Custom Search

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Victim Frank Steinhauser

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.


Blogger Bob said...

I introduce to you Frank Steinhauser, the driving force behind the RICO lawsuits

There is copy errors

Frank 1. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Steve Magner, et aI.,
) S5.
Civil No. 04-2632
Civil No. 05-461
Civil No. 05-1348
Frank J. Steinhauser, II, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as
I. I am a resident of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, and have resided there for
25 years, having previously resided in St. Paul, Minnesota for 34 years.
2. I was born and raised in St. Paul and attended Central and Highland High
3. At the height of my business, I owned 15 rental homes, which consisting of 23
rental units.
4. The tenant market for my residential rental properties would be considered
Class C - properties for low income individuals that have minimal amenities,
but arc safe and decent affordable housing. My rents were below market as I
focused on providing housing primarily to very low-income women with
children that were placed in my rental homes with the assistance of Project
Hope, a low-income tenant housing agency promoting permanent housing
options for the homeless, with partial funding from the Department of I-lousing
and Urban Development. More than ninety (90) percent of my tenants were
African-American women and children and other members of the "protected
5. I made sure my rents were below market rate so those who needed housing
could afford to live in the City and so I could keep my vacancy rates low.
Over the years my rents ranged from $525.00 to $650.00 for a two bedroom
apartment, $650.00 to $1,000.00 for a three bedroom and $550.00 to $1,000.00
for a multi-bedroom single family home.
6. During 2002 through about 2004, I recall that I had three Section 8 tenants: my
tenant at 713 Charles was a Section 8 voucher holder; and tenants in both units
of my duplex at 953 \Vilson were Section 8 voucher holders. Prior to 2002, I
had Section 8 tenants for more than 15 years.
7. All of my single family and duplex rental homes were located in the
neighborhoods adjacent to the City'S inner core, where based upon my
personal observations over 24 years, there is and always has been, a large
concentration of older housing stock. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto, a true
and correct list of the addresses of rental homes I owned during 2002 through
2004 by property address and census tract; and maps showing the location of
each of my rental homes during 2002 through 2004 and NHPI Sweeps Maps.
8. All of my rental homes were in the neighborhoods where there is and has been
a heavy concentration of minorities since I began providing low-income
individuals and families with housing in 1984. Year after year, my tenants
were predominatcly people of color, mixed race couples, and disabled
individuals. During 2002 through 2004, my tenants included a majority of
"people of color" and included Section 8 recipients.
9. Since starting my rental business in 1984, I have on average made 8 visits to
the inner city of Saint Paul on a weekly basis. Most of the weeks and months
during the years of 1984 through 2004, I was in the inner city of Saint Paul
every day. During that same period, many days I would spend many hours at
my rental properties monitoring for trash and graffiti and other exterior issues,
working on my properties including responding to tenant requests for repairs or
other assistance, meeting with potential renters and at times meeting with lowincome
housing advocates for placement of their clients, talking with
neighbors to discuss problems in the neighborhood, meeting with City
inspectors, obtaining permits from City Hall, dealing with contractors on home
improvement or repair issues, traveling between my rental homes, to and from
hardware and home improvement stores, and to and from City Hall, and
meeting with the Police Department to discuss neighborhood problems,
attending block club meetings, attending court hearings for Unlawful Detainer
actions, and meeting with and taking phone calls from City council members
who wanted certain tenants evicted.
10. There were significant costs in maintaining my older rental homes including
very high costs fi'om tenant caused damages that are typically not reimbursed
because those costs could not be collected due to the financial position of the
tenants and lack of resources including employment, and also Statutory
protections against Garnishment.
11. The City has acknowledged that low-income rental properly owners need
resources to help in the maintenance of their properlies and to deal with
"protected class" renters.
12. Other than through the PP2000 City code inspection program, the federal
Seclion 8 program and the Project Hope low-income rental housing placement
programs, and one time in the 1980s, I have never received any resources from
the City or federal government to assist me in renovations or repairs to my
older rental properties. No one from the city, including the inspectors, ever
identified for me any programs that would provide me with resources that I
needed to continue to provide affordable housing in the City.
13. From the fall of 2002 and continuing thereafter, I received no assistance from
the City to help me meet the City's heightened code enforcement standards.
14.1 attempted to screen tenants and deal with behavior issues without having city
resources. Over the years the City has constantly demanded that I screen better
but the City's Police Department has refused to provide me with the necessary
police reports and records I would need to comply with the City's demands,
nor will the city teIl anyone what standards landlords should use for screening.
15. Over the years, most of my tenants have been good tenants and have not
caused complaints from neighbors or others. I believe in giving everyone a fair
opportunity to live in the City and if they keep the terms of the lease with me, I
will continue to provide them with housing.
16. Occasionally, one of my tenant's family members or guest's behavior would be
the basis of a complaint by a neighbor and the City. Once I was noti lied of the
problem, I would work to resolve the issue including working with the City
police department to effectively address claimed criminal behavior. When
presented with solid evidence of criminal or nuisance behavior of one of my
