Custom Search

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Saint Paul RICO UPDATE/ Part 3 of Opposition To Summary Judgement

Scroll down the page for part 1 & 2.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the Memorandum.


Blogger Bob said...

Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment as requested in their memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment because there is sufficient record evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact as to each contested cause of action. Summary judgment must be denied because, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and after all reasonable inferences based on the evidence are made in the Plaintiffs’ favor, there are genuine issues of material fact upon which a reasonable fact-finder could decide in favor of the Plaintiffs.
The party requesting summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying the pleadings, admissions, discovery documents and affidavits that it contends show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings to designate specific facts that raise a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. The evidence produced by the non-moving
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 35 of 78
party need not be in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. Id. at 324.
A genuine issue of material fact exists if: (1) there is a dispute of fact; (2) the disputed fact is material to the outcome of the case; and (3) the dispute is genuine in that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party. RSBI Aerospace, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 49 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir. 1995). When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Enterprise Bank v. Magna Bank of Missouri, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996); RSBI Aerospace, Inc., 49 F.3d at 401. Moreover, this circuit has held that summary judgment in a civil rights action is inappropriate where there are genuine factual disputes. See Gainor v. Rogers, 973 F.2d 1379, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1992); Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465, 473 (8th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiffs have standing to bring claims under the Fair Housing Act.
The City does not dispute that Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring its FHA claims. Rather, the City attacks the Plaintiffs’ prudential standing. The test for prudential standing is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff's position a right to judicial relief. The
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 36 of 78
Supreme Court has held a party need not be a member of a protected class to suffer harm from discrimination.” Oti Kaga, Inc. v. South Dakota Housing Development Authority, 342 F.3d 871, 881 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The 8th Circuit recognized “the need to construe prudential standing broadly to vindicate the rights of citizens trammeled by illegal discrimination.” Id. at 882. Oti Kaga, despite being a corporation and not a member of any protected class, was held to have prudential standing because the discrimination affected its economic interests and “permitting Oti Kaga to prosecute the discrimination claims will effectuate the purpose of the Fair Housing Act’s anti-discrimination provisions and recognize Congress’s intent under the Fair Housing Act to extend standing to the full limits of Art. III” Id. at 882.
Plaintiffs have presented evidence of disparate impact due to Defendants’ violation of the Fair Housing Act
Proof of a disparate impact claim requires a showing that a facially neutral policy has a significant adverse impact on members of a protected minority group. Oti Kaga, Inc., 342 F.3d at 883. Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims fail because the policy at issue is not facially neutral. If that were the case, the policy would be facially discriminatory and no further analysis would be necessary. However, the analysis looks to the impact of the policy, which must be significantly adverse to members of a protected class. In the present case, the Defendants’ policy of targeting non-PHA low income housing with excessive code enforcement results in less choice in housing for the protected-class individuals seeking affordable housing because it drives private landlords who have
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 37 of 78
affordable rental options out of the rental market.
Plaintiffs as a group had or have a higher percentage of people of color and disabled “protected class” in their properties. Plaintiffs were targeted – PHA was not. Plaintiffs have scattered site properties with over two times the number of Blacks occupying their privately owned units than Blacks occupying the PHA scattered site homes. Why? Maybe it is because the City cannot control the private market’s decision as to who should be allowed the freedom and privacy of a home in the inner city at affordable rates with the benefits of public transportation and community.
The City controls the number of Blacks and other minorities that can get into PHA scattered site homes by controlling the Board of Commissioners who are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council. The City went for further control in 2001 by making sure one of its senior police officials sat on the PHA board.
While Defendants using CDBG funds for code enforcement went after Plaintiffs for alleged behavior problems, the City and PHA were working together with federal funding to handle even worse behavior issues at and inside PHA properties. PHA’s problems were costing the taxpayer lots of money, yet Defendants failed to even mention “PHA” in the City’s 2002 Problem Property report where the City claimed the private market was costing the public so much money that the City was justified in cracking down on the private market.
The City had tools in place from 1995 forward for recouping its costs of police and code services but decided not to use those tools.
The City forcibly requires only the private market to bear the excessive costs of “code
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 38 of 78
compliance inspections and certifications” with corresponding removal of State Building Code grandfathering protections, application of “current codes,” and resulting increase in costs to the private owners – removing those properties from the rental market for months in the short term during the “code compliance,” and forcing many owners into financial crisis, with abandonment, foreclosure, and reduction in low-income housing stock available for the 10,000 families waiting for housing.

10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's it?

We shall see...

In order to allow this thing to go to trial at this point the judge has to believe that the landlords have standing on a civil rights case because of the large number of minority tenants that they had subjegated to live in their properties and refused to repair.

