Custom Search

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

A Democracy Round Table Discussion On Housing is complete. This topic is now open to public comments.

Our esteemed guest are,
Saint Paul City Council President Kathy Lantry
Mitch Berg of 1280AM Patriot Radio
Bill Cullen of Cullen Homes

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the ROUND TABLE followed by a town hall meeting open to public comment.


Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

I am very proud to present to you our distinguished guest
City Council President Kathy Lantry
Mitch Berg of 1280AM Patriot Radio & "Shot In the Dark" Blog
and Bill Cullen of Cullen Homes

There will be a one round of questions presented to Council President Kathy Lantry from Bill & Mitch. Councilwoman Kathy Lantry has answers for these questions and after this round there will be a series of follow up questions.

If I have confused someone I am sorry. I am not the worlds greatest communicator so if you have any questions please email me.

First a word from our esteemed Council President Kathy Lantry

12:05 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

I want to make sure that everyone knows that the answers reflect MY views. These are not the views of city staff, Code Enforcement, the Mayor, my colleagues, the city attorney, Department of Safety and Inspections, the police, or God himself. These are my thoughts and opinions and in some cases may not be as thorough as some would want. In the interest of time and discussion I have tried to cover the basics but like most issues that are this complicated, there is always more to say and more info to add.

Kathy Lantry

12:06 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

Question 1: While some city officials say that the vacant building ordinance applies only to Category 3 buildings, it seems to actually apply to category 1 and 2 as well. So - if the City adopts a regulation that takes away a property owner's right to occupy, rent, or sell the property, doesn't that basically deprive the owner of all economically viable use of the property? Isn't that a regulatory taking under First English and following cases? Shouldn't the City be paying fair market value in condemnation?

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

The city is not depriving a property owner’s long term right to occupy, rent or sell property. We supply a property owner with what is necessary to correct in order to be able to occupy, rent or sell a property. The city has requirements that we enforce to make sure a property is safe. Let me use an example: if a property is condemned due to unsanitary conditions, don’t you think it is incumbent upon the city to make sure people are not living in squalor? In order for the property to be re-occupied, the building has to be cleaned out. If the city were to tell a property owner there was no fix for the property then you might be on to something, but we list the cures.

12:10 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

St. Paul says a problem property is due to “constant calls to get rid of the junk, intolerable behavior by occupants and guests, etc.” Can you elaborate on what behavior St. Paul considers intolerable? Why does St. Paul address intolerable behavior using code enforcement?

12:11 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

I guess I would have to see a specific instance where the city used “intolerable” as a way to define a problem property. From my perspective I believe using code enforcement for constant complaints of garbage overflowing or no garbage service at all is self-explanatory-things like junk cars or old furniture all over the yard. Why do we use code enforcement-because we want the place cleaned up.

As for behavioral issues, when behavior consistently, negatively affects the quality of life for surrounding properties, it has an impact on those surrounding properties-much like the engative impact of overflowing garbage. Behavioral issues affect surrounding property values as much or perhaps more than overflowing garbage or deteriorating buildings. Immediate behavioral issues are addressed by the police. Longer term behavioral issues are usually addressed by code enforcement in combination with the police. In part, this is because our code enforcement staff are in regular contact with property owners and the city does consider the property a management issue.

12:16 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

: People have complained about the short-staffing at the inspection department, as well as some oddities in the deficiency system (for example, Minor energy efficiency technicalities count as much as life-safety defects). The system is suffering some major teething pains. Did the city bite off more than it can chew? Would you back a moratorium on inspections of single-family and duplex buildings until the department is staffed and the bugs are worked out of the new code? If not, why not? Failing that, would you support allowing inspections by private inspectors, rather than city workers, to help alleviate the delays?

12:18 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

I don’t think the city bit off more than it could chew. Certainly I would love it if the city could have hired tons more inspectors to conduct all the newly required inspections today. However, the fees we are charging would not support that number of new employees and all of us knew that it would take some time to inspect all of them. The city will eventually get to all of the required properties and all properties will eventually be on a regular rotation for inspections. I would venture to say that when the original Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) program went into effect in the early 1970’s that the same thing occurred.

As for some oddities in the deficiency system, there may be areas of the point system that will need to be reviewed over time. All of the items included in the deficiency system reflect important requirements – but perhaps not all of them should be given the same weight. I anticipate as we continue to work with the deficiency system and property owners, some of these areas may become apparent.

I would not back a moratorium on inspections because it doesn’t seem to me that stopping inspections would garner the results we are looking for. The idea of hiring outside inspectors is fraught with problems. Training, accountability, liability, consistency-I have more but you get the idea.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

With regard to code enforcement, do you feel rental property should be held to lower, similar or higher standards than owner occupied housing? Please elaborate.

The city’s code that guides code enforcement issues does not distinguish between rental property and owner occupied property, therefore they should both be handled the same.

All St. Paul officials I know say landlords should screen better. What screening criteria do you believe St. Paul landlords should use? If all landlords adopt the strong screening criteria as you recommend, what should society do with families that fail the criteria? (St. Paul Public Housing already screens out families with historical behavioral problems).

12:34 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

The city does not regulate minimum standards for renting to people. I believe property owners need to develop their own screening criteria that works for their individual units. The problem I have is when property owners either don’t have a screening criteria or continue to use the same one that has resulted in numerous evictions or drug raids or constant intervention by the city. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. If I am a property owner and my criteria is warm and walking and I have had to evict my last 10 tenants due to non-payment of rent or other lease violations, then perhaps I ought to change my screening criteria. As for where these people should go-there are programs that can assist people who want to change their behavior and get counseling to try and get back on track. For those folks who deal drugs and have warrants for their arrests at the last several places they have lived, they are limiting their housing opportunities by their own actions.

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

Earlier, I asked you (in re the vacant building ordinance) if the city had done any due diligence about the likely consequences of the ordinance. Given that the ordinance will tack between $50,000 to over $100,000 onto the cost of a vacant home whose fair value today might be under $30,000, I'm still confused: How does the city expect any of these buildings to be rehabbed, much less sold? Given that the lenders involved stand to lose less money from letting the properties go tax-forfeit than by investing six figures into properties where, in many cases, they're already tens of thousands of dollars underwater, what is the impetus for them - or anyone - to repair these buildings?

12:46 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

There was a reason it took as long as it did for the city council to pass this ordinance. Council Member Bostrom and other council members heard from a lot of different people about the likely outcomes of this ordinance and it was adjusted over time to reflect the input that was received. Lenders and realtors certainly weighed in with Dan and other council members. In fact, many of the changes included in the ordinance were the direct result of consultation with the industry.

So why would a mortgage holder do repairs? In some cases they will not and the property may be demolished. The mortgage folks will have to do their own analysis about the property and whether the money spent on rehab will recover their costs or at least mitigate them. Part of the problem that is occurring is that there are mortgages on some of these homes that NEVER reflected the real worth of the asset. Whether it was fraud or greed or stupidity, they may have a $150,000 mortgage on a home that may have only been worth $100,000 to begin with. Many got caught up in the rapid appreciation that was occurring in the market and as a result they thought, if the buyer could hold on, eventually the appreciation would catch up to the mortgage amount. The mortgage companies do have a responsibility to protect their asset-a fiduciary responsibility to the investors to make sure the asset retains its value-they did not do that.

The ordinance was written to encourage property owners to act in a timely fashion. We want to encourage property owners to be doing the mental calculus on improving the property early-rather than letting a property continue to deteriorate to the point where costs do become prohibitive.

As for tax forfeiture so far we have not seen it. It certainly may be coming as the crisis continues but at least for this moment in time, taxes are being paid. Bottom line is that even if they abandon the property and the house gets demolished, they still retain ownership of the land and may think that eventually they could sell that asset to off set the other losses.

12:51 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

According to the US Census Bureau, St. Paul has 115,713 housing units and Minneapolis has 168,606. A recent Star Tribune article said Minneapolis had 927 registered vacant homes and St. Paul has “over 2,000.” That means 1.7% of St. Paul’s homes are registered vacant compared with .5% of Minneapolis’s homes. In your opinion, why is a home in St. Paul 3.4x as likely to be registered vacant than in Minneapolis?

12:54 PM  
Anonymous Kathy lantry said...

I don’t have any idea-maybe we do a better job of identifying when properties become vacant.

12:56 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

You said that the goal of the ordinance is to make sure make sure there's an ample supply of safe, up-to-code housing in Saint Paul. It seems more likely, given the above, to constrict the supply of inexpensive housing in Saint Paul. Is that a fair characterization, or not? If lenders *do* walk away from these properties, what is the city's plan for the properties?