tenants, I would take action to commence lawful eviction proceedings in the
local court system.
17. Over the years, I have found it very difficult to get the City through its police
and City Attorneys to hold any of my tenants accountable for their nuisance or
criminal behavior - the police would not arrest the tenant or other party
responsible for the criminal behavior or if there was an arrest, no charges were
ever filed. The City Police would not even take action against a tenant for
writing bad checks.
18. \Vhen I would attempt to take action against my tenants for their nuisance
behavior or other breaches of the lease, including chronic non-payment of rent,
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services ("SMRLS") would often attempt
to stop me from enforcing my rights. My understanding is that the City funds
about one half of the expenses of SMRLS operation. SMRLS would also
attempt to convince the tenant to sue me to get all of their money back if the
tenant claimed the property was not up to code, and that the tenant bring suit
under a Tenant Remedies Action, when the actual housing code violations
were solely related to tenant caused damage.
19. I received an award from the City in my role as a provider of rental housing in
the City for being a good landlord and as City appreciation for my significant
efforts in making the neighborhood a better place to live. My "Certificate of
Appreciation" was signed by the Mayor, a City Council member, and the
President of the District 4 Council. As a part of this award, the city even took
me out to dinner along with a very small group of other exemplary landlords to
show their appreciation. Sec Exhibit No.2, attached hereto, Bates No.
20. In approximately 1999, I met with City inspectors to discuss complaints that
had been made over a period of time against my properties, against me and
against my tenants.
21. After a meeting with Code Enforcement regarding my properties, there was
just one inspector assigned to all of my properties. If there was a complaint or
an issue on one of my properties, then it would always be that same inspector
who contacted me. His name was Jeff Hawkins. When there was a problem,
rather than writing orders and sending them in the mail, the inspector would
call me on the phone. Most of the time when this happened I was right in the
area or would be later in the day.
22. The PP2000 system worked very well for both inspector Hawkins, myself, and
sometimes for the tenant also because I could address the issue much sooner
and achieve compliance without wasting the time of follow up phone calls and
questions, and then more phone calls and follow up to let the inspector know
the problem had been rectified. I greatly appreciated the savings in time and I
am sure the inspector and the City and neighbors had to appreciate gaining
compliance almost immediately rather than the delays of the inspector writing
and mailing an order and my receipt of such an order. It was a win-win
situation for all concerned. When a tenant was complaining because I was
trying to enforce my lease agreement regarding non-payment of rent or for
behavior issues that were brought to my attention by neighbors, or evicting thc
tcnant for damaging my property, the PP2000 inspector was smart enough to
know when this was happening and allowed me the time to remove the tenant
from the property in order to stop the damage or rectify the behavior issue
before I started addressing the issues the City had with the property.
23. Complaints against my propertics dropped off considerably during and after
the PP2000 program due to my being able to work with inspectors Hawkins
and Joel Essling to resolve issues with physical conditions or tenant behavior at
my rental properties. During the PP2000 program, I continucd my monitoring
of all of my rental properties on a daily basis.
24. During 200 I through 2004, I did not change any of the things I had bccn
commcndcd for in the PP2000 program, as I continucd to frcqucntly monitor
my rental homes, respond in a timely manner to all requests from my tenants
for assistance, and work with City inspectors and City police on all issues
brought to my attention. I also continued to invest in my propcrties where
necessary to maintain all of my properties to proper City codes.
25. Councilmember Kathy Lantry has had it in for me as a low-income landlord in
the City since 1998. She has known since 1998 that I rent primarily to lowincome
26. Prior to what I perceived was an increase in code enforcement and a
heightened code enforcement standard applied to my rental properties in the
fall of 2002, Councilmember Lantry would frequently call me to inform me
that neighbors of my rental properties were complaining about my tenants.
Ms. Lantry told me that I was single handedly destroying the property values in
the neighborhoods where those rental properties were located.
27. My Attorney and I met with Kathy Lantry in her office concerning one of my
properties at 910 6'" St. I was shocked to find out that she must have conducted
a criminal background check on one of my tenants when she made the
statement to me that she was shocked that I would even rent to this tenant
because he had been convicted of a felony 5 years previous. This AfricanAmerican
tenant had moved into the downstairs apartment of my property to
be able to care for a relative living in the upstairs unit who had severe medical
problems and would have had to go live in a nursing home without assistance.
28. After much pressure from Lantry, I did evict the tenant and in the aftermath of
that, the neighbors told me that crime had increased because this tenant was no
longer there watching things as he had been previously. The relative he cared
for became so upset over the possibility of having to go to a nursing home that
he had a heart attack and died.
29. It was my distinct impression that the neighbors who were complaining were
biased against my African-American tenants. Some neighbors refused to even
let me introduce them to new tenants who were moving in to my 910 6'" St.
property. As soon as they saw that the tenants were African-American, they
would just walk away one of them making a remark that they were just
going to sell their property. This attitude was pretty much the same for every
neighborhood in the inner City I owned property in. The neighbors did not like
African-Americans living there and they were not shy in letting me know.
30. Starting in about the ntll of 2002, the City suddenly increased its code
