe. Sid, I don't have to wait for a ruling. Until that ruling, innocent until proven guilty. I'm catching hell because its crazy to think that things have went down like they did in the description posted at 5:00.

You or anyone got proof that these meetings and conversations happened? Hell no.

Eric

6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I beg your pardon your highness, perhaps you need to be "enlightened" Eric. There is evidence of what was depicted, and then some! Some city officials testified to it in their Depositions. They "fixed" the court you fool. Bob even posted parts of it here. Not only did city officials admit it, they were stupid enough to turn over the hand written notes concerning the meetings. Study up man. I am aquaintences with 2 of those landlords suing the city so I know a little about what is going on with those. Their tenants came in and testified under oath that they loved their landlords, had no problems with them, and it was the city they were angry at. It was the city who came to their homes and forced their way in with no Search Warrant and a big cop to intimidate them. It was the city who lied about repair items to be able to have their "test case" to railroad these people through their "crooked and fixed" court, even though they had witnesses and professional contractors in court to say the repairs were false. They came after these people with criminal tools after they filed the lawsuit Eric as retaliation for daring to speak out against the powers that be. The city of St Paul wanted to put these people in jail for merely asserting their rights. I wonder if you would be so generous if it were an african american people bringing lawsuits and presenting such evidence? I have an idea we don't have long to wait to find out you fool. When the lawsuits are over, that plaque on your wall is going to say "Dummy."

7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think both Eric and Chuck are like Sargeant Schultz from the old Hogan's Heroes TV show - - - I KNOW NUTTING!!! NUTTING!!! But beware what the comedic approach is masking. While this is going on, the Gestapo is turning the city of St. Paul into one big prison camp.

The thing to watch is the Nazi freaks goose-stepping around city hall, bringing everyone to ruin.

7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And with all this going on , the only thing Eric is concerned about is that the landlords are going to get money and someone going downtown and saying "please please change the ordinance!" Unbelieveable.

7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can't we all just get along"?

Rodney

11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at this in California, people are proposing and trying to add additional consequences to apartment owners/management;

I would like you to support an effort underway to amend the California Child Abuse and Neglect Act to include Apartment managers. In 2002 a 12 year old boy, Chris Cejas was murdered by his biological father and stepmother in Sacramento.

CPS was called months before his grisly death by an upstairs neighbor who was hearing the sounds of abuse. CPS didn’t come for 9 days nor did they use their own enormous resources to find this boy. When a worker did come out she only had only Chris’ first name. She interviewed the apartment manager who said she knew of no Christopher in trouble in her building. The sad truth is this child was tortured and beaten for 3-4 days before his death. Worse the apartment he lived in was right next door to the manager.

The judge in this case during the sentencing of the biological father described the injuries suffered by this child as those you would commonly find in a serious car accident. This death was not silent. If an upstairs neighbor could hear these horrific noises, seemingly the manager living right next door would also have been aware something bad was happening. Had this person been mandated she would have been obligated to call for help long before Chris’ life was taken in such a gruesome way.

It is our hope you will be the one to take the lead and propose this amendment. We believe many children fall through the cracks. Often times they live in apartments. We also feel apartment managers being the ones people go to with all problems related to apartment living would be the logical person to handle this responsibility. If you do not feel you are the right person to contact would you be kind enough to give me a lead as to who to contact about this most serious matter? This is very important to me and to many others in our state.

Again it looks like when the judicial system fails blame the innocent.

10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don’t agree with everything Eric has written here, but you know he makes sense to me. It is reasonable for him to wait for the RICO evidence before he draws a conclusion.

I also agree with him that landlords should do a better job regulating ourselves. We do not have a standard in the industry about how we should deliver our product and services – I think we should. I think it would benefit our industry.

But Eric, I suspect, you would not be surprised if the city conspired with the district courts to smash the landlords they bring in. Or that the city adjusted the marketplace solely to benefit the Public Housing Agency – a subsidiary of the city. I suspect it wouldn’t surprise you at all. That is a key part of the RICO case – so don’t dismiss the case so quickly.

I believe that trend setting lawsuits (like this one) is how we return over-zealous leaders back to working with the public to solve problems rather than steamroll those they do not like. From what I have heard (I am not part of the lawsuit, so I do not see the evidence), the plaintiffs have some really smoking stuff against the defendants.

In the end, I hope these lawsuits return us to the real problem at hand: How should society house and care for the most troubled families? Today, PHA rejects them and so do most of the gov’t funded non-profit agencies. That leaves us private providers as their only hope. However, we are not skilled or financially strong enough to serve these families. So how do our city leaders -- with Amanda & Froggy’s support – deal with it? Smash us landlords for renting to “them.” I look forward to an honest and heartfelt discussion about how we house the most troubled families. Something intellectually deeper than “force ‘em to move up North.”

I already know Chuck Repke and, while we disagree on a lot, I admire him. I hope to meet you someday too. I appreciate your candor out here.

Bill Cullen.

11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

eric goes after Linda by saying,

My father taught me how to talk to women (not 'a women'). He also taught me how to spot bs and be ready to call it out.

Read erics last entry and you'll see some grammer problems.
eric when you start taking shots at people for grammer you've lost the battle you fool.

Next time you go to Iowa stay there!Next time you want to correct grammer go to the street corner and help ya brothers.

Going after landlords is one thing, disrespecting a lady is another.

I didn't see one thing she said as BS.She was just being honest.Maybe try that for once.



George

11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr.Cullen I respect you but weren't you president of SPARL when you sat on your hands and did nothing as the city STEAM ROLLED the landlords?



Randy

11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Innocent people do not reig courts, destroy evidence and use criminal tools against people to gain the upper hand. They better hope I'm not on the jury. If these folks can prove half of what's been discussed here, I think the city is dead in the water.

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the city doesn't like poor people and their anti social behavior, why not just arrest them and lock them up, fine them or whatever instead of using the backdoor code enforcement methods of dealing with the problem? They'd accomplish the same goal but without lawsuits.

1:15 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

Right on l:15

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 1:15

In case you have not noticed, the city likes lawsuits. They like to fight....right Kathy? They think they know it all, including what's best for you so they don't hear a word you say. If you don't like it, they take the position that you can get an Attorney and sue....knowing full well most people do not have the means to this, so they act with impunity and becasue no one ever challenges them, they think they are right. I have watched council meetings where their own counsel told them not to do something because it would probably result in the city getting sued and they do it anyways! I hope these landlords kick the living shit out of them. The city has been using these tactics against landlords for years and getting away with it. The huge mistake they made is trying to apply those tactics in a wholesale fashion to everyone and it backfired. Now they have found someone who does not mind taking them to the matt

6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love reading how Eric just can't believe what people are saying about the corruption that's going on regarding the housing inspections. Most of the people in my neighborhood know what's going on with it and here's a person that holds himself out to know so much about the same neighborhood and he plays dumb. Not that we don't agree with the results, but what they are doing is very wrong and I think Eric knows it, he just doesn't want to admit it.

9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randy,

I was President of SPARL when the city did much of this damage (the city continues today).

