Custom Search

Sunday, March 30, 2008

The GESTAPO condemns another family to the street.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.


Blogger Bob said...

There is copy errors.

Cllrl$Ulpllu B. Coleman. Mayor
I{)() £JlSl J,'" 51,"",
541,,,, Pard, MN5510/
T~/~phon~: 651-*******
March 20, 2008
ST PAUL MN 55104-1658
Ref. # 103882
Dear Property Representative:
Your building was inspected on March 20, 2008. for the renewal of the Fire Certificate of Occupancy. Since
you have failed to comply with the applicable requirements. it has become necessary to revoke the Fire
Certificate of Occupancy in accordance with Section 33.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
A re-inspection will be made on April 4, 2008 at lOam the building must be in compliance or vacated.
The Saint Paul Legislative Code further provides that no building shall be occupied without a Certificate of
Occupancy. Failure to immediately complete the following deficiency list or the building vacated may resul
a criminal citation.
1. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Provide or repair and maintain the window screen.
2. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the window glass.
3. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (I) b,c. 34.32 (1) b,c - Provide and maintain all exterior walls free from holes
deterioration. All wood exterior unprotected surfaces must be painted or protected from the element~
and maintained in a professional manner free from chipped or peeling paint..Paint all peeling paint
including the rear deck.
4. Exterior - SPLC 34.08 (5), 34.31 (3) - Repair, replace and maintain all exterior surfaces on fences,
sheds, garages and other accessory structures free from holes and deterioration. Provide and maintai
exterior unprotected surfaces painted or protected from the elements.-Secure loose retaining wall.
5. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the door in good condition.~Repair the tOI
screen in the front storm door.
6. Interior· SPLC 34.11 (6), 34.34 (3) • Provide service of heating facility by a'licensed contractor which
must include a carbon monoxide test. Submit a completed copy of the Saint Paul Fire Marshal's
Existing Fuel Burning Equipment Safety Test Repon to this office.
7. lnterior - UMC 504.6 . Provide, repair or replace the dryer exhaust duct. Exhaust ducts for domestic
clothes dryers shall be constructed of metal and shall have a smooth interior finish. The exhaust duct
shall be a minimum nominal size of four inches (102 mrn) in diameter. The entire exhaust system shall
be supported and secured in place. This work may require a permi.(s). Call DSI at (651) 266-9090.
8. lnterior - SPLC 34.13 (4)· Provide and maintain an approved escape window from each sleeping room.
The minimum size must be 5.7 square feet of glazed area with a minimum of24 inches of openable
height and 20 inches of openable width. Refer to provide handout EW·I for more information.-Repair
egress window and provide a second egress window in the basement or immediately discontinue illegal
use as a bedroom in the basement.
9. Interior - SPLC 34.14 (2), 34.34 (5) - Provide an approved electrical service adequate to meet the
buildings needs. This work may require a permit(s), call LIEP at (651) 266-9090.-Hire a licensed St.
Paul Electrician to cenify all electrical work that had been done without permits including the open
wires under the kitchen sink and basement.
10. Interior - SPLC 34.11 (4), 34.34 (I), MPC 4715.0900 MPC 4715.0220S - Provide and maintain an
approved waste trap.-Have a licensed St. Paul plumbing contractor cenify all waste/vent/water piping
throughout the home. (Suspected lead based solder used on water pipes)
II. lnterior - SPLC 34.14 (2) c - Provide or replace the duplex convenience outlet with ground fault
protection within 3 feet of the basin on an adjacent wall in all bathrooms. This work may require a
permi.(s). Call DSI at (651) 266-9090.-Repair outlet in the kitchen.
12. Interior - SPLC 34.10 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair or replace and maintain the woodwork in an approved
manner.-Repair the broken door frame located at the front door.
13. SPLC 39.02(c) - Complete and sign the provided smoke detector affidavit and return it to this office.
If you have any questions, call me at 651-228-6231. Please help to make Saint Paul a safer place in which to
live and work.
Lisa Martin
Fire lnspector
Ref. # 103882
cc: Force