The basis of the civil rights case is that since you give PHA an assumed understanding that they will do the right thing and repair their properties and call the cops when crimes are occuring the City is discriminating against the poor when we (the landlords) have proven that we won't repair our properties or cooperate with the police in dealing with criminal behavior.

We shall see.

Remember, the court doesn't exist in a vacume. The court knows that most landlords in Saint Paul rent to people of color and never appear in front of the legislative hearing officer. So, somehow the bench has to take all of these accusations that the City was out to rid itself of the poor and minorities and look at the reality of Saint Paul and see that was never what occured.


Chuck Repke

10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's clear to me that Kelly had an oversimplistic and failed notion about raising the tax base of the city by coming down hard on low income properties. He brought in Dawkins for the purpose.

What I don't understand is why Kelly's approach was continued, to the impending ruin of St. Paul.

10:02 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I had posted the rest of this thing and had a second thought and I decided to break it down into further parts.

10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks to me Chuck like the basis ia that the city treated PHA differently to the detriment and ultimately finacial ruin of the private landlords whom they used the guise of code enforcement to target people due to behavior and then required illegal code requirements in an effort to raise the rents and cost of living so high that the real poor who only make $15,000.00 a year can't afford to live here any longer.

10:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:48 but why these few landlords?

All of the other landlords were able to repair their properties.

Most of the rest of the landlords had minority clients that got their places fixed. So, the only thing these landlords have in common is that they couldn't or wouldn't fix their properties.

That is what these guys are saying in their case. All low income tennents live in old houses, Dawkins went after all old houses and everybody but these guys fixed their places.


Chuck Repke

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawkins dpeartment targeted peole because of behavior Chuck. Then his inspectors went out and broke the law. They fabricated violations that didn't exist in order to raise the number of violations to something that looked much worse than it was so they could condemn. The they required what's known as a "Code Compliance" which was in itself illegal, so don't give us this crap about not fixing their properties. The city of St Paul made sure they couldn't fix the properties through a variety of other illegal schemes and from the looks of things, they were nice enough to document it all and then hand it over to ricomen.

12:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about the minority renters who were used by the city in furthering the city's criminal eneterprise Chuck? The city makes them think they are getting some help by having the landlords fix the place up. What they wind up with is condemned and referred to some program somewhere that winds up not helping them anyways so they're forced to live on the street, under bridges, with friends or family......or maybe just go away! How did they get helped. When this is over I think all the renters should start a clas action lawsuit against the city for the years of deciet and fraud thrust upon them by this city leadership. The city never wanted to help at all , all they wanted to do is move them out to the burbs. Nice and neat......all through the back door with no due process whatsoever.

2:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing's changed since Kelly & Dawkins left. St. Paul has just kept on with the same BS even though people tell them every week they are violating the law.

6:41 AM  
Anonymous bill cullen said...


PHA was given more than an assumed understanding, they were held to a code that is 82% less strict than the private market. If St. Paul’s goal – as you always say – is to assure citizens have safe and healthy housing, then either PHA has unsafe housing or St. Paul has unnecessarily high standards.

I don’t know PHA well, but I see no evidence that their housing is unsafe or unhealthy, so why does St. Paul force you, me and all other private entities to comply with a higher standard? I wonder if PHA’s less strict code would have required you to repaint due to “chalking?”

Bill Cullen.

7:12 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

BTW everyone...

Tim Pawlenty is McCain's VP. I understand the announcement will come later this AM.

I like Tim, he is a good guy and will be a great compliment to McCain.

Bill Cullen.

7:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, that isn't what they are doing Bill. The code is the code. They are only allowing PHA to get the work done without having to be run through the legal system because they understand they will get the work done.

HUD (the Fed's) say you have to be accommodating. Facilitate compliance. So the City works with them with the assumption they will comply.

As to those who live off of the suffering of the poor and you and I my friend have seen the kind of people that are out there taking advantage of the poor... the City HAS TO us all legal means to force compliance or they will not comply.

What in the hell do you think this suit is about? It is to gain the ability to house the poor in substandard housing!

As to anything concerning PHA and the impact the code had on private landlords, 50% of section 8 vouchers go to PRIVATE landlords! It is not in PHA's interest to see the private market go away. So, there is still no one who benefits from this alleged RICO case. There is no "class" that these landlords fall into that would give them status in a human rights case, and they have done nothing to diswade the court from seeing that the City's interest was to create safe, affordable housing.

And Bill, your wrong about McCain's choice too.


Chuck Repke

8:19 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

I admit it; I was wrong about Pawlenty. Usually my information is better. Sigh.

I am now done with predictions on THAT matter!

Bill Cullen.