What you don't know (or ignore) is that SPARL is a membership driven organization. The President can only do what the board approves and the board is elected by the members. I tried once to publicly take on the Mayor (it was in the Pioneer Press) and got my hands slapped by the board.

I personally worked to recruit new SPARL board members (some of my attempted recruits are now party to these lawsuits). My goal was to change the flavor of the board so we could be more aggressive towards to the city. I was unable to find board members willing to do it. They were either scared to publicly fight or they wanted to go down this legal path. Ultimately, the board members that were elected wanted to keep the message SPARL still has today: SPARL is an education organization, not an advocacy group.

If I remember right, I needed two more votes to turn the board. If you and a friend had run (getting elected to a public position with no pay is easy), we would have been aggressive towards to the city. And I would have gladly lead the charge. So, Randy, where were you? Easier to just post out here, eh?

Bill Cullen.

3:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr.Cullen it is my view point that SPARL is a extension of our local city government.SPARL was created by the city wasn't it?

Its always been my view pointthat SPARL was put in position in the city so the city council and mayor can say they ran their agenda by this landlord group and got praise.


Randy

8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill how can Eric make sense to you?Isn't he the type of person that has caused the aggression against landlords?His mentality of landlords is the problem.



Sid

11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - don't come to the site in a couple of days and wham there is a 90 entry thread!

Couple of things, first Bill will always win the open access to housing arguement, because he does a good job of managing property. That is why its always so frustrating to argue with him. The issue here is that Bill is a responsable landlord and takes care of his properties. I watched him turn around one of the worst apartment complexes in my neighborhood. So, I don't care who he rents to (past criminal record...) because I trust his judgement and willingness to evict someone who has problems.

As to the RICO case and any issues with protected classes, the problem that this small group of landlords has is that the City's population of members of protected classes are actually growing. So, if what the City was doing was shutting them down because they were renting to people in protected status, why them and not someone else? How does this work that the City who is seeing more and more people of protected status renting had some kind of concerted effort to rid the people that actually was growing?

So, the only thing that the problem landlords actually have in common is write ups on their properties and a habbitual failure to repair them.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think the landlords have a habitual habit of not repairing their properites Chuck. I think the problem is more the tenants who have a habitual problem of destroying the properties and you know this , but it doesn't support your argument so you conveniently leave that part of it oput of the discussion.

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric

Careful with the ALL neighbors support law enforcement, but were willing to have our taxes increased to pay for it.

I'm your neighbor and I'm not willing to have my taxes increased. I see the many stupid things the city is doing like refrigerated ice rinks and a bridge in como park that goes nowhere and I wonder where the hell the city's priorities are...

Jonathan

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you know nothing of any of the landlords and their properties in the suit.How can you coment on them?You say you don't talk to anybody in the city about the suits,so where do you get your information?

I've heard Cullen say he knows people in the suit.So I ask Cullen are these landlords slumlords or do they do the same type of work you do that Chuck talks about?


Sid

12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randy, SPARL was created by SPAR -- the St. Paul Association of Realtors and the Pioneer Press. I am unaware of any gov't entity having anything to do with it.

Where this rub always comes from is that St. Paul did give money to SPARL for a few years. That ended when the city ran into financial struggles just before I was elected President of SPARL.

Chuck... IMHO the problem is what we should do with those most difficult to house. Our gov't funded entities refuse to rent to them and us private providers are simply not skilled or financially strong enough to house them. Consequently, us private providers go through a cycle of bad tenants and constant damage to our properties. I appreciate your kind words, but I lost money every year I owned the large St. Paul site you are thinking of. That is not a successful model either.

I do not approve of a gov't policy that screens out certain families and then beats up private landlords for renting to those same families. Unless our gov't wants to publicly state that they think some families should not have housing.

Sid, I clearly stated that I do not agree with everything Eric has said (ditto for Chuck). However, they appear intellectually honest with their beliefs and I respect that. I did not feel that was true about Amanda and Froggy. They would not admit the flaws in their argument (but rather just kept throwing stones).

Regards, Bill Cullen.

12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a non-landlord, I've talked to SPARL neighbors (I consider them neighbors even though they didn't live in the homes they owned, and considered them responsible).

Prviately they were very concerned about things going on with inspections, but had to walk the tightrope for fear of retribution.

1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill from Chucks world losing money at something ain't all that bad when your a non profit.

The bottom line is its very hard to make a profit other then equity in the rental business.When the city uses a hard hand approach and regulates extremely you will see a lot of landlords go out of business.This may make neighborhood groups,Eric and Chuck happy but in the end the low income tenant loses.The city has illustrated what type of landlords they want in this city.The ones that make it have high rents and strict rental guidelines pushing away lower income tenants that Bill talks about.

1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a landlord and I have had more than just one of the current city council members express profound bewilderment that I would rent to someone who has been convicted of a felony. I find this very shocking as it exposes their cluelessness when it comes to preventing crime and making the city safer. If your going to orchestrate a mechanism that orevents a person from having a home (regardless of who they are) then you are going to make absoloutly certain that they will never be able to find employment. That leaves one option for them. They lead a transient life style and turn to crime to support themselves or their families, because they are not going to sit down at the curb and starve or freeze to death. This is a very "short sighted" approach to crime control and it only takes average common sense to be able to see it. I wonder how they justify this approach year after year? I wonder how the voters can be so naieve to not see through it?

3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Been reading, asking questions and driving around.

1. The issue of affordable housing for people with little income or a criminal record is serious. I am NOT in the camp that they should be somewhere else. I separate them from tenants who are criminals because they commit crimes. Big difference. The latter is a law enforcement issue which I support more of.

2. It's clear that there has been some uneven code enforcement. I can't argue that there hasn't been. Not honestly. That uneven enforcement is across the board to homeowners too. Ask Chuck about chalk dust. With all of his connections (according to you), he still got busted.

3. I cannot say that its because of who the renters are. There is just too much anecdotal evidence to counter that. Chuck mentioned the biggest one, the number of 'protected classes' in St Paul is growing, not getting smaller.

4. I'm willing to believe, actually I do believe that some of these landlords are 'targeted' (their words) because of a combination of complaints and consternation with the city.

5. It doesn't excuse the fact that they are not active or verbal on behalf of these protected classes when they are being used by the slumlords. How much better would it be if some arm of the landlords worked together within the system to help people of low to no income stay in housing.

You would be separating yourselves publicly from the slumlords, as well as finding tenants with the added benefit of working with some of the groups with whom you haven't seen eye to eye.

6. I know #5 will not happen because, its not about that, its about money and doing what you can to keep from spending more on your property. Its not about changing the way the city handle code enforcement. Rarely is it talked about on here about changing the rules, just suing the pants off of the city. Hence my perception of these RICO suits. They're BS.

That's all you're getting from me.

George, you're still a dunderhead. Have a bowl of paintchips on me.

To Jonathan:
That wasn't city money per-se. Those were dedicated funds specific for those types of projects that could not be used for anything else. Any tax increase supported, would have been dedicated to public safety. Use it for that, or give it back.


Eric

4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you don't know Eric is that the city came to these landlords and wanted the african american tenants removed from the property. It was only when the landlords said they wanted to try and work things out with the tenants that the city came down on them like a ton of bricks. So they did try and work within the system to keep these tenants in their housing.....the city did not want them in that housing, and thus , the mess we have now.