11:25 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

To: Lisa Martin, Fire Inspector
cc: Johnny and Diane Howard, Force,
Robert Kessler, Director, Dept. Fire and Safety; District 7 Planning Council; Leslie Lucht
From: Derrick and Trudy Brown
Date: 3/30/2008
Re: 642 Van Buren Avenue Ref #103882
We are writing regarding the letter which was apparently hand delivered today March 5, 2008 to our home notifying us that we must move by March 5, 2008 which doesn’t make since to us to be given less than a day to pick your family up and move.
We want to be very clear; it is our hope that the city reconsiders making our family homeless. Will there be relocations funds made available? Does the city have housing for rent? Will our belongings be set on the curb? What are our rights? Do we have any? Does the city of St. Paul care?
We gave this letter to our landlord who told us that he had know idea that the city of St. Paul was requiring us to move. We are aware of the inspections that have taken place at the property, not the exact date but we are aware that there have been inspections.
We read the Deficiency List which was part of the letter and then took a look around our home and could not find anything wrong. If there is something personal going on between our landlord and the city, please do not involve us. Clean, safe housing is to hard to find. After walking though our home and being satisfied, comfortable, and happy, really leaves us puzzled. As we look around the neighborhood there are not many houses that seem to be in better shape than ours.
• There are a couple of screens missing but we don’t plan on opening our windows for awhile.
• There are no broken windows
• The exterior of our house was painted last year
Rather than go though the entire list we will just say safety is important, but if the city really wants to address problem properties there another ways to do it.
As you know our home is in the 600 block of Van Buren Avenue. In this small geographic area, Dale Street to Victoria Avenue, we have over 20 houses either for sale or vacant.
639* 647* 672 718* 719* 768* 778 For Sale (empty) neighbors giving up on the city
646* 649* 654* 654* 689* 696* 699* 707* 805* 811* 822* 824* 830 (Vacant) the ugly blue signs.


Please help to make Saint Paul a comfortable place to live and raise our family rather than put our family out on the street. Why not do the repairs if there are any and charge the owner. Maybe even consider working with landlords to help address your concerns with dollars rather than evictions.

11:28 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

To: Mike Urman/ Lisa Martin, Bob Kessler, Director
From: Johnny Howard
Date: 3/26/08
cc: Attorney Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, District 7 Planning Council; Greater Frogtown Community Development Corporation; Tenants, Owner 650 Van Buren
Re: Notice of Certificate of Occupancy Revocation 642 Van Buren
Ref# 103882

I am writing in response to your letter dated February 14, 2008 regarding the re-inspection on March 5, 2008 that you conducted. I also have the revised list dated March 20, 2008.

As I address these lists, I do need help. If you could provide answers to the following questions I would truly appreciate it. I need the answers ASAP; I plan on appealing parts of your orders and I only have ten days to do so. I have went on the internet and read what’s available about chapters 33 & 34, but what I’ve read has not answered my questions.


1. What do you mean when you say maintain a waste trap? How do you maintain it? Do you have literature on this maintenance process?

2. What are the City of St. Paul’s requirements when it comes to waste traps on new construction?

3. What are the city of St. Paul’s requirements when it comes to waste traps on rehab properties?

4. Is all rental property in St. Paul viewed as new construction and expected to meet the conditions of new construction?

5. Can waste traps that are in good working condition be grandfathered in? Can a landlord make the decision themselves when to take on this dept?

6. Dryer exhaust ducts, why is it legal for items that are illegal to use in St. Paul allowed to be sold in St. Paul?

7. Does your office have a plan to help property owners, both rental and homeowners through these times? It is my understanding that this is the invest St. Paul Area, will there be any investing before we are all forced out?

8. Are there relocation funds available for the tenants that you displace?

Deficiency List:
March 5, 2008
March 20,2008

1. The screens were replaced, but a couple new ones are missing now. If you look at your note from your first visit, you will see that the screens missing are on different windows.
* I am requesting to replace screens the first part of May when the weather breaks.