12:57 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

I don’t accept your basic premise so it is difficult for me to respond. The city is not restricting the supply of inexpensive housing. If during this housing problem, the city continues to have subpar properties get sold from one thinly stretched buyer to the next, what have we gained? Plus there are many inexpensive homes available for sale. The city just wants to make sure that in the process of selling them that they get rehabbed up to today’s standards. If we do not get these properties upgraded we are just delaying the inevitable demo of our housing stock.

As for the city’s plan with properties that are abandoned, we take a look at them. Is the house worth saving, can it be rehabbed in a cost effective way. The only positive about the current market is that for the first time, the city is able to purchase properties at their true value and invest in the rehab of them and get their money out without subsidy. If we can get a lender to sell us a property for $30,000 and we (meaning a Community Development Corporation-CDC or some other non-profit) put $100,000 into rehab and sell the property for $130,000 then it is a win for everyone. The house remains, a new qualified buyer has come in and the city has a completely rehabbed, up to code property that adds to the neighborhood.

1:03 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

It appears St. Paul is quick to require a code compliance on a home (often for lack of utilities). What criteria does St. Paul use to determine if a code compliance is required? What criteria is used to assign a level 1, 2 or 3?

1:08 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

Here is the quick version and the Chapter 43 citation is listed below.

Category I
>Unoccupied and unsecured and/or
>Unoccupied for a period of time over 365 days and during which time the enforcement officers has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions and/or
>Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means

Category II
>Unoccupied and condemned and/or >Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations and/or
>Condemned and illegally occupied

Category II requires a code compliance

Category III
>Unoccupied and a dangerous or nuisance structure

Category III requires a code compliance

LC Chapter 43

Vacant building; categorical classification standards: A building or portion of a building which is:

a.Unoccupied and unsecured;. A building or portion of a building meeting this definition is deemed a Category I building.

b.Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means;. A building or portion of a building meeting this definition is deemed a Category I building.

c.Unoccupied and a dangerous structure;. A building or portion of a building meeting this definition is deemed a Category III building.

d.Unoccupied and condemned;. A building or portion of a building meeting this definition is deemed a Category II building.

e.Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations;. A building or portion of a building meeting this definition is deemed a Category II building.

f. Condemned and illegally occupied;. A building or portion of a building meeting this definition is deemed a Category II building.

g. Unoccupied for a period of time over three hundred sixty-five (365) days and during which time the enforcement officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions. A building or portion of a building meeting this definition is deemed a Category I building.

1:53 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

What free market solutions to the vacant building problem did the Council consider but reject when it adopted the new, tougher vacant building ordnance, and why were free market solutions rejected?

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

I don’t think it is an either or situation. For the houses that we do not intercede with, the free market is welcome to take over. Prior to the new ordinances, the free market was in place and what we got was servicers, mortgage holders and trustees doing nothing. Not cutting the grass, not putting the buildings up for sale, not doing ANYTHING. For those of us who hear from constituents, that did not seem like a viable solution. We’ll just sit by and let the market self correct. In the mean time, the city spends tons of dough managing property for those entities that have chosen to have the city manage their property instead of fulfilling their responsibilities as owners.

2:07 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

It will soon be illegal to sell a home in St. Paul that has an outstanding code compliance order. Since a vacant home is a sign of a distressed owner, how do you anticipate they will afford and manage the necessary repairs? Are you worried that this new law will measurably slow the acquisition and rehabilitation of the most distressed homes in St. Paul?

2:17 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

The majority of our homes are not Category III properties and Category I and Category II vacant properties can be exempt from the requirements of a Category III so let’s not overstate the issue. I do not think the requirements attached to a Category III vacant building will slow down the process, many of the requirements are the same pre and post the new ordinance that was passed. It’s just now someone has to be more definite in their plans to bring the property up to code.

2:21 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

My significant experience with doing code compliance work on houses in St. Paul has brought me to the conclusion that the vast majority of the work required will not make the home safer or healthier, it just makes it “better.” Given that most code compliance projects cost $40,000, how do you reconcile the need for affordable housing with the aggressive code enforcement and issuance of code compliance in St. Paul?

2:26 PM  
Anonymous Kathy lantry said...

I would have to see what specific things you think are “better” rather than health and safety issues. Quite frankly on some of the things the city orders a property owner to do, I am appalled that we have to tell them. Things like painting ones house-geez shouldn’t someone just know that they should have to paint their house?

How do I reconcile the need for affordable housing with aggressive code enforcement? Because I believe that the 2 are not mutually exclusive. There are examples of good, solid affordable housing that looks good and has great residents that add to a neighborhood.

2:30 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

How many homes did St. Paul bulldoze in 2007? How many do you anticipate bulldozing in 2008 and 2009? Isn’t there a better use for the property?

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

In 2007 the city demolished 30 buildings and 18 buildings were demolished by the owners. Year to date the city has demolished 48 buildings and 17 buildings were demolished by the owners. I cannot even speculate how many will be demolished the balance of this year or in 2009. In the end, if a property is demolished I think all other avenues have been exhausted. The owner doesn’t want to sell it for a reasonable price, if you can even find a responsible party, a CDC has looked at the rehab costs and determined that the subsidy would be too great, it has had no investment for too long and cannot be salvaged. Although the thing to keep in mind is that the land remains. Back in the 1990’s the city seemed to have demolished many homes and in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, many lots had infill housing built. These homes were constructed by both CDC’s and the private market.

2:40 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

It is an unfortunate reality that complaint based systems may have a disparate impact on a protected class. What system(s) does St. Paul have in place to assure all citizens of St. Paul are treated equally?

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

This is such a broad question. The roots of this are about 5000 miles long. What the city is trying to do through a number of means is to support workforce development programs, second shift initiatives, and partnership with St. Paul schools to ensure a good and complete education. While all that is going on, how do we assure citizens that everyone is treated equally-we compel our employees to follow federal, state and local laws that make discrimination illegal.

2:51 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

The city of Morris recently lost a significant lawsuit against landlord Michael Sax. The decision told Morris that their code requirements cannot exceed State Building Code. Given this decision, have you had St. Paul’s codes reviewed for compliance with State Building Code (please elaborate on the answer and what you did)? Does it surprise you that Mr. Sax’s attorney believes St. Paul’s code requires significantly more than the State Building Code allows?

2:59 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

As soon as the Sax decision was rendered, the city council asked the city attorney’s office to work with all of our enforcement arms to ensure we were following the new precedent. This is an on-going process and the city attorney is advising code enforcement and building inspectors on individual cases that were in process when this ruling was handed down. Was I surprised-a little bit. On the other hand, I have found that the courts and I see many things differently-believe it or not, I try not to judge!!

3:12 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

We will be taking a recess. When we come back we will have some follow up questions from Mitch and Bill. I hope to continue this discussion tomorrow or the next day.

Until then check out A Democracy's Home page

And Mitch Bergs Blog Shot In The Dark

3:31 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

We are back from recess.

12:28 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

The city is not depriving a property owner’s long term right to occupy, rent or sell property. We supply a property owner with what is necessary to correct in order to be able to occupy, rent or sell a property. The city has requirements that we enforce to make sure a property is safe. Let me use an example: if a property is condemned due to unsanitary conditions, don’t you think it is incumbent upon the city to make sure people are not living in squalor? In order for the property to be re-occupied, the building has to be cleaned out. If the city were to tell a property owner there was no fix for the property then you might be on to something, but we list the cures

12:29 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

But isn't it accurate that along with "listing the cures", the city is also saying "our way or the highway" - that if the list (which can be very, very long and incredibly expensive) isn't fulfilled, the property will have to remain vacant?

12:30 PM  
Anonymous kathy lantry said...

The city does allow equivalencies to our code where appropriate. Until those issues are resolved, yes, the property will remain vacant. We also have a system set up where a property owner can appeal the decision of an inspector to a legislative hearing officer. This hearing officer in turn makes a recommendation to the city council. There are many avenues for a property owner to come up with alternatives.

12:34 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

Remember - not all of these properties are vacant because of unsanitary conditions; their problems is financial. They were foreclosed. They might be perfectly livable, even given some problems. And yet the city is saying that a building built in 1910 needs to not only be livable, but brought up to 2008 codes to be saleable!

12:41 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

I think you are mixing up a variety of issues in this comment. Properties that are “perfectly livable” would be listed as Category I vacant buildings and would not require a code compliance report. Properties that are Category II and Category III buildings have more significant issues and would have a list of orders to make them compliant with today’s regulations. I relate this issue to that of non-conforming issues in our code. If a property has no change in use, then it gets to remain as is, however if more than 50% of the building is in need of repair or it is not in use for more than 365 consecutive days, then it needs to conform to our current zoning code.

12:45 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

Councilwoman Lantry, you responded to my question about the cost and likelihood of getting the repairs done...:

So why would a mortgage holder do repairs? In some cases they will not and the property may be demolished. The mortgage folks will have to do their own analysis about the property and whether the money spent on rehab will recover their costs or at least mitigate them.