4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a study done by the Legislature that shows the growth in minority population IS NOT in Ramsey county Eric, it's in the surronding counties so how can the numbers be increasing in St Paul.

To Bob: I am sending you the map as proof of my statements. Your spinning it again Eric.

4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a real difference in perceptions about the inspectors.

If you are like me and have seen the RICO defendents in action, it is clear as day what is happening.

It would have been a hard sell if I had not seen it with my own two eyes.

However, these spineless racketeering bast*rds are two faced, and they can put on a false front if it serves their purposes. Further the city has public relations experts to give sanitized reports.

The RICO cases should tell the story. While the bast*rds are clever about what is put on paper, there should be emails and assorted documents that have not been destroyed, as well as documents supplied by concerned city employees, that tell the story.

5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

We are making progress here. Let me answer the points in your 4:07 PM e-mail.

1) Yes, criminal behavior should be a law enforcement issue. But you imply that landlords have a responsibility beyond that. What, legal, law abiding behavior, do you think landlords should stop?

2) I personally told Andy Dawkins that the complaints I always hear about his division was unreasonableness and inconsistent enforcement. He seemed to agree with my assessment. While perfection is impossible, I think we would all feel better if the city tried!

3) I suspect there is evidence the city treats minority households differently. That is a key part of the lawsuit, so we will find out soon enough.

4) Seems to me that when one “targets” they get themselves into trouble.

5) You wrote: “How much better would it be if some arm of the landlords worked together within the system to help people of low to no income stay in housing.” Remember this: for the most difficult to house families, they have NO option but small private landlords. PHA, the gov’t subsidized housing providers and large landlords all screen these families out. You can say we should “help”, but I argue that at least we are doing SOMETHING while the rest do nothing or beat us up for doing something.

6) Isn’t it impossible to change the rules when the entire thing feels doomed? Let me ask you – how would you change the Iraq engagement? I suspect you would say something like “we should not be there.” That is how most of us feel. We should not use code enforcement as a tool to beat down housing providers because someone doesn’t like the tenants.

Again I ask – what should we do with the most difficult to house families? Your friends at city hall refuse to rent to them and beat us up if we do. Can you and your friends be honest here? Just say publicly that you think some families should not have housing. Then we can debate the real issue.

Bill Cullen.

5:45 PM  
Blogger AMANDA said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric won't answer.....niether will Chuck or Amanda or any of the others that go for the status quo, and that is precisely why the "real issue" is going to be debated in front of a jury.

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric who are you to say as part of the settlement the landlords in the suit don't want change?They do.They've been damaged so money fixes that,just like any lawsuit.I know some o the landlords and they wanted change fromthe beginning and were kicked out of the NHPI offices.They still want change.

What the city has been doing is wrong.Using code to go after behavior problems is wrong.Can we agree on that atleast?

If the city pays out record damages Eric I'm sure they'll change.Which in the end will make this city better for landlords,tenants,and homeowners.


Landlord

8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every place in the country where landlords have sued because of these behavior issues, they have mopped the floor with the city. That's a lot of money that could have been used to hire Police to address a crime issue and that one thing would make the city.....any city.....a much better place for all.

9:04 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Click onto the following link. Once there, go to the bottom of the page and click onto

MN Racial Equity Report Card
http://www.oaproject.org/news/#news-1

10:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid - there is enough info posted from the law suit to pretty much tell you what is going on. There is not any information anywhere in the suit explaining what is the allegded racketeering.

For there to be racketeering somebody has to get some proffit out of the event. We have been debating this for years and nobody has yet been able to tell me who got someting of value out of this. You would think if someone was running a racket, you would have some idea by now who it is that got something.

And please, don't tell me Magner got a raise... because Kelly and Dawkins could give him all of the raises they wanted to without having to go through all of this BS.

So, again, no racket, no RICO, no case.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to set you straight on one little point Chuck, RICO doesn't say someone has to profit, it says someone has to benifet. Some of these inspectors did benifet and some are going to go to jail for it, plus face the forfieture provison when the criminal part of it kicks in after the jury verdict. That will be after they have lied their way into a trap they can't get out of. Stay tuned Chuck.....your going to learn something on here yet.

11:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Repke, what about the other charges in the lawsuit? Just cause there's no racketeering doesn't mean the other things are going to go away. Or do you just wish them away?

12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just what I need to start the day off nice. I come here and think I'mk going to see some arguing and what?....."Team Repke" comes slithering in for the "spin!" Your all wet Chuck.

4:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

I have said it before, I struggle with the RICO part of this case; I don’t struggle with the rest of it. However, let me put out a few thoughts and see what you think.

According to Webster on-line dictionary, Profit means: “a valuable return: GAIN.”

Is there value to an elected politician to be able to “do something” to move disruptive families quickly from a neighborhood? Do they get, maybe re-elected? (who cares if the struggling family is displaced?)

Is there value to PHA if the private rental market is set up to a disadvantage? Like code enforcement goes aggressively after private providers, but not PHA?

Is there value to neighborhood non-profits if the city aggressively takes housing and turns it over to those non-profits to grow their portfolio and influence in the neighborhood?

Is there value to regional developers that are friends of the city if they receive millions of dollars in gov’t money to build what most private providers use their own money for? Like the City Pages story that started this thread?

Sounds like things I would certainly “value.” Do you think others might too?

Regards, Bill Cullen.

7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ooops, I forgot one. Is there value to PHA if the city pays for and assigns police full time to their buildings while they fine and threaten all other housing providers for using police resources?

Bill Cullen

7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said
Sid - there is enough info posted from the law suit to pretty much tell you what is going on. There is not any information anywhere in the suit explaining what is the allegded racketeering.



Sid says

Chcuk you're calling these landlords slumlords.I asked you nothing about RICO.I said:Chuck you know nothing of any of the landlords and their properties in the suit.How can you coment on them?You say you don't talk to anybody in the city about the suits,so where do you get your information?


Chuck read the suits.RICO is only one part of the suit.From what I know about law is that any of the charges in the lawsuit can be thrown out and one charge survive and the citys going to court.

Chuck we all know the city F'ed up.We all know the city will pay ya dig?

8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very good Bill.See smart guys who don't want to spin understand the trouble the city could be inRepke you and Dave and the rest of the city are pretending their special treatment they have been giving out isn't so obvious.


But it is.I have mounds of evidence that shows special treatment to neighborhood groups,Non profits like your own and PHA.I'm waiting for the right time to get it to the plaintiffs in the suit.It should help them enormously.


Repke.I have people on the inside coughing up info to support the claims.These employees want change.Change to you may be less money because you understand the special treatment you have been getting as a non profit and know your days are over.



Joe Tacardi

8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, you guys can think that there is more to the suit than there is, but they are Federal suits and as such it has its limits. There are two angles that they are trying one is some class action, that the City of Saint Paul was trying to rid itself of minorities... that isn't going to go anywhere (since the population is going up) and the other is racketeering.