2. All window glass has been repaired

3. At know time in the 16 plus years that I have owned this house has there ever been holes in the walls. There has been and is no deterioration on any of the walls on this house. There has been no chipped or peeling paint. I chose to paint the house because the paint was fading.
* The deck has been re-stained

4. I did have the loose bricks on the retaining wall repaired; I have not addressed any of the other concerns mentioned
*I cannot find anything wrong with the fences
* I do not or ever had a shed
* I cannot find anything wrong with the garage
* The garage is vinyl siding, what should I paint?

5 March 5, 2008 List: This was done by Snelling Heating & Cooling
5. March 20, 2008 List:

I am assuming that you are referring to the front door that we both noticed on the 20th that obviously had been kicked in. I pointed this out to my tenants and they said they would address this ASAP rather than have it come from their security deposit. They also will be replacing the torn screen.

6. March 20, 2008 List: Completed by the Snelling Company

7. # 6 on March 5th & # 7 on March 20th List:

I have replaced the dryer exhaust duct, although I am not in agreement with your orders or rational. This type of exhaust limits your ability to move your dryer, and further more; if the city of St. Paul is making it illegal to use foil, plastic and the other materials that are available, why is the city allowing this illegal material to be sold within city limits? Certain fire works are illegal in St. Paul and it is illegal for them to be sold in the city, is this a double standard for big businesses.

8. March 20th List:
# 7 March 5th List: The nut on the handle has been tightened. The tenants have been instructed not to use additional area in the basement as a bed room. I believe that Mr. Urman is wrong, I do not have the right to visit (hassle) my tenants daily, I can instruct them not to use UN approved area for sleeping. You write as if I’m sleeping there my self. Neither you nor I have witness anyone sleeping in that area and I am not comfortable accusing my tenants of breaking your law without proof.

9. March 20th List & # 8 March 5th List: There has been no electrical work done at this property since 2002, and permits were pulled at that time. This house has had at least four different owners since 1987. I do not know what they did or didn’t do with the electrical. I do know that at one point this was a HUD Property, I have not and have no intensions of having electrical work done in the near future.

10. As far as the waste traps I will not be able to have this work done until I can secure a loan. The waste traps have not been touched in the 16 plus years that I have owned the house and they have not been a problem, so I don’t understand the purpose of revoking the Certificate of Occupancy and forcing me to evict the tenants. Prior to my buying this house, there were at least two other owners, why didn’t the city address this issue before they allowed it to be sold? At one point this, house was HUD, did the city require it to be brought up to code before it was occupied, if so why wasn’t the traps addressed then?

10. March 20th List & # 9 March 5th List: See attached memo from the Greater Frogtown Community Development Corporation I will not have the finances available until then. If my application is approved, is this a life treating issue? If not, maybe you should consider not putting this family in the street.
It is my understanding that there is a little over 1280 Vacant Buildings in St. Paul; I truly don’t want you to force me to be 1281. Do you have a loan program that I can use? If so, my neighbor at 650 Van Buren is in the same situation as I’m in. I like the way you close your letters, (Please help to make Saint Paul a safer place in which to live and work). Somehow you might consider how your inspectors fit into this. It is my understanding that St. Paul is being sued by several landlords that feel that the city of St. Paul attacks landlords and that it is there mission to make their doing business in St. Paul as miserable as possible I pray that this is not true.

11. I could not find the missing or broken duplex convenience outlet. The screw had shaken it self loose in the outlet in the kitchen.

12. I could not find any wood work that was in need of repair. As far as the door frame see number 5.

13. I have attached smoke detectors affidavit, I assume since we inspected this together that this would satisfy your orders.

11:29 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi all,

I was able to get a photo of the briefing Magner gave Lisa Martin before he sent her out to this house.

click onto the link below>Photo here

11:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This sounds like more trumped up repairs to me. If you look at the list, the things listed there are common to most of the houses in the city.

11:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that they send a "cc" to "Force." I am assuming that is the Force unit of the Police Department. What are they going to do, send out a SWAT team cause the owners house needs some repairs?

11:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These people are nothing short of a bad joke. It's obvious as hell to everyone that they just want to condemn these places to get the people out so they can call it a vacant building and then demand one of their BS code compliances. Do they really think they are fooling anyone any more?

12:20 AM  
Anonymous Sgt.Slaughter said...

Somebody get Chuck on here so we can toast him.

He is AWOL again and its time for the stockade .

12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Force unit? Do they raid houses because of code violations?

1:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is Lisa Martin? Is she a new player to all of this. I don't recall hearing that name before.

4:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Martin is one of the many inspectors being sued for racketeering by the landlords. I'm suprised they are still letting her do inspections considering the allegations against her.

6:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city says Clean UP and Shut UP!
The Lite Rail will be come the issue.
People are expendable, and the city will try to find housing for the homeless.
No one cares about you, only the money, made off of the permits and higher taxes after the homes are updated.
Greedy Mother F
Thune house should be torn down, but they just passed a thing to help all the historical home with there exterior repairs, paid for by the city. (you tax payers)

7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Force was cc because the house probably had police calls.they condemn and vacate circumvent the judicial system.Shit Bags!!I mean the city.


8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lisa Martin is the "Problem Property" inspector and when she shows up at your property, you have a huge problem and that's just the start. It's all down hill after that!

8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She's a hitman for NHPI. When there's shenanigans to do they send her.

9:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks, this is just another example of that the inspectors treat everyone the same. You may not like how they treat them, but Johny Howard has on many occations been called the "Mayor of Frogtown." A few years back he was the Executive Director of the neighborhood association. He has to be totally pissed at them coming down this hard on him.

So, one more bad sign for your law suit. The City is blind as to who it comes after.


Chuck Repke

10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, here is another example of citizens claiming Lisa Martin is a dam liar.

10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Howard wanted to know

8. Are there relocation funds available for the tenants that you displace?

HELL NO JOHNNY, these bastards don't give a shit!

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

List of Activity...
NumberAddressDescription Details Status
07 034144
000 00 CO
642 VAN
Certificate of Occupancy
Type: Residential
Occupancy Type: Dwelling Units
Residential Units: 1
Class: C
Renewal Due Date: Mar 5, 2007
03/20/2008: Revoked/Occupied
03/07/2008: Revoked/Occupied
12/21/2007: Revoked/Occupied
06/29/2007: No Entry (no fee)
05/22/2007: Correction Orders
06 035816
642 VAN
LOT 6 PW Sewer Permit
Type: Sanitary
Work Type: Repair
Entered on: 02/17/2006
Closed on: 04/18/1985
02 235857
S&C 00 E
642 VAN
Electrical Permit
Type: Service & Circuits Residential Repair/Alter
Issued Date: 10/30/2002
Final Date: 11/22/2002
Contractor: Mettler Electric, Inc
Estimated Value: $110.00
Activity (most recent first):
MAIN-Electrical Inspection: 11/22/2002: Final
11/18/2002: No Entry - Notice
02 235361
GAS 00 M
642 VAN
Mechanical Permit
Type: Gas Residential Replace
Issued Date: 10/29/2002
Final Date: 01/03/2003
Contractor: Anderson Htg & A/C, Inc.
Estimated Value: $500.00
Activity (most recent first):
MAIN-Mechanical Inspection: 12/12/2002: Final
Page 1 of 2
file://C:\DOCUME~1\USER\LOCALS~1\Temp\KPMJOUNX.htm 3/31/2008
11/21/2002: Correction Letter
02 235359
WRM 00 W
642 VAN
Warm Air, Ventilation & General Sheet
Type: Warm Air Only Residential Replace
Issued Date: 10/29/2002
Final Date: 11/22/2002
Contractor: Anderson Htg & A/C, Inc.
Estimated Value: $1,500.00
Activity (most recent first):
MAIN-Warm Air/VentilationInspection:
11/21/2002: Final
02 232548
EXP 00 B
642 VAN
Closed without
final approval
Building Permit
Type: Single Family Dwelling Express Repair
Issued Date: 10/21/2002
Final Date: 10/30/2002
Contractor: Added Value Exteriors Inc
State Valuation: $4,050.00
Activity (most recent first):
Final Inspection: 10/29/2002: Permit Closed
Page 2 of 2

11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's "POLITICAL HIT" Repke......someone with power is pissed at this guy.

