Custom Search

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Saint Paul RICO UPDATE/ Part 4 of Opposition To Summary Judgement

For part 3 scroll down the page.
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the memorandum.

13 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

There maybe copy errors.

DEFENDANTS UNDERSTOOD SIGNIFICANCE OF APPLYING CITY’S HEIGHTENED CODE TO OLDER PROPERTIES OCCUPIED DISPROPORTIONATELY BY PROTECTED CLASS
Dawkins knew that over-zealous enforcement would lead to wholesale abandonment of properties or the inner-city.” Ex. 108 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP 0658.
Dawkins also had a full understanding of what a “code compliance” meant. Bill Cullen depo pp. 211-212, 195, 211-212. Cullen and Royce said, Dawkins knew that it involved renovation that was greater than just maintenance issues - knew it was typically a substantial renovation of an older home and would have a significant financial effect in an adverse way on home owners and rental property owners.
Despite knowledge of that the City’s higher code standard, Defendant City, Mayor Kelly, Director Dawkins and Defendant inspectors, vigorously applied that code in violation of their affirmative duty to further federal fair housing policies. This is reason alone for this Court to deny Defendants’ motion and send this case to the jury.
There are few properties in Saint Paul where a determined inspector could not find a violation of some City ordinance. City’s Chronic Problem Property Case Study, 2002, 4007.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 39 of 78
40
In 2006, the City conducted a study of 2005 Truth-in-Sale of Housing inspection reports and determined that over 60% of the Reports selected showed homes that had serious violations of the City’s heightened codes.
In 2004 and 2006 through 2007, the City acquired additional housing inspection records of PHA’s rental housing stock that showed a similar high percentage of code deficiencies under City’s more stringent code standard.
Starting in 2002, under the direction of Defendants, the City applied its more stringent code standards to low-income rental properties in the inner city neighborhoods where a disproportionate percentage of residents were “protected class” and rent burdened under HUD definitions.
Defendants applied its more stringent code to low-income rental housing disproportionately occupied by “protected class” who also would be adversely affected by any policy of the City that displaced said “protected class” or in any other way adversely affected them, including by limited their rental choices, or through rent increases from landlords burdened with City regulatory fees such as rental registration fees, inspection fees, permit fees, excessive consumption fees, vacant building fees, forced renovation - “code compliance inspection and certification” fees, and other miscellaneous fees.
Defendants failed to provide resources they acknowledged were critical to survival of the privately owned low-income rental housing occupied disproportionately by “protected class.”
Defendants refused to work with the private rental owners and their “protected class”
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 40 of 78
41
tenants to resolve complex social issues including domestic abuse and other behavior issues, and failed to provide financial resources and other information to meet the City’s more stringent code, including the burdensome “Code Compliance”.
Plaintiffs and other private owners of low-income rental housing occupied by a disproportionate percentage of “protected class” were adversely affected by Defendants’ application of the City’s more stringent code, including from increased City fees, renovation costs, loss of rental income from wrongfully condemnations of rental properties, and were as a result forced to sell or abandon their rental properties. Plaintiffs’ “protected class” tenants were disproportionately affected by Defendants’ application of the City’s code and were subject to displacement from housing and inability to located replacement housing.

9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more I read, the worse it looks for the city of St. Paul.

10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Send St.Pauls code enforcement down the the gulf coast to inspect homes damaged by the tropical storm / hurricane.

If were lucky, they will get caught up in the looting and shot to hell.

11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think St Paul ha a lot more to worry about than the landlords lawsuit.

4:57 PM  
Anonymous Dawkins said...

These lawsuits are a badge of honor boy's!

9:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go figure, the RICO guys are making Dawkins look like a monkey.

9:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Told ya we could shut Eric up with the facts folks!

10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is what is so silly about the suits. Clearly the City was aware of the concerns about affordable housing in Saint Paul and was spending millions on creating and improving affordable housing.

So the "assault on protected classes" just didn't occur.

What the suit wants you to believe is that the City's actions to provide or maintain affordable housing at the same time it goes after problem properties is a conspiracy against these land lords and an assault on protected classes some how both at the same time.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

But they somehow try to argue both. Anything the City does to help protected classes in an assault on the bad landlords and anything the City does to put pressure on bad landlords is an assault on the poor.

Its crazy.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's what the city thought was the beauty in the whole thing Repke. They didn't provide any housing for this particular class of people, they just tried to make it look like they did while they were really trying to run them out, and now they're gonna pay for it.

11:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name of the game is Rico Chuck and your side is losing. Eric's smart enough to go into hiding and you keep singing the company song. It's over Chuck.....the cat's out of the bag. Your city is dirty and when this goes to trial and the rest of the evidence that the ricomen have gets public, your city leaders are going to be run out in disgrace.

2:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck its more like you and the city can't have it both ways.HUD and Pha told ya so.When the city code is 85% stronger then HUD and you enforce it with an iron fist you will distroy affordable housing-The city knew this your right but they did it anyway.It would be ignorant to assume the city knew it and did it anyway anticipating a different result.

7:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:35 but where in all of this is there any statistical evidence that there was any significant loss of affordable housing? Because there wasn't any. Your guys offer up anecdotal evidence of their particular plight but nothing that shows that Saint Paul is any whiter or wealthier because of your hallucination (illegal code enforcement).

The studies prove that the City was aware of the potential problems and worked to avoid them. The City gives thousands and thousands of extensions of time limits. The facts are all in the City's favor.

This case will end with a whimper and then six more from some other wack job.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only ones wimpering Chuck are going to be the Lantry gang when they find out their careers are over.

12:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home