9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and I was sayinf for months that it would be Kay Baily Hutchenson from Texas that he would pick.

Woman, experienced, former State Tres for Texas in the Senate...

Instead he picks the youngest and prettiest Governor.

Must have been looking for balance.


Chuck Repke

10:01 AM  
Anonymous McCain's VP Sara Palin said...

McCains VP Alaska Governor Sara Palin

10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said...........
Actually, that isn't what they are doing Bill. The code is the code. They are only allowing PHA to get the work done without having to be run through the legal system because they understand they will get the work done.

HUD (the Fed's) say you have to be accommodating. Facilitate compliance. So the City works with them with the assumption they will comply.

Ciani says..............
Chuck It looks like the city help PHA to a different standard then the private guy after all.Ahh were not going to watch you guys we trust you'll get'r'done!That my friend is special treatment.

Chuck said............
So, there is still no one who benefits from this alleged RICO case.

PHA had none zip nada code compliances or excessive consumption or forced repairs or pressure from code enforcement-That alone is a benefit while the private guy getting ran through the ringer!

Tim Ciani

11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Tim no, no it isn't.

PHA is not for profit. I know that concept is beyond your level of understand but for a judge that argument will be pretty silly.

If they aren't making any money, not having to pay any money on excessive consumption makes them... no more money. Because they aren't making any money you boob! They get a certain amount from the FEDs and when its gone its gone they lose all of the money dummy!

So, again benefit means profit... there is no profit in any action of the city code people against any landlord that benefits PHA.

Wow, some people are so slow...


Chuck Repke

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck are there employees at PHA or are they donating their time?Lets say code enforcement put a heavy hand on them making their operating money disappear could it mean they may get payed less ya nickel nut!

Chuck the city is fucked and your money is gone so go get a real job and clean up your slum rental.

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You insult yourslef when you speak about thes elawsuits Chuck. Go back and read this again and try a little harder. You cannot be this stupid. What the city has been doing is more than obvious.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck the city has spent a lot of money defending the lawsuits.From the sounds of it you don't even think the city could be remotely responsible.Did you ever just think maybe the city is in alittle jam?

Seebas old boss Frank Villum once said these lawsuit expose the city to great harm.

2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll give the Ricomen a standing ovation.You have City Hall rattled right now with what ever you just did.I still think the city has deeper pockets and will run you out of money so to bad so sad.

City Employee

4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

23. Final Adoption – 08-437 – An ordinance amending Chapter 33 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code to create a process for vacant building total remodel and increasing
vacant building fees.
Councilmember Thune moved approval.
Adopted Yeas – 5 Nays – 0 (Bostrom and Carter not present)
24. Final Adoption – 08-438 – An ordinance amending Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code to set the vacant building registration fee to $500.00 $1,000.00 per year.
(Amended on May 7)
Councilmember Stark moved approval.
Adopted Yeas – 6 Nays – 0 (Bostrom not present)

6:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When did they vote for the above? This is just more evidence that they are doing whatever they can to make the cost of renting to the low income as high as they can.

9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As to those who live off of the suffering of the poor".......

"What in the hell do you think this suit is about? It is to gain the ability to house the poor in substandard housing!".........

"There is no "class" that these landlords fall into that would give them status in a human rights case,"

Are you retarded or something Repke? You don't actually believe these statements you made do you?

10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope St. Paul has a good story to spin. With what I've read here, thier actions were indeed intentional and deliberate.

1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the City Employee. This city is not ever going to run these guys out of money. So too bad so sad for the City and the citizens that are going to pick up the tab

2:53 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...


According to this memorandum, PHA does NOT comply with St. Paul’s code. This memorandum summarized the findings:

“In 1994, the City proposed to PHA, it long term partner, that the City’s Property Maintenance Code (City Code) be substituted for the federally mandated Housing Quality Standards (HQS) applicable to federally subsidized, Section 8 “low income” housing in the City. During this process, the City and PHA discovered that the City’s code was actually “more stringent” 82% of the time when compared to the federal code. Representative Dawkins’ Legislative Aid attended the City’s Community and Economic Development Committee meeting on October 26, 1994, where PHA informed the City that HUD tightly controls the variations in HQS by local jurisdictions due to the adverse effect a higher local housing code can have on the availability of affordable housing. In 1994, PHA informed City leaders that “local HUD staff feared more stringent standards would reduce the supply of affordable housing for Sec 8 holders.”

We MUST conclude that St. Paul’s standards are unnecessarily high or PHA has unsafe or unsanitary housing. Do you see another conclusion?

Bill Cullen.

10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St Paul standards are too high Bill and that's why a lot of landlords just up and left.....leaving in their wake a bunch of inexperienced green horns with high mortgages and no equity.

1:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home