Henry Reimer, head of inspections for the City of Minneapolis says that as many as 70% of their vacant homes will likely end up demolished:

Minnesota Independent- Home Demolitions

"It’s less money for [the mortgage holders] to get rid of the property than to rehab it, a service they can’t provide given how widespread the foreclosure crisis is", according to the article in the Minnesota Independent.

Does the city have some reason to believe Saint Paul's experience is going to be any different?

12:56 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

Perhaps, and let me explain. St. Paul is doing a variety of things other than just ordering properties fixed. We are working with the mortgage holders to get some accountability, we are working with the Family Housing Fund on funding streams, our Invest St. Paul areas that identify particular properties for rehab or intervention by other non-profits and those are just a few examples.

12:59 PM  
Anonymous Mitch Berg said...

Kathy Lantry said, As for the city’s plan with properties that are abandoned, we take a look at them. Is the house worth saving, can it be rehabbed in a cost effective way. The only positive about the current market is that for the first time, the city is able to purchase properties at their true value and invest in the rehab of them and get their money out without subsidy. If we can get a lender to sell us a property for $30,000 and we (meaning a Community Development Corporation-CDC or some other non-profit) put $100,000 into rehab and sell the property for $130,000 then it is a win for everyone. The house remains, a new qualified buyer has come in and the city has a completely rehabbed, up to code property that adds to the neighborhood.


So to the cynic (I'll act like one for a moment), it looks as if Saint Paul's policy is:

a) Make rehabbing properties economically unfeasible for conventional mortgage holders (for whom it makes no sense to a $150,000 loss on the foreclosed loan *and* sink $100,000 in repairs into a structure that might eventually sell for the low hundreds, maybe), and then...

b) Taking the properties when they go forfeit and using them to provide a boundless revenue stream for non-profits that are well-enough connected with city government to get the contracts to do the rehabs.

Too cynical a view? If so, why?

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

Too cynical-oh honestly-of course it’s cynical. I have to tell you that although I can only speak for myself, I would guess my colleagues would agree that who does the rehab doesn’t matter to us one bit. If a mortgage holder wants to sink some money into rehabbing a house so that they can sell it for close to what they have into it-I don’t care. What makes you think I care who rehabs a property-I don’t-I just want it done.

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

With regard to landlord rental screening criteria. Personally, I understand and I agree that renting to disruptive families is a choice with many headaches. Regardless, some landlords see a market demand and choose to fill the demand. I am not arguing in support of their decision, but I do worry that if St. Paul prevents or punishes private landlords for housing families with historical behavioral issues, then who will? Isn’t St. Paul’s demand that landlords raise their rental criteria the equivalent to saying that some families must not be eligible for housing? If not, where do you propose these families live?

1:18 PM  
Anonymous Kathy lantry said...

Please don’t tell me that you are suggesting that some landlords have decided that drug dealers are a niche market and that they have to live some where??!! Some people have limited their own choices by the decisions they have made about how they are going to live their lives.

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

In many cases, St. Paul’s argument about higher screening is used for situations that are not criminal. But, even if we are talking about criminals, your argument seems flawed. If the “criminals are simply ACCUSED or X-Cons is it reasonable to force all St. Paul landlords to remove their housing options? It is meaningless to talk about active criminals, because they should be in jail or we should talk about lack of police/prosecutorial results.

We have police to address “intolerable” behavior and a court process to assure the public and the accused is represented. Why do we require another method?

1:29 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

I guess I’m not sure what other method you are talking about. Certificate of Occupancy can by state law enforce nuisance statutes.

1:31 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

It appears to me that using code enforcement to address behavior is likely to create unfair accusation (as the accused has no way to address the *real* complaints against them) and it causes unfair punishment as a landlord’s only authority over their tenant is to threaten, or act upon, a lessees tenancy. Isn’t it possible, or even probably, that such a system is abused?

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

Bill, you are continually asking me about what ifs and whether or not the city always follows it’s policies. I am going to invoke the current lawsuit as a reason not to engage with you in this debate. I will tell you that the city’s goal is to have good, solid, fair inspectors that do their best possible job.

1:42 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

I appreciate your candid response regarding the large number of registered vacant homes in St. Paul. I might agree that you are faster to identify vacant buildings due to your monitoring of utilities (I don’t think Mpls does that).

However, as an active investor who likes to purchase distressed housing, I want you to know that I, and many of my associates, are reluctant to invest in St. Paul because the costs associated with Code Compliance is very high. Mpls, and most other cities, require health and safety improvements, but are far more reasonable regarding issues which comply with previous codes, but not today’s code. I predict St. Paul will continue to have more vacant buildings than Mpls and surrounding communities due to this policy. Would you consider easing your compliance requirements so St. Paul’s housing stock becomes financially feasible again?

1:47 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

I would probably not ease our compliance requirements because the requirements we have in place are there to protect the owners of the property and I do not want financial issues to have us compromise this effort.

1:52 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

I read your description of how the city assigns cat 1, 2 or 3 code compliance. I have two questions.

First, I remember a city council meeting a few months back where a city staff member recommended changing a building from category 1to category 2 because the buyer is an investor and not an owner occupant. I don’t remember anyone on the council or staff objecting to a proposal that is clearly outside the standards set in chapter 43. Do you believe the city follows this ordinance?

1:59 PM  
Anonymous Kathy lantry said...

I would have to go back and look at the case you are talking about. I do not think the issue was based on the ownership status of the property, rather may have been used as an example of difficulty in finding the property owner rather than contacting the person that lived in the house.

2:04 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Second, One of the options for Category II is “unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations.” Given how detailed St. Paul’s code compliance ordinances are, I am confident that every house has multiple violations – they might be minor – but the violations exist. That means all it takes for a cat 2 compliance issuance is for the home to be vacated. No time period is set for cat 2 (Cat 1 specifies 365 days). Doesn’t that seem like an incredibly low threshold for a very high cost requirement?

2:12 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

If as you say, every house has multiple violations – they might be minor – but the violations exist, why would minor violations cost a ton of money to rectify? If a property has more major problems then yes, it is going to cost more money to fix.

2:14 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

I apologize about my 2:45 PM question on discrimination – Please allow me to try again.

When one couples St. Paul’s complaint based code enforcement and that code enforcement will address “intolerable” behavior, it made me wonder how St. Paul assures behavior complaints are valid. This system seems ripe for abuse by neighbors that do not like one another or by racist neighbors that want to chase out those who are unlike them. What I intended to ask is, how does St. Paul assure the intolerable behavior they are investigating is valid and does not have a racist – or feudal – underpinning?

2:18 PM  
Anonymous Kathy Lantry said...

The City does investigate whether complaints are founded or unfounded. If an inspector is called to a property several times for trash all over the yard and the inspector goes to the property and never finds any evidence of this then the complaint is listed as unfounded. The same is true for behavioral issues. The City needs to have evidence beyond a complaint that issues exist before taking any action.

2:22 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

This concludes A Democracy's Round Table Discussion On Housing.

I send out my warmest regards to our guest

Council President Kathy Lantry

Bill Cullen Of Cullen Homes

Mitch Berg of 1280 AM Radio & Shot In The Dark Blog

2:23 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

I know some of you weren't getting the answers you were looking for at the Round Table. This isn't the end of the road concerning your issues with housing. As long as we maintain a bridge between us and city government, we will find solutions to our concerns, promise!

As you know Kathy Lantry was our only representative from the city. I regret to inform you I invited the Mayor and the entire city council, and for whatever reasons they did not attend the Round Table Discussion On Housing.

Council member Russ Stark had the courtesy to reply to my invitation and say he just couldn't make it.

As for Council President Kathy Lantry. She is the only city official who has the gut's and sense of responsibility to face so many angry citizens who gather here to complain about housing issues. In my book whether you agree with her or not she has what it takes to lead, she has my respect. Now, if we can get her to see things in a different light on many issues, life will get better for so many folks without a voice. :-)


4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting comments. I expect both sides had assistance.

I'm disappointed with the city, and feel betrayed by it. I think for the first time the city ought to consider the full ramifications of their actions.

The city cannot move forward with such a negative mindset, when they will not work with people.

For me it was 25 years of committment to the inner-city which had been a model for the country.

I served on key committees including #1 priorities of the city and planning council, and was the idea person, starting major approaches to turn around the inner-city, and some became basic approaches for Mpls-St Paul as well. I served as block club leader for a critical area on Selby, got unprecedented publicity in work with a neighborhood festival. Served on the District 8 Plan update, and made many other important contributions that a number of other people were too important to get involved with. I am the only one who can update some of the basic approaches as needed.