Yes, the word is "benefit" that is used in the statute. But, the benefit has to be real and measurable and that means financial now or in the future. To suggest that a "racket" was formed between all of these participants to win a half a dozen votes in pretty much insane people. And, Mayor Kelly is no longer around, so your theory that it was designed to win votes doesn't seem to have worked. Your other notion that somehow employees personally profitted, why would the elected officials be trying to help them steal plywood? If it is that the employees got raises, couldn't the Mayor give them a raise without being in some bizar racket?

So, that leaves you with what the suit actually says, which is that the City (which does not own PHA) conspired to put all/most/some private landlords out of business to the benefit of PHA. That by putting landlords out of business the lines would be longer for PHA and that would improve its financial health. Of course PHA is a nonprofit that gets its money from the Fed's and no one has yet suggested WHY would Mayor Kelly be involved in this racket. What is his benefit by having long lines at PHA?

So, folks it comes down to this. The group of landlords have nothing in common except that they had code orders from the City. What ever they have in common they have the same things in common with other private landlords that didn't have orders. So, the only thing that makes them a group is that they had orders on their properties and they didn't either fix them or want to fix them.

The only discrimination that anyone has been able to offer is that at some point the City had enough of some of these guys. They simply said no more breaks either fix it or blow it up. No more delays, no more excuses. That isn't discrimination.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, there you go again misleading people.

At 10:27 Bob posted a link that shows the minority population is declining. Jeeeesh!

10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck why don't you answer Sid your making me sick with all the spinning.



Kevin

12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Chuck, the inspections approach is leading to a big train wreck. Picture the DFL being blamed, and your funding going down in flames.
Then you can try to sell your approach to the new Republican dynasty in St. Paul. What are they going to think?

12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric -

Bad examples on my part. Nice to know you keep up on these things. Does the funding to create them also pay for ongoing maintenance? Isn't that out of the P&R budget that could be spent on programs? Or redirected to policing?

Jonathan

2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There may have been another benifet Cullen did not mention, and that is wages for the criminal inspectors who carried out these dastardly deeds. At a time when the city has financial troubles with LGA being cut, did some of these inspectors keep their jobs verses lay offs or being shifted to part time status? Was there over time wages paid? How about double time? Are their pensions related to hours worked or wages earned? Did they work in lieu of vacation time and pocket the money? There's a lot of questions to be answered here. These people are pretty slippery Chuck

2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sanctions Sanctions Sanctions can't you see?Sanction Sanction Sanction me!!


Ladies and Gentleman,Boys and Girls,Eric and Chuck,People of all ages lets quit the this and that.The evidence is out there to prove the wrong doings of this once great City.The end is near,so lets just wait to see the outcome.

When this day comes Eric and Chuck alike will spin.I look forward to the day the City is Defeated.It will be interesting to see how Chuck and Eric continue their defense of this once great City.

Keep portraying these landlords as monsters.That have put their hard earned money in to legal fee's to protect the rights of the citizens of St.Paul.

The end is near!!

4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see the landlords as trying to look out for the rights of the citizens more than the city leaders do. All these people running the city want to do is go from one group to then next screwing them over so the leaders look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing but finding scapeogats to take the blame for their lack of leadership and cowardice in being willing to stick their necks out a little.

5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

I don’t think the common element is that the plaintiffs have code orders. I suspect it is that those who were targeted unfairly have lots of code orders. IE, it is possible the code orders are a RESULT of the illegal targeting.

It seems to me that what the plaintiffs have in common is that they had the gall to rent to families that most landlords (including PHA and city funded non-profits) would not tolerate. So the city targeted the owners using physical code. Creating lots of code violations.

The question then becomes… Are the tenants whose behavior the city found objectionable primarily people of color? If yes, then that may be all that is required to prove the cities actions caused a “disparate impact” on a protected class (a form of discrimination).

On the second issue of RICO. I believe it is rather easy to show some people & entities gained “value” from these actions. Does that prove a conspiracy? If they worked together on the beneficial solutions (like PHA and the city sharing a board??) maybe. I don’t know.

I understand the court hearing is this fall. We will know soon.

Bill Cullen.

5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Cullen is missing a poinrt or two here. The city conspiring with PHA would be the easy answer, but aside from PHA, they most certainly did conspire among themselves in carrying out the illegal activity against property owners. They talked among themselves, had meetings with different people and departments, hell, they even had lists that everyone and their mother kept and they would get together and discuss those lists and the people on them whom they intended to go after. It's no secret to anyone on the East Side that city officials have attended many meetings with neighbors and District Councils and plotted with them to have neighbors take notes and create documentation to use against property owners. City officials have conspired with so many different people regarding this, you'd need an accountant to figure out how many! How can Chuck and Eric even beign to think there was not a conspiracy?

6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck we all know including city officials that code enforcement was having a desparate impact on communities of color.Dawkins,Lantry,Jay Benenav and other high ranking officials know and knew this and did nothing to curb the impact.How will that sound to the jury when the evidence is overwhelming that they had that knowledge and did nothing?


Great point Bill.There is tons of evidence the city knew of the "desparate impact" against minorities.



Landlord

6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only did they know their actions were causing a disparate impact, it was in their face! There were Attorneys down there telling them this very same thing. Did they listen? Hell no, talking to these people is like talking to no noe. They only hear what they want to hear. Gonna be a lot of political careers ruined on this deal, this time they went too far. Should be interesting to see.....with Lantry's hatred for landlords, I wonder how she is going feel about the fact that it is landlords who are going to take her down?

7:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's no secret that the city's war on landlords is nothing more than a cost effective way to deal with crime problems that the Police cannot deal with due to people rights. I wonder if by chasing the problems out of the city and then saving money on what they don't have to spend on crime problems would be considered a benifet? Also, after they manipulate these houses into going vacant and then get to tear them down it leaves some development opportunities open for builders to build brand new and more expensive homes, thus creating more property tax money for the city. How could this not be a benifet? All of a suden the light is starting to come on!

7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After the city burdens the property with the $20,000. assessment for tearing it down (a service to you according to Repke) so no one will buy the lot because the assessment is more than the value, then it goes back to the State of Minnesota when the taxes are not paid. City of St Paul then gets that lot from the state for free. That sounds like a benifet to me!

12:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about the money the city recieved in fines from running people through their rigged court system? That's a benifet isn't it? Didn't someone say that the city met with the court and even hand picked the judges to hear the city's cases? If that's not conspiring, what is?

6:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I always hear people say that rental properties bring down property value.So if you are shutting down rentals in neighborhoods doesn't that increase the value of houses and benefit the city tax rolls?


Lets dedicate the day to Chuck.Lets put our heads together to educate Chuck on who and how someone can benefit.

Shit Chuck your non profit portfolio could benefit from targeted enforcement towards rentals around your brand new condos for sale.

Folks this is how easy it is to find benefits from the city targeting landlords.

Chuck take your head out of the sand and you might be able to see the light.

And one last thing Chuck if no one is benefiting from targeting code enforcement then why do they continue to do it?Results are benefits.


People I apoligize for Chucks inability to see the benefits.Maybe he isn't that bright and needs alittle help understading.