1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gestapo is the word we are using the describe how St.Paul is treating its people.

Communist is how St.Paul is trying to take over or own everything.

St.Paul is run by the Gestapo type Communistic Party >> may be the DFL

Thank sounds riht.

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of these oppresive governments started with the BS theory of public saftey and the public good. The city of St Paul and Repke would have you believe that the tenants living in these places are being taken advantage of, exploited, would be left to burn in the place as long as the rent is paid, etc. The city beleives these renters can't survive without the city looking out for them. It's all a bunch of hot air. Where is the city's concern when these same renters are getting stung buying a used car or forced to live under a bridge or in a car because of the actions of zealots like Martin? They have no concern! It's all a sham and a fraud to advance their political agenda and hatred for anyone who makes a profit at anything. We've now seen proof that the city is all the things (and more) that they call the landlords.

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Adolf said...


Der undesirables verlässt. Unser Vorsatz ist für das gute von den Leuten! Wir werden herrlich sein!

3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This sure sound mean spirited to me. Why don't they make a list in plain English, with demands that are not punitive.

The inspectors are protected by governmental immunity. What good does an appeal do when there is no citizen oversight?

Getting the inspectors to respond is like dancing with an elephant.

6:21 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...


Even if the duties of Public Officials are discretionary, Official immunity will not protect them if they have committed willful or malicious wrongs.
( Rico vs. State 472 N.W.2d 100 at 106-107 ).

Jeff Matiatos

6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about that Chuck ?

Better run for cover !!!!!

6:49 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

You folks want to know just how hard PHA will fight you in court for every penny, read the case of a 90 year old woman who finally won a judgement for injuries she sustained on a PHA property.
$53.100.00 she was awarded.

Make em pay !

Jeff matiatos

7:09 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

The case is Minnesota Court of Appeals case CX-96-1767.

7:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read the above case and it is further proof that the city and PHA are just a bunch of slumlords feeding off the poor while they try and project their shortcomings off onto to others in the private sector.

8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Slumlords my ass..........they're a bunch of hooligans and criminals. Violating anyone's civil rights is criminal. Just because these landlords are using the civil part of the law doesn't mean that this won't turn into something criminal later. If I were some of these inspectors, I'd be trying to cut a deal somewhere while they still can.

9:27 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Here is the case Jeff sited.

Thanks Jeff...