In return, my family and I got extremely heavy-handed treatment, which was abuse rather than enforcement. This was done by a group of city officials named in massive racketeering lawsuits. The city used extreme measures not taken by any other city.

They condemned the house due to a mistake by a 1993 contractor and inspector. A high official denied there was a proper permit (I have proof in checks paid to the contractor and have a form signed by the inspector with a permit number - it should have been considered a work in progress). Marcia Moermond coordinated efforts by the Health Department to intimidate my wife that had her in tears - intimidating her with false information (she was told the work would cost $100,000 - $120000 when the bidding came in $32K). Steps were taken so I could not talk to anyone. The city council representative refused to meet to discuss inspector misconduct and the fact I had the proper permit. Vacant building inspector Seeger wrote an extremely vague inspection report which prevented discussion with any community groups, including Ramsey Hill and the Planning council - he could lower the boom by demanding extreme interpretation at any time.

As a fourth generation St. Paulite, I could have stayed in the city, but the caring atmosphere is ruined. The city has lost a lot of its support.

Robert G.

8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are not alone Bob G. There's a lot of people like you that have left.

I don't agree with you Johnson about Lantry being able to lead anything, unless it's the all out assault on private property rights you're tlaking about. Her answers are nothing but a bunch of political waffling all over the place. She hasn't answered really anything. She can't because she knows the city's policies are wrong. The only time she even comes close to an honest answer is her definition of insanity.....which by the way describes the city policy of dealing with neighborhood behavior problems. For 15 years they just keep spreading it around while the crime and quality of life keeps getting worse. Way to go St. Paul!

10:22 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Our trouble with the city > I blame the hard working Joe's who go to work, take care of their families and have this blind faith in government that everything government does is for our own good. Rarely do these folks attend a district council or community meeting. They rarely vote!

Kathy is a leader that is a given. She and others, have rallied a small group of citizens who are civic minded enough to take part in city affairs. Their numbers are very small compared to the illegible voting base. Nonetheless,
these civic minded folks have worked their way onto district councils, committees, and boards,they vote, and they are calling the shots. Kathy and company are fulfilling their demands.That's just how government works folks.

I don't believe the kind of change we are seeking will come from this small group who has dominated the political scene, district councils, committees and boards.

I believe the only way to over come the agenda of this city council and mayor is to get citizens involved in blogs like A Democracy to shed the light of truth on subjects the local media does not cover. Insight citizens to vote!

Example crime is up and the local media is playing it down. We need to put the responsibility of ridding our streets of crime on our politicians where it belongs. They are responsibile for our safety and their crime strategy of police/code enforcement is a failure.

Another armed robbery occurred on 7th street. There was a drive by shooting on the 1700 block of Sheridan. Did you see this in the news? Hell No! It happened. The home where the shooting took place has over 8 small children residing there. Luckily nobody was hit.

It takes time and money to build partiscipation in a blog like A Democracy. I firmly believe the average citizen will find this type of forum more engaging than a neighborhood meeting. You can come here literally as you are, anytime you choose.

I suspect one day this forum will have grown in numbers to the point it will be a force to be reckoned with. When this time comes and the average Joe speaks here it will mean something to our city leaders.

We need numbers to have an influence. OR, it is onward with the current agenda.

Are you angry with this city council or Mayor? Imagine having Kathy Lantry on your side of an issue because the number of voters are there to support change on an issue.

I know we have a diverse crowd politically here. I'd like to get involved in the next mayoral race and have the majority here get behind a candidate and we all push to get this person elected. With this blog and the A Democracy News Letter we can get someone elected to a government position. We need to start influencing elections, add legitimacy to A Democracy Town Hall Meeting.

If you believe in this fight, link this blog to your friends and neighbors. Tell them the stories here and most of all VOTE and encourage others to vote. "And tell em A Democracy sent you!"

12:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kathy Lantry said...
If as you say, every house has multiple violations – they might be minor – but the violations exist, why would minor violations cost a ton of money to rectify? If a property has more major problems then yes, it is going to cost more money to fix.

2:14 PM

Ciani says.....
If a house is a cat 2 Ms.Lantry the code states the property needs to be brought up to the new building standards.You aren't just able to fix the violations.You will have to have a LIEP inspection and bring electrical,structeral,plumbing and heating to todays standards.So its not cheap.

Good job Bill and Mitch.They don't call these people politicians for nothing.

Chuck I thought Thune was the best one on the council?Maybe he didn't get Bobs invite.

Tim Ciani

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get involved here and get involved there and blh blah blsh, Just get an attorney and sue them. They'll listen up when it starts costing them omey.

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This city does not follow any ordinance and that's why they have everyone and their mother suing them. They talk a good game about how they're working ith this guy and that guy and doing this and that, but the bottom line is that they are still breaking the law every day of every week and it's going to come back to bite them. Even if these lawsuits go nowhere, I know of 2 landlords who are preparing lawsuits against the city right now. How much money are they going to spend fighting lawsuits rather than just have some reasonable regulations that people can comply with and still be able to run a business?

10:18 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Get involved here and get involved there and blh blah blsh, Just get an attorney and sue them. They'll listen up when it starts costing them omey.

10:15 AM

10:15, I think you are a bit short sighted.

IF, the current RICO suits don't make it to trial, there will be no case law to support change. Change comes from public opinion.

There is groups lobbying the legislature to tighten up the state building codes, we should be lobbying against their efforts and pressuring the legislature to tighten up the laws to make tenants responsible for some of these things the city thinks landlords should be accountable for.

Laws will be passed because there is so many folks like you who don't give to hoots to get involved. Then there will come a day you will be pissed off because a law adversely effects you.

11:31 AM  
Anonymous Click Here said...

City code enforcement destroys elderly womans life.

11:43 AM  
Anonymous Click here for the video said...

City of Saint Paul deprives single mother of her home.

11:49 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

Above, I linked 2 sad storys concerning code enforcement. When I get back from fishing, I will post more.

11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

City of St Paul is nothng but domestic terrorists. They should be in jail.

4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You Ricomen couldn't corner Kathy.Ha ha ha!Bob she's more then a leader she's a well polished politician.Like she's going to come out and tell you what there plan is.You fools.

City Employee

6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A little too polished if you ask me. After these politicians get polished enough, they're not aqs good at hiding their arrogance and their sense of entitlement and elitism.

7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You Ricomen couldn't corner Kathy.Ha ha ha!Bob she's more then a leader she's a well polished politician.Like she's going to come out and tell you what there plan is.You fools.

City Employee

You are about as dumb as a bucket of rocks.

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even City Employee admits there is a hidden agenda behind the polish.

8:41 PM  
Anonymous click here said...

more questionable actions of the Saint Paul Code enforcement.

9:24 AM  
Anonymous click here for video said...

War veteran is confused why the city of Saint Paul demolished his home

9:32 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I am going on a motorcycle run today. When I get back I will post more links of citizens hardships over housing with the city.

10:01 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Considering the history of this issue and the lack of active participation from the folks it concerns, I GIVE UP!

I have multiple hours into putting this discussion together. I have 3 years into this fight. I would of thought maybe we could of had some intelligent exchange over the topic working toward solutions.

Up until this point, the blog has been nothing but a bitch fest with a few angry folks getting their jollies poking fun at the people who piss them off.Nothing PRODUCTIVE can come of this.

I have better things I can be doing with my time and money.

I will post "prepared" requested topics only on this issue. I will not be expressing my opinion on housing. I will no longer do investigative work on the issue either.

8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I knew the city would tire you out Bobby Boy.We in the city can do wrong and get away with it.We have the power and now the proof with you quitting the cause.Ha Ha Ha!!

The Ricomen will be next.

City Employee

8:14 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

First of all I doubt like hell you are a city employee. NOBODY, here believes you are a city employee.

Why should I waste my time on a fight in which NOTHING will come of it because there is not ONE true activist among the regular posters here with the exception of Chuck, Eric and we know who they side with. Then we have Bill Cullen and myself.

We have had our circus acts here also,(Nancy & Sharon). You can hardly qualify them as activist.

Change will only come from public opinion. Informing the public cost money and for so many wealthy folks who read and post here there is little interest in REAL change.

I have come to the conclusion this blog will remain an ENTERTAINMENT forum. Or not exist at all because I will no longer spend my money to promote this blog. I will no longer accept any moneys for this blog either, because it will NEVER be enough to envoke change.

8:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob I am sorry I have not been able to be very helpful when it comes to being active and helping out by being an activist and etc... Between me now owning my own property management business, going to college full-time and being a single mother I just haven't had time to be very helpful... I am very sorry, if I was able too I would of been more then happy to do what I could. I don't blame you for being discouraged you have put a lot of time and effort into this blog and ost of all with helping those of us that have been wronged by the city of St.Paul.