Tim Ciani

8:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey everyone,

Disparate Impact is a very common form of discrimination in the courts today. The idea is that if a rule or policy – even rules & policies with good intents – have an “adverse impact on members of a protected class,” then it might be illegal. The test really comes down to what are the rules/policies and is there a GOOD REASON they exist?

Mr Dawkins was clear in stating that their definition of a “problem property” was the “intersection of code problems and behavioral problems.” I suspect the problem property list will have a very high percentage of people of color as residents. So, the city may find themselves trying to defend how a property gets on the list and if the policy has prejudicial elements in it.

I attended a few of the problem property meetings – and so did many others. My perception is that there were no rules or policies. Rather it was a discussion between police, code enforcement, fire, city council assistants and community groups. When I attended, the group never applied any rules or policies to placing properties on the list. It seemed as if someone really wanted a building on the list, it happened.

No rules. No policy. Clearly a disparate impact. Not a case I would want to defend…

Chuck seems to imply that since not all people of color in St. Paul were targeted, that there couldn’t be discrimination. I think court history is full of employers that have used that same argument; I don’t think it is a winner.

Bill Cullen.

8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its so nice to read post from somebody like Bill Cullen.Bill I don't know you personally but agree with most of what you say.


Bill you are a good man.You are the type of person this city needs.


Linda

9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a diference between a "conspiracy" and doing one's job.

You people suggest that the action of the head of the code office talking to an inspector about the dificulties he or she was having in getting a property repaired as a "conspiracy." That just isn't the case. If the City has a legitimate public health issue in code compliance and there are multiple people who's job it is to ensure the public health, then obviously those people are going to talk to each other.

City Council members and the Mayor's office get calls from constituents all of the time about problem properties. There is NO COURT IN THE WORLD that is going to suggest that the elected officials shouldn't be trying to make the staff of the government comply with the wishes of the citizens. Any council member that wasn't meeting with Dawkins or Kesler and asking them about particular problem properties wasn't doing there job. They are responsible to the citizens and need to be able to report to them about how the City is responding to problems.

Do you guys live on the moon?

All of your conspiracies have no links. Why these landlords? What do they have in common that Bill Cullen doesn't have? Why didn't the City go after Bill's properties? For crying out loud Bill ran as a Republican for the legislature, in your world of conspiracies, you'd think a DFL'er like me would be looking to screw him!!!

Here's the diference what the group of landlords in the suit have in common is that they had multiple code violations and they were either unwilling or unable to repair them. Someone like Bill bitches about code enforsement and tells the City that he thinks it sucks and then he goes ahead and makes the repairs anyway!

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill C,

Thank you for your conscientious and thoughtful efforts to have meaningful discussion, and break the stalemate with Eric and Chuck.

I think you won hands down. Eric started to discuss it, then appears to have left the building. Chuck appears to be hiding behind spin and old discredited arguments.

By the way, I thought you might enjoy the origin of the expression "at loggerheads". This refers to two ships at sea, stopped dead in the water, hurling catapults of hot tar at each other.

11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there were no rules or policies. Rather it was a discussion between police, code enforcement, fire, city council assistants and community groups."

Here is the conspiracy Chuck says doesn't exist. They got together and planned, then coordinated and carried out their illlegal activity.

12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuckie Says


If the City has a legitimate public health issue in code compliance and there are multiple people who's job it is to ensure the public health, then obviously those people are going to talk to each other.

Ciani Says

Thats the problem the city is having chuck.Are the the codes the city writing up for health and safety or to address behavior issues.I think we can all agree that the city is and was using code for behavior of tenants who were mostly minorities.


Chuckie also Says

There is NO COURT IN THE WORLD that is going to suggest that the elected officials shouldn't be trying to make the staff of the government comply with the wishes of the citizens.

Ciani Says

Even if neighbors are racist and don't want tenants in their neighborhood bringing down property values.The city also has a job of protecting landlords and tenants.


Chuckie Says


What do they have in common that Bill Cullen doesn't have? Why didn't the City go after Bill's properties? For crying out loud Bill ran as a Republican for the legislature, in your world of conspiracies, you'd think a DFL'er like me would be looking to screw him!!!



Ciani Says

Chuck why did Bill Cullen sell all his property in St.Paul?In a way the citys tactics ran him out of town also.Did Bill rent to boarder line tenants?


Chuck with all due respect I think you are totally clueless and everytime you post proves my point.



Tim Ciani

2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:43 the city also was enforcing rules and regulations they knew nothing about or were vague.

2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys make the charges that there was this or that motivation but there is no evidence to any of it. It is BS pure and simple.

Neighborhood groups, private citizens etc call the City about crime or neglected property. The City response to either the unlawful activity or public health issue. They give notice to the property owner. The owner doesn't comply. The City gives additional notice - the owner does not comply. The City abates the problem and the owner says it was a conspiracy to get me.

I wasn't my fault that I didn't fix it, that I ignored the notices, that I avoided the inspectors, that I didn't go to the hearing, that I didn't show up to the council meeting, that I didn't appeal to District Court.

NO none of that was my fault its the G.D. city that was out to get me. I am so important that it couldn't be that they treated me the same way they would treat anyone else, it must be that I am a victom of a international world wide conspiracy.

Give me a break.

Again, Tim or Joe or whatever he calls himself today, makes the same old tired claim that boils down to this... If the City isn't able to inspect every property in Saint Paul on the same day exactly the same way then any inspection it does of any property is not legitimate.

That is the attact on the enforcement issue. Because it is complaint driven then it must be an assault on whoever was inspected today. He/or someone else proves that by sending the inspectors to Thune's house or my house every week as their way of proving their point. It doesn't prove shit. It only proves that the inspectors by-in-large act the same whenever presented with a complaint.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

When you said, "For crying out loud Bill ran as a Republican for the legislature," How is this point important. Are you just bashing the Republicans for your party's abuse of power. Your party is supposed to stand up for the little guy, but you tax the little guy to death and take away his home to boot. I am tired of your BS Chuck.

2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:58,
I didn't leave the building. Its just that we are where this thing always end the realm of speculation.

Until there is a case presented before a jury, we are and should be at a stalemate. The guy above the post takes a leap that can be batted away by showing a pattern of these same discussions that do not lead to 'illegal activity'. Hell, he's even included community groups in the conspiracy. Chuck made the best case by saying the only thing these landlords have in common is that they were told to repair their properties and they refused.

There seems to be a lot thrown at the wall to cause confusion. I really made an effort to ask questions and analyze what I could publicly. I wanted to be sure that I wasn't taking a position of opposition based on the characters who support this over the merits of the case. Those merits themselves are speculative.

2:37,
I've got no interest in being the attack dog for the city in general. I've got my own issues with the 'city'. It's the tag you guys put on anyone who doesn't see your viewpoint. That's weak and deflecting from the real issue. Its really like the RICO suits. They are all over the place with some outrageous accusations and conclusions. There may be a legit angle to one or two complaints but, the majority takes such a leap of faith that it will be laughed out of court.

So until, there is a ruling, it makes no sense to debate this. Which, we really haven't.

Jonathan,
The maintenance dollars in P&R, have to go to maintenance.
I believe sometimes other dollars can be shifted into maintenance but, not the other way around.