There is copy errors.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. sec. 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
Evelyn Rasmussen,
St. Paul Public Housing Authority,
Filed March 11, 1997
Randall, Judge
Ramsey County District Court
File No. C4-96-61
Gregory M. Weyandt, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, 2000 Metropolitan Centre, 333 South Seventh
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent).
Dan T. Reyerson, James T. Martin, Gislason, Martin & Varpness, 7600 Parklawn Avenue South, Suite
444, Minneapolis, MN 55435 (for appellant).
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Willis, Judge.
Appellant St. Paul Public Housing Authority (PHA) challenges the district court denial of the PHA's
motion for new trial on the issue of damages. Claiming that the jury awarded respondent Evelyn
Rasmussen excessive damages, the PHA argues that the district court should have ordered a new trial.
We affirm.
Evelyn Rasmussen, Respondent, vs. St. Paul Public Housing Authority, Appellant. CX-96... Page 1 of 3 3/31/2008
Rasmussen was injured when a recently-repaired window weighing approximately 30 pounds fell on her
head in her PHA apartment. The accident caused a compression fracture of Rasmussen's spine.
Testimony from the record shows the injury was accompanied by extreme pain at the fracture site and in
the thoracic nerve. Rasmussen's treating physician testified that although the pain decreased a few weeks
after the accident, at the time of trial, 14 months after the accident, it still had not disappeared. The
physician characterized Rasmussen's pain as a chronic stable problem that will persist into the future.
The jury award was $30,000 for past pain, disability, and emotional distress, $20,000 for future pain,
disability and emotional distress, and $3,100 for future medical expenses.
Appellant does not contest its 100 percent negligence as assigned by the jury, but puts in issue only the
district court's refusal to grant a new trial on the issue of damages.
"The discretion to grant a new trial on the ground of excessive damages rests with the trial court, whose
determination will only be overturned for abuse of that discretion." Advanced Training Sys., Inc. v.
Caswell Equip. Co., 352 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 1984). A reviewing court "will not interfere with the
jury's award of damages unless its failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice."
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., 389 N.W.2d 194, 199 (Minn. 1986) (citation omitted).
Appellant claims that based on Rasmussen's short "actuarial" life expectancy of 3.25 years, the trial
testimony can sustain an award for future medical expenses of only $975 rather than $3100. Appellant
concedes that its argument is based on multiplying projected medical expenses precisely times 3.25. We
are not persuaded. We note settled law that mortality tables are based on the average life expectancies of
extremely large groups of people and that although they are evidentiary, they are never determinative or
decisive of the injured person's life expectancy.
[M]ortality tables, based on the average life expectancy of a large group of persons, have considerable
evidentiary value, but they are [not] decisive of the injured person's life expectancy * * * . These tables
are but one of several evidentiary factors to be weighed in ascertaining life expectancy * * * .
Hallada v. Great N. Ry, 244 Minn. 81, 95, 69 N.W.2d 673, 685 (1955), overruled on other grounds,
262 N.W.2d 377 (Minn. 1997); see also Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370, 377, 90 N.W.2d 205, 210
(1958) (stating that a jury is not required to accept mortality figure as life expectancy); Thoirs v.
Pounsford, 210 Minn. 462, 467, 299 N.W. 16, 18 (1941) ("Some people far outlive the expectancy
shown in such tables * * * .").
Appellant argues that what it calls "excess" future medical expense damages of $2,125 is enough to
require, not only a remittitur, but a total reversal and remand for a new trial based on all elements of
damage. Appellant argues that since the jury must have been "so inflamed by passion and prejudice" to
award $3100 in future medical expenses when appellant says only $975 can be justified, that is
compelling evidence that the entire damage award was tainted. We are not persuaded.
Rasmussen, a 90-year-old woman at the time of the accident, was already suffering from age-related
health problems, including poor vision, degenerative joint disease, and a previous fractured vertebrae.
However, appellant concedes that defendants "take plaintiffs as they find them," and appellant agrees
that the jury was instructed properly as to how to award damage for past and future pain resulting just
Evelyn Rasmussen, Respondent, vs. St. Paul Public Housing Authority, Appellant. CX-96... Page 2 of 3 3/31/2008
from the accident at issue. There was trial testimony that before the accident Rasmussen led an active
and independent life, for a 90-year-old woman, and that after the accident her independence has been
diminished and there is a loss of mobility attributable to the accident. On this record, appellant has failed
to show that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to grant a new trial on the grounds of
excessive damages.
Evelyn Rasmussen, Respondent, vs. St. Paul Public Housing Authority, Appellant. CX-96... Page 3 of 3

10:31 PM  
Anonymous Flabergasted said...

Notice how they say the window was recently repaired but fell on her head .
Bunch of PHA clowns cant even fix a window right.
Where was code enforcement to check on that window ???????

10:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get this folks, the case Bob cited says that in effect, PHA shouldnt pay because the old lady wasn't expected to live another 3.25 years.
In other words, PHA would stand to benifit by subtracting $975.00 from3'100.00 if only the old lady would have died.
I say pay the lady and accept responcibility.