You have worked hard for this forum when you could be spending time with your loved ones and enjoying the summer more. I would like to thank you for everything you have done and the wonderful support you have shown me and many others...You are the type of person the world needs many more of!

Nancy O.

11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob I believe the Ricomen would chime in but might be busy with the summary judgement that will be filed against the city.Not one p[erson will be able to change the city.It will be many different fights on many different fronts.
This is one fornt and there are others.Keep up the fight and don't let the city take you down.


1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Its not the city taking him down, its the lack of support and action he sees from his effort. Everybody is busy so, that's not an excuse. The RICOmen are not doing the suit, their attorney and a half is handling that. They're still not maintaining their property.

Bob laid it out, if you really want change, where is the full agenda beyond a law suit and the complaining on this blog?

Who's at the legislature watching for damaging legislation AND pushing for favorable legislation?

Who's monitoring the media to rapidly respond to information that you find wrong or offensive to your position?

Who maintaining the list of disgruntled citizens who are willing to call local officials and voice their opposition?

Who's working with other low income landlords to help them keep their property up to code while this wages on?

Who's identifying and working with credible potential candidates that can articulate your issues with clarity and breed confidence among the citizenry?

The answer to all of the above is no one or, not enough people.
You're not doing enough to temper or change public opinion. Its as if the status quo works for some of you?

I came to the conclusion two years ago, this blog with the good intentions of a few is a place for griping and throwing out the wildest accusations you can fathom. Any truth or facts that don't line up with the Conspiracy are thrown away and the person who posted it is attacked.

I also know the RICO supporters won't follow through on any of those five things I listed. Why? Because this RICO suit is not about the things they now say it is. Its not about the civil rights of their tenants, they just don't want to loose them to PHA or some nice newly built structure with some funding that they have no access to. Its not about them being targeted because who their tenants are, because as we see in their own testimony, all of their tenants are not of a protected class, there are self admitted code violations on their properties and they themselves has shown not to be very respectful of their tenants rights to be treated like a human being.

Its all about one thing, delaying the orders to manage their property within the city's ordinances.

That doesn't help those who may have lost their homes or access to their homes unfairly. That doesn't help those who may run into bad players within code enforcement. It makes those things that much harder to investigate with these RICOmen crying wolf while shifting the focus of these suits using three-card Monty judicial procedures to delay, distract and distort the truth.

Bob, there are probably some serious people out there who will contact you about their stories. I'm more than positive that you will find cooperation with those who work for the city that want to help.

As far as this blog goes for now, bring on the clowns, on with the show!

Eric <-----

3:51 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

Well Bob there really will be no solutions with this council. They just don't "Get It" and unless you have been a victim or know one, you really can have difficulty in believing the truth. But rest assured that this bunch aren't going to be able to continue passing unconstitutional ordinances whihout consequences. Even my 7 year old granddaughter knows that there are "quences" when you do the wrong things. You can't take away a persons right to sell a property, even for a short period of time. The banks aren't in the rehab business, aren't going to get into the business of fixing properties just to satisfy the City of St. Paul, and have a staff of lawyers that will eventually just join the Ricomen and sue the living shit out of St.Paul. This council is putting the citizens of St Paul at great financial risk.

4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought the summary judgment wa done with when that last post on the rico guys came out. Is there something we don't know Bob? What's up? Disinformaton maybe?

4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lantry didn't answer anything to debate about Bobby. Look at her answers, they're a bunch of hot air and nothing. I think people are so disgusted with her quality they have nothing to say. Hell .....Bill Cullen and Mitch Berg aren't even talking, that should tell you something!

4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's up? Disinformaton maybe?

4:20 PM

See any black helicopters lately?

4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric said............
They're still not maintaining their property.

Eric could you tell us the addresses of the ricomen and I'll take pictures for the whole blog to see.Come on ya clown,tell me the addresses of the dilapitated structures so I can take pictures for the whole world to see.

You can't.I've been by most of their properties that I could find and to tell you the truth they look better then Thunes,Chucks and yours.I'm so sick of you stating they have dumps without seeing one.

Tim Ciani

6:06 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I better say something or I won't be able to sleep tonight.

IF, you are a home owner with code enforcement issues, please contact me, I will do what I can to help you find a resolution with the city.

7:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Who this and Who that.

Ricomen is who. Them and Bob Johnson are the ONLY ones willing to stand in the way of the city corruption machine. Wannabes just advocate for the status quo.

Bring on those ricomen pictures. I want to see them.

9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric could you tell us the addresses of the ricomen and I'll take pictures for the whole blog to see.Come on ya clown,tell me the addresses of the dilapitated structures so I can take pictures for the whole world to see.

You can't.I've been by most of their properties that I could find and to tell you the truth they look better then Thunes,Chucks and yours.I'm so sick of you stating they have dumps without seeing one.

Tim Ciani

First, you're wrong about my property. Compare my house to any of Frank Steinhausers and if he owns one that's in better shape than my home, I'll kiss my own ass.

Second, so what has your pictures done so far? I'll tell you. Your pictures have proved the opposite of what the RICO supporters tried to say and that's the code enforcement is biased against a certain group and those with city connections get away with them.

Yet, you were able to get the former Council President and longest serving member of the Council written up, one of the best Saint Paul operatives and DFL activists was also written up and you now feel pretty sure that by taking pictures, they will identify some violations on my house and write me up also a DFL activist. Bring it on, and let us know when you'll put your home up on the internet too.

Don't hand me the mission of exposing who you are little man. I've grown bored with this blog and am looking for a project. Be sure to inform me that this will be the game so that I can prepare, or you can cower in the dark, either way, you have to make a call, email or submit those photos chief and when you do, it might as well be a business card.

See ya later,

9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So mentioning names and saying that if this guys house is better than your house then you'll kiss your arse? Is that what this is all about is that everyone who you think is below you is somehow the scourge of the earth? Does any rental have to be up to your place, or does it have to meet the city's minimum code requirements? OR......maybe you're saying that you live on the "minimums"....just barely doing enough to scrape by with the codes. Which is it Eric?

11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes you are right my little man Thune was exposed and still gets special treatment-All properties owned by him are shit.Drive by and take a look.

Frank Steinhauser I believe is out of business due to the city.But if you have an address big shot let me know.

You speak of properties in disrepair but give out no addresses.

This game has been started long ago Mr.Mr and its about to get real good.You want in you got it!So start listing addresses princess.

Eric you should be in the air balloon business cause your full of a lot of hot air.

Tim Ciani

11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't mess with Tim Eric.I think he has an in with the papers.Don't you remember Thunes house on the front page of the Trib and Pioneer Press?


11:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So mentioning names and saying that if this guys house is better than your house then you'll kiss your arse? Is that what this is all about is that everyone who you think is below you is somehow the scourge of the earth? Does any rental have to be up to your place, or does it have to meet the city's minimum code requirements? OR......maybe you're saying that you live on the "minimums"....just barely doing enough to scrape by with the codes. Which is it Eric?
11:26 PM

I'm starting to see why some of you can't follow steps to rectify simple problems.

Tim Said
Come on ya clown,tell me the addresses of the dilapitated structures so I can take pictures for the whole world to see.

You can't.I've been by most of their properties that I could find and to tell you the truth they look better then Thunes,Chucks and yours.I'm so sick of you stating they have dumps without seeing one.

This blog has gotten old and the anonymous posters, including the fake name of Tim Ciani, are virtually boorish in their unfounded attacks and accusations.

I'm not your problem, and I'm one you don't want to have. Your problem has been spelled out by me and you attack. Bob tries to give direct access and you nitwits bite the hand that fed you.

Your problem is your lack of real action toward what you've put a lot of lip service toward.

Its not entertaining, its old and I'm tired.


1:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's kind of hard to take action if you don't have the money to sue Eric. The action you speak of is to get involved in the process so a bunch of political hacks can talk out of both sides of their mouths with a bunch of jibberish that doesn't make any sense.

Most of us here support the ricoment. You support the city and the status quo. I'd like you to list some addresses since you have been all the properties these guys own. You made the charge, so give us the addresses and let us see for ourselves.

6:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a fake name Ciani made Eric put his tail between his legs a run.Pictures speak a thousand words and all Ciani was doing is wanting Eric to tell everybody where the delapidated structures the ricomen have so pictures can be taken.Eric must not have had any and was talking smack without proof.

See ya later Eric-don't let the door hit ya on the way out.


8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's odd that the city has focused on this tiny corner of reality. This mis-focus messes up everything else in its system, and it adds up to MISMANAGEMENT.

I wonder which pompous nitwit started it.