Bob,
What has this story to do with St Paul?

Why do you use the word 'alleged' slumlord to describe this guy in the story. It's pretty clear he is a slumlord and a degenerate petty criminal.
This guy gets the benefit of doubt and I get nothing.

Where's the love?

Eric

2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck be nice to my friend Joe Tacardi.He's a pitbull!

Chuck the end is close and it will be funny when the city goes down in flames.Your a loyal guy Chuck.But lets hope you never work for the city again.

Hows that failed condo project going.Thank God the city gave you money so you could flush it down the toilet.


Chuck join the real world were you have to make a profit to stay in business.

Bill Cullen is a man who has done business in this enviroment the city created and his words speak volumes.Chuck you benefit from the citys heavy handed approach with landlords.WHY WOULD YOU BITCH FOR CHANGE?


All I ask for is fair enforcement across the board-PHA,PRIVATE LANDLORDS,HOMEOWNERS,NON PROFITS,CITY COUNCIL,ETC.
And to stop using pealing paint to address behavior problems.




Tim Ciani

2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Chuck

You are assuming that the city is acting within the law when they have these meetings. They were not! They sent hit squads after these landlords with the sole purpose of fabricating repairs and making it impossible to get the property repaired on the rediculously short time frames they gave that. That action accomplished their goal of forcing people out of the business, and it was illegal. They singled people out and then went after them Chuck. Secondly, city officials who are just innocently doing their job don't destroy evidence and shred documents

2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said "Neighborhood groups, private citizens etc call the City about crime or neglected property."

I was wondering about these neighborhood groups and private citizens. Could they really be inspectors? This would bennefit them for job security, and maybe incentive pay.

If the city is on the level, they will have responsible records about who is calling these complaints again. Then the plaintiffs could analyze to see if they are on the level. However, if the city has kept murky records here, it suggests something that is not proper.

3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

As I understand it the lawsuits have multiple claims. One is RICO. One is discrimination. There are other claims. It is the discrimination claim I am asking about.

I am taking a two step process here.

First, I suspect that the residents of the buildings on the problem property list are primarily people of color. If my hunch is right, then the actions of the city clearly had an adverse impact on a protected class.

The city will then have to defend their rules and policies for how a property is defined as a problem and show a good business reason for the rules/policies. Maybe you – or someone – can elaborate on the criteria to put a building on the problem property list?

I suspect the city had no formal rules/policies guiding the problem property list. If my suspicion is right, it seems hard (impossible?) to argue the rules are for a good business reason. That alone will make any discrimination case very hard to defend.

When is it ok that city policies have an adverse affect on a protected class?

Maybe I am missing something?

Bill Cullen.

4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The answer to your question is very easy Bill. The city didn't mind having a adverse impact on the minorities....in fact that was the only thing that did make good sense to them. Get rid of the nest and you get rid of the critter. As far as some council members are concerned, the ends justify the means. They thought they'd get away with it because no one would be stupid enough to try and sue them.

6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think St Paul is going to become the most "sueable" city, not the most "liveable city."

3:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just 2 more hours Repke and the corruption machine starts all over again exploiting the poor and elderly......spitting them out like used up consumables, razing their lands so non profits can redevelop on them. They'll be conspiring off and on all day Chuck trying to decide which unlucky schmuck gets the knife stuck in his back today. You should be embarrassed to even be present in St Paul Chuck. I hate to think what things would be like if Ciani wasn't on the job.

6:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Cullen is the most honest bi-partisan person on here with real questions.It also seems like he is, was and very concerned with the citys actions.He is a man that is a landlord which was a president of SPARL.

Then Chuck and Eric come along and sweep him under the rug.If a guy like Bill can't get in any dialog or input into the way the system is then how the heck can the regular landlord?Its not about giving the landlord a voice but a good pounding into the ground.


This is the type of atmosphere St.Paul brings.Bill our voices will never be heard.That is why these lawsuits are so important to the landlord and property rights.

Its time we stand up and support these suits!



Tim Ciani

7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim,
Keep my name out of your foul mouth. Bill and I had as decent of a discussion on here and he's been the only one to convince me to wait on one charge. The majority of the charges, well its well documented where I stand. Bill even got attacked by one of your mis-informed supporters.

If you (and others) can't be accurate on what Chuck or I say on here- when all you have to do is scroll up, how can we believe your recollection of dates and accusations in the suit?

You, Sid, Linda and various anonymous posters can't see that there could be room for questions. Nooooooo. It's all or nothing. You're with us, or against us(and therefore support the city and are corrupt. How'd that work for the Republicans? Not so well.

Its almost comical.

Eric

10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps some of our city fathers and mothers, like Lee Helgen are not as big as they think they are.

Maybe they cut corners and took short cuts they shouldn't have taken. Now is coming the time to pay the piper.

10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know for a fact that there are city council people who are more interested in keeping certain properties condemned rather than coming into complaince just so these ruthless leaders can address certain family issues with people. I was there and I heard it from their mouths. This type of tactic is a blantant misuse of the inspections process.

11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim

One of the reasons these lasuits came to be is becasue there is no talking to any city officials. They pretend to listen and then just give you some phgoney lip service, or as Mayor Coleman referred to prior to his election, they "feign interest." When you cut off the lines of communication, the only legal thing left is the courts.

12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill,

The issue on if there is an impact on the protect class is first that someone has to show that there was an impact. Did the Cities actions of trying to force landlords to repair or demo unsafe properties impact people of color?

What we have in the suits are landlords saying that they believe they were targeted because they rented to protected classes. The only evidence they give is that their tenents were of a protected class. So, they are the ones who have to prove their case. So, the question is why didn't the City go after you Bill? Your tenents are as diverse as anyone elses. You have had buildings that at one time or another were all members of protected classes yet the City didn't go after you.

The City would make the arguement that I have made here. That it is these landlords actions of keeping substandard housing while keeping it filled with some of our most vunrable residents that makes their responsibility that much more and for some of them make their actions criminal.

You and I both have seen where some landlords will rent out basements and attics and closets to people and crowd them into substandard housing. What they do to the undocumented who live among us make me willing to entertain the notion of capital punishment for some of these guys.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric quit with you crude talk.Telling women to shut up is not polite.Didn't you get kicked out of a neighborhood group for you threatening actions?

Eric come down to our level and quit using your barbarian ways.

I expose this city with truth and you threaten the rest.


Have a good day.I will.

Tim Ciani

12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim,
I've never been kicked out a community group. I was elected President a couple of times as well as Vice President and Chairman.

The incident you speak of was not me, I was there, as was half of the board, and nobody was kicked out. One member quit.

I see your information is still stellar and accurate. Keep up the good work, with you as a witness, n one can question the credibility of the charges.

Stop being a girl, no one threatened you.

Eric

12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city also has to prove that the properties were unsafe Chcuk adn they cannot because they lied about repair issues that did not exist.

1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Eric and the city want to have it both ways.

On one hand, the inspectors operate like a bull in a china shop, with no regard for people's lives or damage done to other areas in the city. They insist that codes be perfect, even though they never did this before, and no other inspections departments do it.