10:52 PM  
Anonymous Flabergasted said...

PHA should be lucky she didn't die because then it would have been a wrongful death suit.

10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This city is so dirty when it comes to taking responsibility for anything it's just rediculous. When they can't lie any longer then they destroy evidence. When that doesn't work they appeal to higher courts, all on the taxpayers dime while they cry about shortfalls and blame Governor Pawlenty for it. If I was on the jury, I'd hang them just because their a bunch of assholes.

1:38 AM  
Anonymous Score keeper said...

So tell me this Mr. Repke...when the city finds out that they're going to wind up paying through the nose to these landlords, do you suppose your heros at city hall like Lantry and her gang are going take any responsibility for the mess or do you think they'll probably just find some grunt up at NHPI to take the fall for it?

6:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There goes your immunity city employee.

7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats just like the city, when their losing, they delay delay appeal appeal until the parties and witnesses die so they pay less.

7:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see all these problems with PHA and Chuck shooting his mouth off that the city is concerned.He says the city is checking into things at PHA.I ask one thing Chuck.WHERE IS NHPI AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT?they would be all over the private landlord.

8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK - the last two questions.

First as to the City having to pay landlords... they have to find the City guilty of a (RICO) conspiracy to take something from them to benefit someone else. I still can't get anyone to show what it is that is benefiting someone else if something has been taken from the land lords. So, if this judge is going to do anything to the City it would have to be that the judge finds that lacking any evidence on the Plaintiffs side, their claim that the evidence must exist in emails not discovered is worthy of a judgement. I still think that is a stretch. One assumes that the judge would at least want some sign some idea of how this international world wide conspiracy to pick on these dozen land lords worked how it benefitted someone.

All they have shown to this point is that the squeeky wheel gets the oil and that it is human nature to be nice to people that are nice to you and turn into a prick with ass holes. Didn't need discovery to show those two things.

It would be my hope that the City's enforcement people would be harsher on PHA than anyone else considering the relationship between the tennent and landlord. These tennents have no power over the landlord and should expect the best service from PHA.

I am on the East Side, you know of anyone in Roosevelt with a problem and needs someone to put the squeeze on PHA, have them call me.

I have pushed and paid for extra off duty cops on Maryland and Hazelwood. Two years ago we raised almost $20,000 to get after the drug dealers on that corner that were making the residents on Maryland live's hell.

So, its easy to come up with ten year old injury cases and say no one goes after PHA. Compared to most cities Saint Paul PHA does very well.


Chuck Repke

8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Chuck, how about putting the squeeze on their city to stop their illegal code enforcement operations instead of your offering with PHA? Can you get it done this week?

8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a conspiracy Repke and your city leaders are all going down, one after another just like dominos!

8:59 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

I'm 90% ceratin that I will be speaking at the rally at the state capital on April 12, 2008. We will be insisting that the Citizens get off their dead butts and start working together to stop the abuses of government.

Jars of vaseline will be given, free of charge to those Citizens unswilling to fight with us and want to just "roll over".

Nancy Lazaryan

5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saying that St Paul "does very well compared to other cities" Chuck causes me great concern about what living ocnditions in those cities might be like.

5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Expect the HOLE gay community to show up Nancy, with unwilling to fight signs.

Harold S.

6:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Expect the HOLE gay community to show up Nancy, with unwilling to fight signs.

You asked for it.

Harold S.

6:39 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

Harold S.
So good to hear from you. Do you need a jar of vaseline?

Nancy Lazaryan

6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry honey, If I go, the only thing I'll be packing is a __.
Get my drift ?
You enjoy yourself now.

Harold S.

10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Packing what Harold? Fudge?

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Harold S. said...

Thats right, bring your ass over here, My grandmother has some left over.

When I get done packing you, you will be committed to the rest of your life bending over and looking for change on the street because nobody wants to hire an ass packed with fudge.

Harold S.

11:43 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home