9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Civil No.: 05-461 JNE/SRN
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al.,
City of St. Paul, et al.,
. Frank Steinhauser
Steinhauser is a white male and former landlord who owned fifteen properties
within the City. (Exhibit 20, at pp. 6, 7). Steinhauser admits that all of his properties were
not subject to the alleged illegal code enforcement although all of his properties had the
same “tenant base of minorities and low-income people.” (Exhibit 19, pp. 112, 113, 157).
Steinhauser claims that the targeting of some of his properties because of the his tenant
base began in early summer 2002 with his property located at 1038 Aurora. (Exhibit 19, p.
473). Steinhauser claims that a code enforcement officer was “stalking” him at his
property at 1038 Aurora, but he did not know who the code enforcement officer who was
“stalking” him. (Exhibit 19, p. 331). Steinhauser also claimed illegal code enforcement at
719 Sherburne, but could not identify any facts to support his claim. (Exhibit 19, p. 96).
In fact, Steinhauser admitted that “the things [Lisa Martin] cited me for [at 719 Sherburne]
were legitimate at the property.” (Exhibit 19, p. 334). Steinhauser also claimed that he
was targeted at 953 Wilson and subject to illegal code enforcement at that property.
(Exhibit 19, p.335) However, Steinhauser admits that he was not sure if there were any
false claims made by code inspectors at the Wilson address and, in fact, admitted that [he]
thinks “most of them were legitimate code deficiencies.” (Exhibit 19, p. 336).
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 236 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 14 of 55
Steinhauser also claims that his property at 118 Litchfield was illegally targeted
based on the race of his tenants, but he admits that he did not remember who the tenant
was. (Exhibit 19, pp. 206-208). In fact, Steinhauser admits that the tenants caused
damage to 118 Litchfield. (Id.). He alleges that by the City enforcing its code against
Steinhauser for tenant caused damage, the City was interfering with Steinhauser’s contract
rights to pursue his damages’ claims against his tenants, because the City required him,
instead of his tenants, to fix his property. (Exhibit 19, pp. 207, 208). Steinhauser
complains that he was cited for doorknobs missing and admits that he replaced the
doorknobs, but directs the cause of the doorknobs missing to his tenant. (Exhibit 19, p.
208). Steinhauser admits there was a gas leak in the stove but claims it was not his
responsibility. (Exhibit 19, pp. 206, 207). He also admits the tenants ripped up the floor
at 118 Litchfield. (Exhibit 19, p. 212). Finally, Steinhauser admits that many of the
deficiencies cited against 118 Litchfield were, in fact, legitimate items. (Exhibit 19, p.
206). Steinhauser also claims the illegal entry and search of 118 Litchfield by code
enforcement. (Exhibit 19, p. 501). However, he admits that he does not know whether or
not the tenant or her son, white individuals, let them in. (Exhibit 19, p. 502, Exh. 20, p. 6).
Steinhauser also claims illegal code enforcement at his property at 1024 Euclid, but
admits that many of the deficiencies that he was cited for were legitimate and even
possibly caused by tenants. (Exhibit 19, pp. 186-188; 199-200). Steinhauser took photos
of 1024 Euclid that he admits legitimately show deficiencies in his properties. (Exhibit 19,
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 236 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 15 of 55
p. 312). Through the photos he attempted to document damage caused by the tenant.
(Exhibit 19, pp. 312-315). The Police were called to 1024 Euclid on October 29, 2002, by
a tenant because Steinhauser was “verbally threatening” the tenant. (Exhibit 40). Officer
Wroblewski found the property, which had just been condemned by code enforcement,
“uninhabitable.” (Id., 1770). She noted that there was “no heat or smoke detectors, rotting
floors, running water in the bathroom (won’t stop), water damage, holes in the walls
throughout where rats have access....”) (Id., pp. 1770-1771) Steinhauser’s verbal threats
came after he learned that the property was condemned. The tenant reported to police that
Steinhauser stated “Why are you doing this black bitch? Why do you have the state on my
ass? Bitch you’re gonna lose in fucking court. You’ll be back on the fucking street!”
(Id., p. 1771).
Steinhauser admits that his property at 910 East Sixth St. had a number of
legitimate deficiencies that he thought were most likely caused by the tenant. (Exhibit 19,
pp. 414-416). He admits that he was responsible for the tenant caused damage and took
photos to document it. (Id., p. 302) However, the rats that he was cited for which
triggered the condemnation and code compliance “were not true.” (Exhibit 19, p. 417).
He claims that since the rats citation was not true, a condemnation and code compliance
should not have followed, and he should not have to pay to fix the legitimate code
violations discovered because of the untrue rats citation. (Exhibit 19, p. 417-419). As he
stated, “those code violations existed.” (Exhibit 19, p. 417). Steinhauser claims that he
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 236 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 16 of 55
was sent repair orders that were designed so that he could not comply with the repairs.
(Exhibit 19, p. 359). However, he admits that he was able to comply with the orders.
(Exhibit 19, p. 360). Steinhauser admits that there were rats at his property at 910 East
Sixth St. but claims that the rats in his property came from a large pile of trash that was
next door. (Exhibit 19, pp. 504-505). Steinhauser claims that there was an illegal entry at
910 East Sixth St. because his tenant LaChaka Cousette did not want the code enforcement
officer to enter her apartment. (Exhibit 19, pp. 500-505). However, Cousette testified that
on October 21, 2002, Lisa Martin and Officer Dean Koehnen came to her door and Martin
explained to her that the unit downstairs was being condemned. (Exhibit 35, p. 69). Once
Martin explained to Cousette why they had come to her door, Cousette agreed to allow
them in. (Id., p. 143-144). Martin did all the talking. (Id. p. 144) According to Cousette,
Officer Koehnen never ordered her to admit them into her home. (Id. p. 143)
Steinhauser hired an B&E Pest Control to treat 910 East Sixth St. which noted that
units were sub-par sanitation, and had mice and rats, and rats in basement. (Exhibit 19, p.
178-179, Exhibit 21). Steinhauser claims that what B&E Pest Control meant was no rats
in basement, instead of rats in basement. (Exhibit 19, pp. 179-180).
Steinhauser also claims that his properties at 910 and 921 York were subject to
illegal targeting. (Exhibit 19, pp. 317-318). He claims the City gave him criminal tickets
regarding the painting of the property. (Compl. at ¶¶ 198-201) However, Steinhauser
admits that there was something wrong at the properties and he was able to fix it. (Exhibit
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 236 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 17 of 55
19, p. 362). Steinhauser admits that many properties in the City of St. Paul owned by
him, owned by others, and owned by the Public Housing Agency, who have a similar
tenant base (many protected class citizens), were not subject to illegal code enforcement.
(Exhibit 19, p. 112, 113, 152-153, 524-526).
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1985); Unigroup, Inc. v. O'Rourke Storage &
Transfer Co., 980 F.2d 1217, 1219-20 (8th Cir. 1992). “Summary judgment will not lie if
the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The court determines materiality from the
substantive law governing the claim. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Further, “the
nonmoving party may not merely rest upon allegations or denials in its pleadings, rather,
they must by affidavits, ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Williams v.
Thomson Co., No. 00-2256, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4481, *17 (D. Minn. Mar. 21, 2003)
(Exhibit 41), citing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex Co. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324
(1986); U.S. v. Crane Co, 122 F.3d 559, 562 (8th Cir. 1997); McLaughlin v. Esselte
Pendaflex Co., 50 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir. 1995). “A plaintiff may not merely point to
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 236 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 18 of 55
1 Plaintiffs alleges various causes of action against John and Jane Doe in their
individual and official capacities. However, Plaintiffs have not indicated the identity of
either Doe or identified any specific actions or involvement these individuals had with
regard to the matters alleged in her complaint. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
against these purported defendants upon which relief can be granted. See Frey v. City of
Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 672 (8th Cir. 1995) (complaint which did not indicate how
defendants were involved in alleged violations was conclusory and failed to meet
notice-pleading standard); Tatam v. Iowa, 822 F.2d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)
("While pleadings are to be construed to do substantial justice . . . the pleading must at
minimum be sufficient to give defendant notice of the claim.").
unsupported self-serving allegations, but must substantiate her allegations with sufficient
probative evidence that would permit a finding in her favor.” Haas v. Kelly Services, Inc.,
409 F. 3d 1030, 1034 (8th Cir. 2005), citing, Wilson v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Co., 62 F.3d 237,
241 (8th Cir. 1995). “Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment.” Haas, 409
F.3d at 1036, quoting, Mayer v. Nextel West Co., 318 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants in their individual capacity committed and
conspired to commit a RICO violation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d). To establish a
civil violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), the Plaintiffs must prove that at least one of the
individual “defendant[s] engaged in (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern
(4) of racketeering activity.” Handeen v. Lemaire, 112 F.3d 1339, 1347 (8th Cir. 1997),
citing, Sedima v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985). See also United States v. Darden,
70 F.3d 1507, 1518 (8th Cir. 1995) (describing same elements in slightly different way).
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 236 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 19 of 55
Racketeering activity is defined through an exclusive list of criminal statutes referred to as
predicate acts. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (2006). Proof of at least two predicate acts are
necessary to establish a pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
Further, a pattern is only established if the predicate acts are related, “amount to or
pose a threat of continued criminal activity.” H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492
U.S. 229, 240 (1989); Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402, 406 (8th Cir. 1999).
“‘Continuity’ is both a closed- and open-ended concept, referring either to a closed period
of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a
threat of repetition.” H. J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 241. If the alleged conduct is closed-ended,
then a RICO violation is only established if the predicate acts occurred over a “substantial
period of time.” Id. at 242. As a matter of law, the predicate acts must span more than
one year. Webster Indus. v. Northwood Doors, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 821, 850 (D. Iowa
2004). See also Primary Care Investors, Seven, Inc. v. PHP Healthcare Corp., 986 F.2d
1208, 1215 (8th Cir. 1993) (ten to eleven months insufficient); Cwick v. Life Time Fitness,
Inc., No. 04-2731, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18463 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2004) (Exhibit 42)
(eight to nine months insufficient). Cf. Diamonds Plus, Inc. v. Kolber, 960 F.2d 765, 769
(8th Cir. 1992) (holding predicate acts over two years enough to establish a pattern).
To establish their conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the Plaintiffs must
first prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Darden, 70 F.3d at 1518. See also G-I
Holdings, Inc. v. Baron & Budd, 179 F. Supp. 2d 233, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), citing,
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 236 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 20 of 55
2 The Plaintiffs have plead the commission of Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344),
Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), a Hobbs Act violation
(18 U.S.C. § 1851), Tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512), and Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201). See
Pl. Compl. 213(a)-(f). They also appear to have made an attempt to plead a violation of
Interstate Travel or Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises (18 U.S.C. § 1952).
See Pl. Compl. 213(g).
Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co., 187 F.3d 229, 244-245 (2nd Cir. 1999).
Then the Plaintiffs must prove that a second defendant “objectively manifested an
agreement to participate directly, or indirectly, in the affairs of [the] enterprise through the
commission of two or more predicate crimes.” Handeen, 112 F.3d at 1355, quoting United
States v. Bennett, 44 F.3d 1364, 1372 (8th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted).
The Plaintiffs have alleged multiple violations of seven predicate act statutes.2
After almost four years of discovery, however, the Plaintiffs have failed to identify facts
which support a single violation of any predicate act statute. The Plaintiffs’ failure to
prove that at least one individual Defendant, acting outside the scope of their employment
for the City, committed at least two predicate acts, over a period of more than one year,
translates into a failure to establish a RICO claim. Furthermore, aggressive enforcement
of the housing code by the Defendants does not create a pattern of racketeering activity if
those actions are adverse to landlords with code violations. See Sinclair v. Hawke, 314
F.3d 934, 943-944 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing regulation by bank regulators). Housing
code enforcement officers “do not become racketeers by acting like aggressive” housing
code enforcement officers. Id., see also Terry A. Lambert Plumbing, Inc. v. Western Sec.
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 236 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 21 of 55
3 Plaintiffs also claim Defendants interfered with their rights under the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1982, which is the same analysis herein. E.g.,
Asbury v. Brougham, 866 F.2d 1276, 1279 (10th Cir. 1989).
Bank, 934 F.2d 976, 981 (8th Cir. 1991) (discussing normal banking activity taken by
bankers). Any contrary “proposition is ludicrous on its face.” Sinclair, 314 F.3d at 943-
Plaintiffs have presented serious allegations of RICO violations against the
individual defendants. Yet Plaintiffs’ independent and exhaustive search has failed to
uncover any actual RICO violation. As a result, summary judgment is appropriate.
What now?