Then they want people to give them every last benefit of every doubt so there is no 'rush to judgment'.

Cute Eric.

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric -

You dodged my point - where's the money coming from in the future to maintain those P&R improvements. Those restricted funds only pay for construction not maintenance. What part of the budget is going to take the hit for the added expense? You can't just build something and leave it alone.

Jonathan

2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who the hell are you trying to fool Repke when you refer to these tenants as "vulnerable?" They're the furthest thing from vulnerable anyone could imagine. They know every single one of their rights and they all the phone numbers to all the advocates and legal aid lawyers in the world. If anyone is vulnerable in the landlord - tenant war, it's the landlords and you know it. For you to try to spin these people as poor defenseless know nothings that need the likes of you, Eric and all of government to watch out for them is a damn farce.

3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jonathan,
I don't know. Probably from the Parks Budget. Its a good question that I know two different answers for but, that could mean there are others that I'm not aware of.
I can ask and find out.

Where are you going with? I thought I was pointing out how the funds for the rinks were not available for more cops.

So, the suit is over the protected classes that are being removed? That wouldn't be the same protected classes that are ridiculed on here by the likes of George, Sid, Froggy and numerous Anonymous posters? I have been attacked and have read attacks on here toward black and asian renters. Yet, I haven't seen anything resembeling a vigorous defense, except from me, from any of you. None of you including Bill Cullen ever speak up.

So, you'll just have to forgive me for not believing the interest of minorities/people of color/the poor/ protected classes are the focus of this suit. When its easy to speak up, you choose not to.

I'll just wait to see what the judge and jury have to say n this.


Eric

4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your a liar Eric. When froggy made one of his first appearances on here I was very vocal about it. In fact, down right nasty to him to the point I thought I would get thrown off. When I got looked at the blog the next day all of froggies BS was gone along with mine and many othersw.

Hey Bob....why don't you find that post if you can and put it back up so Eric can see how many did come to the defense of what froggy was spewing.

5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and u are?

5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck says


The City would make the arguement that I have made here. That it is these landlords actions of keeping substandard housing while keeping it filled with some of our most vunrable residents that makes their responsibility that much more and for some of them make their actions criminal.



Tim Ciani says

Landlords are doing more for this class of people then you Chuck.There may be some slumlords but in all landlords are ok.

Not many of your projects are helping these folks Chuck.You may set a couple units aside so you look good and can get federal dollars.I have a idea.That failed condo project of yours.You know the one I talk of,right?Lets section 8 the vacant ones for these vulnerables.I'll even pay and place the ad.


Chuck we all know that these are the types of people that you don't want to many of in a community.You guys believe that these people destroy the fabric of your communities.


Tim Ciani

P.S. Let me know if you want me to place the ad to fill those vacants for you.

Folks if Chucks a good man and wants to help these people he'll help them with his vacants.

Waiting for a response.

6:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That would be a nice thing to see Repke.Tim Ciani and Chuck Repke bridging gaps to offer housing to sec 8 in non profit condos.



Are you going to do it?




Kevin

6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Chuck offered to do it, he would insist on screening so stringent that it would knock 98% of them out the door.

6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I leave town for a week and this blog goes crazy.Why can't Chuck and Eric just admit that the City uses code to rid properties of tenants and owners.Big deal if it cleans up the town.I like get rid of the nest get rid of the critter.

As soon as the Saint Paul defends these suits(Because I can't see the courts ruling against the capitol city)they can rachet it up even more and do some nest cleaning.


Before Chuck agrees with Ciani to house these section 8 tenants lets find out if these condos are in my neighborhood.



George

8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nest cleaning....LOL!!!!!!!!!

8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

George I do not agree with you but atleast you are honest.




Linda

8:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim, you have no idea what I do.

Again I sign all of these posts:

Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers Past Present Or Future

I am not speaking for any board or citizen group or clients of mine. I am an independent contractor who wears many hats.

The condos aren't "my condos" nor are they owned by the non-profit. We did site assembly and facilitated the development.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watching the mood grow, when St. Paul finally gets nailed in court, its going to be just like a good old fashioned public hanging.

Lantry, its time to pack your bags and get out now.

10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That woman is so full of herself you can't stand to even watch her on the cable channel when they broadcast the council meetings. My wife laughs every time she sees and hears Lantry. It'll be quite satisfying to watch her preside over her own political demise.

10:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

Fantastic question. If the city is discriminating against people of color, why do they not target all landlords (including myself) that have a high concentration of people of color?

To answer that, I would have to understand the rules and policies St. Paul uses to target problem properties. However, I do not believe any measurable criteria exists. My fear is that ending up on the problem property list is more political than anything. Not GOP v DFL, but rather do the neighbors like the residents and do the city officials/neighborhood non-profits like the landlord. The few “problem property meetings” I attended we spent more time talking about owners and tenants than physical code problems.

I suspect St. Paul could have turned their eye on me and found problems similar to the plaintiffs. Why they didn’t – I would need to understand St. Paul’s rules and policies to be a problem property.

Bill Cullen.

P.S. The last small investment property I purchased in St. Paul the neighbor came over to inform me that if my tenants bother him at all he will call the police. I offered my cell phone, but he said he would not call it. He made it clear that he knew the city would lien on me if he complained enough. So much for neighborly love, eh?

11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You hit the nail on the ehad Bill. They don't like blacks on the East Side Best Side and they all know that the city council will exert political pressure to do their racist bidding for them. All you have to do is call. Happens time and time again.......with good results I might add!

12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck I have emails how you talk about how this project was yours.And now that its a failure it slowly becomes someone elses.So let me see the city gave you money so you could facilitate a project for a big developer.WHY??????

So lets give money to non profits to facilitate and money to developers to build.And kick the landlord in the teeth who is investing his own money into neighborhoods.And then in the end the project goes flop!Just like the one I see on W 7th street were the old tanks used to be.

Folks we need to get rid of people like Chuck and this current council.They are dead wrong.



Chuck still didn't answer the offer.

Chuck as a so called facilitator to this failed condo project that has many vacants.Can you help these vulnerables and place them in the units.There vacants.I have people that can go in them.Sec 8.Gaurenteed money.Screened by PHA.


I'll place the ad at my own expense.


Tim Ciani

8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

Doesn't the Code Compliance violate our basic Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment?

9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

With regard to a discrimination lawsuit based on “disparate impact,” the fact that they did or did not target other landlords is unlikely to have merit.

As I understand it, all the plaintiffs have to do is show the cities actions had a disparate impact. After that is proven, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. Think about that – now St. Paul must PROVE that their actions (which have a disparate impact) were due to “a good business purpose.”

The example I use when trying to explain this is the Mpls Fire department. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that the fire department application process had a disparate impact on women. The point of contention was that the fire department required all applicants to lift and carry a human dummy that weighed about 150 pounds. The women claimed this unfairly screened them out. The fire department claimed they had a good business reason for it – if a fire person came upon an incapacitated adult in a fire, they must have the physical strength to carry the person out of the fire. Seems like a good business reason to me!

However, the fire department lost because the plaintiffs successfully argued that not all fire-people must have that strength -- only the ones they send into burning buildings.

I anticipate the same might happen here. I suspect it is easy to show that code enforcement actions have a disparate impact on people of color. So, the city will have to show a good business reason for their selection of problem properties. The reason better be good (seems like fire was pretty good to me), and it must be reliably applied. Otherwise, I suspect St. Paul has a difficult case to defend.

The amateur attorney, Bill Cullen.

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck when I make statements not directed at you,you fire back rapidly.But when I asked something of you or make a good piont you disappear.Is Dave not answering his phone again?

Why don't you answer?

Bill,good point by the way.

Tim Ciani

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:29,
No it doesn't.

If you want to get Constitutional, its the Fourth Amendment that is worked over. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

However, regardless of consent, the courts have ruled in favor of emergency personnel like the employees of the fire department.

That fight has been fought and lost. So, now we find ourselves with RICO charges. In essence they acknowledge the right to enter, they are questioning the 'why' and
'who' behind it.

Eric

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They do not have the right to enter, they have the responsibility to get a Search Warrant when the occupant does not want them to enter Eric. Once they get the Warrant and they do enter, they are required to act within the law, and they did not. Fabricating false repairs and then bringing false criminal and civil charges is illegal. I think the city has also violated anti trust laws with their criminal scheme against propery owners and renters.

3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

I suspect the courts have ruled that FOR EMERGENCIES the fire department can enter without consent.

But, to inspect? Do you think a firemen can just stroll into your home (or mine) without a court order or consent?

I am pretty sure that is not right.

Bill Cullen.

3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck is here and can't comment on my offer?Chuckie boy whats going on?Please help these vulnerables with me.

Chuck you are full of shit and when you can't spin anymore you go silent.

I put another offer to Chuck.Lets buy some forclosed housing on the eastside.I can help organize.We will house these vulnerables and Section 8.

Come on Chuck!Come on Eric,lets help.You may not like me but together we can help.

I could probably even talk some of the ladlords in these suits to pick up some property on the eastside and help the low income vulnerables and section 8.


Eric and Chuck what ya say?



Tim Ciani

5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric is always talking about how the landlords will do nothing for the tenants and has this jealoiusy thing over the fact that they might get some mnoey out of these lawsuits, well what would ytou do Eric if these landlords got a ton of money and then came to the east side and bought up every property they could find to house the poorest of the poor....ya know who I mean don't you?......the ones with all the problems the city doesn't like. How about it Eric?.......maybe house them all in your neighborhod!

5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

As far as entering without consent, how about forced consent. Where they threaten the owner through the contractor that they will not sign off on contracts without going in before work is done. And how about slandering the owner to the contractor?

6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well folks its pretty clear the offer I laid out and the concerns Bill Cullen has.

When anybody says anything about property rights and landlords,Chuck and Eric come in and steam roll.I made a legit offer to help the vulnerable tenants.I want to help section 8 tenants move into neighborhoods so they feel more like a community.


With or without your help I think I can convince some landlords in this suit and also other landlords to pick up some of this cheap housing to help these folks.



Its pretty clear These are the people Chuck,the City,Eric and neighborhood groups don't want in their neighborhoods.


So Chuck and Eric my 4th offer.Will you help me put people together to help these folks.



Tim Ciani

7:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim I think you have made an offer that Eric and Chuck can't accept.People like them have been working for 8 or more years ridding these neighborhoods of the people you talk of.Great offer though.I wonder why they are so quiet?

Kevin

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Tim to be able to actually work with you, you would have to come out of hiding.

I am willing to work with anyone with a legitimate interest in housing the homeless or doing affordable housing or any landlord that it is looking for assistance in improving their property.

Bill knows that. We have talked about it.

What I am not willing to do is to wave a magic wand and be able to undo development agreements of any particular development.

The organization I work for has been involved in several projects to assist tennents and landlords in improving their housing.

Tim - become real and call me maybe we could work on something.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck I will be working hard on getting a group of landlords together.We will gladly extend our hand to you to help these vunerables and section 8 tenants weave into the fabric of neighborhoods.



Tim Ciani

8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank godness for you Tim. I live in Frogtown and am wondering if you wold be able to convince some of the Section 8 r's to relocate from here to the East Side. How many do you think you could relocate?

9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

some of you people don't like me for speaking the truth. you all want to get rid of these gang bangers and yet you don't want to admit you want to get rid of them. i have an idea. send them All to ilse royal we can ferry their welfare to them.

one rental to get rid of on my block and then this will be a good neighborhood.

froggy

9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now this froggy is a man who is down in the ditch with his sleeve rolled up doing some work to make his neighborhood better. Keep em movin froggy. Head em east and put the foot to em.

1:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Froggy rocks!

5:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HAHAHA!
I leave the internet for a night and you guys go nuts.

Here on the Eastside, we have the highest amount of section 8 and social service housing than anywhere in the entire East metro. So, a few more won't make a difference.

Tim, if you are serious about this, buying vacant homes and finding tenants for them, let's do it.

I know you're wanting to know how I'd feel if it was my block but all of the houses here (Phalen) are owner occupied. Not only are there not vacant homes abound but, its very little rental property in this area. Nice try.

If you're offering a real solution, I'm sure I can get my neighborhood group (which covers Lower Payne, Arlington Hills, Railroad Island, Duluth Case and Phalen) interested.

email me eamitch430@gmail.com if you're serious.

Putting people back in those homes doesn't mean you don't have to keep up the maintenance and mind the code;)

Look like Froggy's style of bigotry
has found a home here with like-minded friends.

Eric

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe instead of froggy trying to move out his undersirables out of forgtown, he should move on to your block Eric.

2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Froggy talks, people listen.

3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Froggy talks, people like Froggy listen. That's not saying much.

10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Froggy is just a little too unpolished, but the message he delivers is what the city leaders believe in and what they have their code inspectors carry out in their day to day work. They just do it in the "Minnesota Nice" way. You see now that racial profiling is against the law, and the Police have to be respectful of people's constitutional rights or they get sued, the city found another way of depriving people of their rights and addressing the crime issue. They come sneaking in the back door with their racketeering and conspiracy bullshit and try to force the landlord to do their dirty work. Good idea......they don't have to worry about the tenants "Stautory Protections" or anything else! No messy hearings in UD court, no trials, no courts granting them 7 days to get out because they have the courts rigged ahead of time, no due process whatsoever, just move them right out into the street to freeze and then tear the damn house down if the landlord can't afford the trumped up illegal repairs they call out on it. No nest, no critter.....neighborhood all better now....except for a few vacants waiting for the bulldozer. So whatcha all down on Froggy for, he's just sayin it like the city does it, just in a little bit cruder language. You guys are not predjudice against Froggy now just because he's not as educated, cultured, pompus and arrogant with the "I'm entitled" elitest attitude of your city leaders are ya?

11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm dismissive of Froggy and people like him. Not because he's uneducated but, because he's a bigot.

I was wrong, there were others who spoke up last time he was speaking his mind. Which is why, he's toned it down now I suppose, but we all know what he really thinks.

Being 'educated' is not everything. Many educated people are close-minded individuals and many uneducated people are the nicest more genuine people you'll ever meet.


Eric

6:02 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home