You got not only specific addresses but your guys own testimony that his property was shit.

You really want current rental property on the lower East side that is in bad shape? You really think that the housing stock is all visually up to code? I gave you the perimeters of the neighborhood, do your own homework.

It appears that you all have nothing to do but try to one up me, you can't. Why? becuase you're wrong and now the RICO case has been tossed. Like the cowards you are, you hide behind the internet and fake names and show your weasel faces after you think I left and its safe for you to dance around the moonlight complaining about the city or whatever you do.

It it, as long as you don't mention my name.


9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dakota County housing court coming to an end
Property citations to be handled differently
By Nick Ferraro
Article Last Updated: 08/16/2008 11:42:00 PM CDT

After a six-year run, Dakota County is throwing out its community court.

The court is an alternative to criminal court for residents of South St. Paul, West St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights who have been cited for housing violations — such as dilapidated roofs, foundations or garages; peeling paint; stored junk cars or unkempt property.

The start of a new county drug court in September means something had to give, said Dakota County District Judge Leslie Metzen, who started the community court in 2002.

"It probably would have continued on if I had been willing to do it," said Metzen, who will preside over the drug court, which will provide intensive supervision for repeat offenders. "But I think it was valuable, and I'm glad we gave it a try."

Community court is held once a month, usually from March to October, at the Northern Service Center in West St. Paul. The last court calendar is scheduled for Oct. 1.

As a replacement for the court, South St. Paul and West St. Paul officials are considering an administrative citation process with hearings, said Kori Land, who represents both cities as city attorney.

Community court has been unique to the Twin Cities, Metzen said, adding that the next closest thing is Hennepin County Housing Court, which handles cases involving landlord and tenant disputes.

"I think it's been a different kind of court experience," she said. "It's a little more back and forth, give and take, with individuals than you



would normally see in a court proceeding."
An important part of the court has been judicial monitoring, Land said, adding that Metzen stays involved with the progress of resolving the offenses and reviews compliance of offenders.

"The goal of this is to solve the problem," Metzen said. "It's not the traditional 'You did wrong and committed an offense so you've got some payback of a fine, community service, jail sentence or whatever it is.' "

In community court, Metzen usually gives the accused property owner two options, Land said.

The first is to plead guilty, agree to fix the problem by a deadline and pay a $50 fine to cover court costs. If the fine is paid and the problem is resolved on time, the guilty plea will not be accepted and the case is dismissed.

The second is to plead not guilty, setting the stage for a trial and a much stiffer fine — up to $1,000 — if the person is found guilty of not making the necessary repairs.

According to the most recent available statistics, community court handled 318 cases between 2002 and 2005, with 70 being dismissed and 214 — or 67 percent — ending in compliance.

Homeowners ordered to appear before Metzen have been cited by city inspectors — often repeatedly, sometimes more than a year earlier. And by the time they get to court, they're not happy, Metzen said.

"They've been harassing me since I bought the place," a South St. Paul man said to Metzen on Aug. 6 while appearing before the judge for keeping too many cars outside his Southview Boulevard house.

In another case, an elderly South St. Paul woman was before Metzen for failing to remove a stack of pallets from her back yard. "What do you people want, my blood?" the woman asked Metzen just before accepting an offer to get rid of the pallets within two weeks.

Metzen said she sent someone to jail just once. The 2005 case involved an 88-year-old South St. Paul man who was sentenced to 30 days in jail after missing several court dates.

"I've been a judge for I think 22 years, and the most publicity I ever received was from a community court case," she said. "I led the 6 and 10 p.m. news for about three days running."

Robert George Schulze got into hot water with the city over code violations that included the rickety condition of a back porch, rips in a back screen door and stacks of lumber in the back yard.

His story led to an outpouring of support from the community, with dozens gathering to help clear his yard. He served just four days in jail.

"Maybe some people would think that was kind of harsh, but the law applies to all of us — young and old — and I didn't see that there was any good reason not to comply other than he was just kind of stubborn," Metzen said.

The proposed administrative citations for South St. Paul and West St. Paul would allow housing violations to continue to be addressed in a civil process rather than criminal court, Land said.

Ideally, the process would be speedier than criminal court because specific timeframes would be set for cases that are contested, she said.

Several letters would be sent to residents before a citation was issued and offenders could request a hearing — led by an independent arbitrator — to challenge it.

10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Eric the rico lawsuit may have went away, but these are very serious facts this guy is putting forward about city inspectors now stalking people. How do you justify this Eric? Very serious Eric.

11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To all readers

I just drove by the addresses that were listed by an above poster and they all look like nice properties.

What's supposed to be wrong with them?

11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RICO shacks, that's what we want to see. Where are they? Got any more address numbers Eric. Someone says the ones you gave are OK. Could it be Eric that your jealous casue your place is not up to the RICO standard?

11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Eric any dumby could have done what you just did.Checked all addresses and found steinhauser owns none of them-Did you not hear me when I said the city put him out of business?Let me tell you again, the city put him out of business!
Plus most of the houses went into forclosure and then vacant-Thats great for the neighborhood huh tough guy?Steinhaser atleast had them affordable and lived in.

I ask again give me an address thats still being operated by a Ricoman!Don't cut and paste to show your computer skills.Show me shit housing!You keep shooting your big mouth off about these guys properties-TALK IS CHEAP!

Tim Ciani

11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're posting a non-argument Tim, (its dummy or dummies).

1.You start by saying that most of
the RICOmen properties are better
than my shack.
2.You then ask me to post the
addresses of their property that
are in bad shape.
3.You then tell us the city has
put most of them out of business
so that address that I submitted
are invalid because they no
longer own them.
How can you prove a negative?

The only thing I can do is go by one of the RICOmen OWN WORDS that his properties had multiple violations. He said it under oath.

You laugh it off as his properties are now foreclosed and vacant, which flies in the lie of the comments at 11:23 and 11:25.

What is your point here? Again, you think I live in a crapshack, burden of proof is on you. I said these gyus need to clean their properties up and produced sworn testimony from a RICOman that his property was a piece of shit.

You come back with nothing.

I even gave you an area to drive to look at the shape of the rental property and you come back with your boyfriend trying to say its all ok, well, not according to the list of calls from those areas.

Again, what your point?

Come on around with your camera, take a photo and call it in. I effin' dare you. However, if you post my home on the web, with all of these nuts on this site, I'll take it a threat and will respond by finding you (easy enough) and either shoving that camera up your tail (or down your throat- neither are strangers to foreign objects I'm sure) or suing you, depending on who's watching and what you can prove.

So, you got a group of options here:

1. Shut your mouth.
2. Prove your statements with anything but ad hominem non-arguments.
3. Work your way to front page of the Local section.
4. I guess you could report me to the authorities but, then you'd have to file a complaint and using Tim Ciani won't work.

For the rest of you, since when have you said anything that matters to me? You die tomorrow and I'll still go to work, come home, grab a beer and maybe watch Big Brother 10 without a pause of a thought for you.

Bob is right, again. The majority of you are all talk, talk, talk and don't even have the where with all to operate in society like adults.
Hiding, lying and threatening. Thats the role you play- until you run into someone who doesn't run from your shit.


12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are right. If they are being harassed by city employees in relationship to the job they do as city employees then, its criminal and should be taken care of ASAP.

I have written it until I'm blue in the fingers, the RICO suit does nothing to curb any serious bad behavior by city employees. If there is, then it needs to be documented and brought to the public on an individual criminal basis. If then a pattern exist among an employee or a department, then you have high ground for civil action. Remember, OJ got sued and lost in a civil trial after the facts came out in the criminal trial.


1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Channel 5 news at 10pm just had an interesting story about a couple of Mpls city employees being accused and under investigation for swindle with homeowners and code violations. This shows that it does happen, at least Mpls follows up on the complaints!

10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St Paul is too chicken-shit to consider such complaints.

11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Again, what your point?"

I've been laughing so hard for 15 minutes I couldn't even think of posting. It looks to me Ciani like Eric has you checked and double checked. To come down to your level so you can understand it, Eric is quite simply kicking your ass. You make some half baked assertion and Eric takes ya to the woodshed......and then leaves you there when he's done. Wise up man, you're losing favor here! Paperozzi tactics don't get you a free ride forever son.

11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Remember, OJ got sued and lost in a civil trial after the facts came out in the criminal trial."

Also remember Eric that many more people than OJ were prosecuted and found guilty after facts came out in civil trials.

11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric if you have violations then pay the piper if not let Ciani do his work.What are you affraid of?One minute you want to fight the next you start understanding how the ricomen are feeling with harassment.Tim keep up the good work,you show them how it feels to be on the other side of the fence and I think they don't like it.

11:31 Tim is just doing fine.Eric seems to be rattled by him.Eric I thought you quit this blog?You should make friends with Tim.Having him as a enemy might put you on the front page.

By the way where are those adresses so Tim can take some pictures?I don't think he wants yours,just the ricomens current ones-Right Tim?


12:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What current ones" There aren't any you fool. They were run out of business. Victims of the DFL!

Hey Eric I have an idea! Why don't you and Tim host a pancake breakfast so we can all get together and meet? Ya know how to cook Eric?

6:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jim, eric said he can report it. He seems rattled that some creep is going to post his home on this blog where all but three are against him and anonymous. anyone with a family should be concerned and tim should be careful.

there is a sad recent history of people being attacked and some being killed by those who disagree with them online once their address is published (from abortion docters to teenagers).

in other news, he keeps tying up tim with his own words, so that makes time threaten him.

giving credit to the dfl for throwing out slumlords may not get the public response you think.

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DFL runs out "Big Slums" to clean up for the RNC.....contactors and demolition folks reap the benifets.

2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks Eric is small potatos just like Repke.Repke and Erics houses will not be published.We are talking about the ricomens properties that I'm still waiting for Eric to share with me.I think it was all BS but have given him a chance for the addresses.

Tim Ciani

2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Eric.Eric you are a sellout and full of shit ya dipshit.Where are Cianis adresses?


10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

funny how everytime eric leaves, everybody comes out of the dark goading him to say something. if u can't stand him, why not let him go?
u luv him and u know it.

come on back eric, certain people are walking around here like they own the joint.

i guess froggy and george are waiting to see if he's really gone for sure.

12:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just like the city with my help has gotten rid of the gang bangers of Erics kind I got rid of him.

See ya dickhead.


8:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric intelect and spin is an aquired taste. Even though ya hate hum, ya can't live without him. Maybe someday we'll all be friends huh Eric? Sitting out in your back yard drinking beer and laughing about times past.....throwing beer bottles and cigarette butts all over the place.....your wife yelling at you about all your unconventional friends......people passed out in your yard in the morning when you get up to go to work!

8:35 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

giving credit to the dfl for throwing out slumlords may not get the public response you think.

10:54 AM

my response;

You have a very narrow view of this issue. I have to go to work so I don't have time to get into ALL the details of this subject.

Civil Rights violations should always be a concern of citizens.

Apparent double standards should always be a concern of citizens.

The housing issue goes far beyond as you say slumlords. Elderly folks have lost their homes. Handicap folks have lost there homes. Innocent folks have been thrown out on the street by the city. IT'S WRONG! And there will be accountability.

8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Eric left because sargent slaughter is back and that could only mean one thing-------The City is about to get their woopen.I thought this trial was over----Is it?


11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sgt slaughter adds to the silliness and subtracts from the seriousness of this blog.

Froggy is a racist. People like him gave the city support to use behavioral issues against the property owner. To me, he is the problem much more than eric or chuck.

12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Standby Slaughter......

2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
sgt slaughter adds to the silliness and subtracts from the seriousness of this blog.

Froggy is a racist. People like him gave the city support to use behavioral issues against the property owner. To me, he is the problem much more than eric or chuck.

12:05 PM

I am not a racist for recognizing most blacks need to learn to respect other people.Don't believe me ask Bill Cosby.

These punk pant sagging gang bangers are the problem. You idiot.


8:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. froggy saying that 'most blacks need to learn to respect other people,' is a racist sentiment. You made your plea worse by making a racist statement to deny being a racist.

Your next move will be to explain what you meant or how its true.

Eric, where the heck are you? He's serving this on a silver plater for you to knock it out of the park! Get back in this.

9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finally Erics gone and its going to be Chuck that has to defend the city from the ricomen.

Its comming folks!

9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is that a good thing?
Isn't the problem with the city that they surround themselves with yes men and never hear from the other side so they think their shit don't stink. Sometimes all our shit stick and we need to hear it. Getting rid of dissenting voices (in this case 'wrong voices' of chuck and eric) is not good for ademocracy.

Do you get that? Some of the people who are welcome here seem to say the dumbest (froggy) and most offensive(swiftee) things ever.

How does purging dissenters AND welcoming offenders make this a truth seeking blog. Because you say its the truth?

11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't say that I want Eric to comeback or Chuck to stay. Maybe if there were more voices than just those two I could take it. I'm sick of grabbing the City Ordinances when Chuck writes and a dictionary when Eric writes.

Oh, Froggy, you're a racist. I'm not saying you're going to be burning a cross tonight but, you really do have prejudice issues with black people. You slam them, not like some -Sid I'm looking at you- just to get under Eric's skin, but you really got serious problem with them. It comes out everytime you write.

You would be a perfect witness for the ricomen to question. You'd open your mouth and show the court that you are one of those neighbors that use people's actions to punish landlords.

3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms Moermond, the Himmleresque lady who has the unenviable task of misappropriating private propery by deception and coercion.

Watch this video, as she is caught LYING

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms Moermond, the Himmleresque lady who has the unenviable task of misappropriating private propery by deception and coercion.

Watch this video, as she is caught LYING

1:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home