enforcement activity on five of my fifteen rental homes.
31. The increased code enforcement attention directed against me and my rental
homes and business included exterior and interior inspections, fabricated
correction orders, shortening of timelines for fixing any claimed deficiency,
f~1lse condemnations and the illegal requirement of Code Compliance
certifications on two of my rental homes, two civil lawsuits, and the
encouragement of three of my tenants to start discrimination claims against me
with the City's Human Right Department, all at the same time. Those three
claims were all ruled as "unfounded" by that Department of the City.
32. The City's increased code enforcement activity against my rental homes
interfered with my ability to attend to my rental business and prohibited me
from working to prepare unoccupied rental homes for re-rental, to
communicate with the many individuals who were seeking housing, to monitor
my other rental properties, to assist my other minority tenants with their
requests, and to continue meeting with tenants and neighbors as had been a
normal practice in my business. Not being able to "network" with my tenants
decreased tenant referrals to me and increased my vacancy rate and at the same
time my contact at the referral agency for people needing a place to live
stopped sending me tenants because her agency was being funded by the City.
This coordinated effort by the City cost me many thousands of dollars III
33. Instead of being able to handle the normal needs of my rental business, I was
forced to spend more time addressing the correction orders and condemnations
and "Code Compliance" inspection and certification process from the City's
heightened code enforcement standards.
34. Starting in the fall of 2002, in an effort to meet the city's new elevated
standards, I made more visits to my rental homes to check and confirm the
allegations of the code enforcement oft1cers and to take care of the issues on
the orders. The more orders I received, the more time intensive it became. It
became clear that the increase in orders from the City would mean more time
required attending to those orders, attending administrative hearings to
challenge the merits of the orders, and possible City induced court actions. At
one point, I was driving by every single one of my 15 properties morning, noon
and night to make sure there wasn't s much as a piece of paper on the ground
for fear that the City would issue another order and take further action to
penalize me.
35. Sara Anderson, a case worker with Project I-lope, worked with me on more
than ten occasions in placing her homeless clients into my rental properties in
the City. Ms. Anderson performed inspections of the rental units before
placing her clients into my units. She even placed her own family members
into my rental units. She and I worked together during 2002 on placements.
36. Prior to the fall of 2002, I had always been responsive to inspections and repair
orders on my rental properties and generally my relationship with City
inspectors had been good.
37.0n October 8,2002, Sara Anderson and I met with Dawkins for the purpose of
discussing my duplex located at 910 6th Street East that one of Project Hope's
elients had been leasing for a couple of months. Dawkins said that the City's
new code enforcement policies had been approved by Kelly, and Dawkins had
talked to certain court personnel and had been assured that the Com1 would
treat any violations of the new rules "as serious offenses" and that the Court
would go along with enforcement of the new housing policies.
38. On October 8, 2002, Dawkins also stated that the City was going to start
looking at the volume of police calls from every rental property and that the
properties with the higher number of calls and police service would be
aggressively targeted by the City for housing code enforcement. He said
Mayor Kelly wanted him to get rid of the "problem tenants," the people in the
nuisance properties. Dawkins had a large flow chart representing the way the
City was going to respond to complaints regarding rental properties. He stated
the City would help the landlords in court in evicting "problems tenants" and
that the City wanted to do background and police checks on all tenants that I
and other landlords were renting to and would be renting to. Dawkins said that
he and others wanted to gain access to the inside of all rental properties before
tenants moved into the units, and gain access to all of the rental units of Project
Hope clients, either before or after the tenants moved in. I offered to let his
staff come in and look at any property I owned. I also told him that I had been
working on the issues at 910 6th St and that most of the Police calls to that
address were for Domestic issues and that Minnesota Statutes didn't allow me
to evict the tenant for that reason. See Exhibit No.3, attached hereto, Bates
No. STP0017 & 0018
39. At the October 8, 2002, meeting with Dawkins, I showed Dawkins a list of
other properties in the neighborhood of my 910 6th East duplex that had
obvious external code violations; these properties had problems that the City
claimed it was concerned about. I asked Dawkins why the City was focusing
on my properties when there were so many other properties ncar my properties
that had significant problems, especially since at this particular point in time I
had been at the property most days doing work and/or monitoring behavior
issues I had heard about from some neighbors. I told Dawkins that I was
taking care of my properties and that people should not be complaining.
Dawkins did not respond to these issues but he told me and Ms. Anderson that
he and the City would work with us. I agreed to have my potential tenants
screened by the City. Dawkins then shook our hands and the meeting ended.
40. FolIowing the October 8, 2002 meeting, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen
continued their course of conduct directed at me and my Project Hope tenants
to shut down my rental business or at least dramatically increase my rental
business costs and expenses that would either force me to sell off my rental
properties in the City or force me to no longer rent to African-Americans.
41. Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen were directly involved in the condemnation of my
properties located at 910 6th Street East and at 1024 Euclid.
42. On or about October 17, 2002, Martin and Officer Koehnen commenced an
inspection of my duplex property located at 910 6th Street East. At this time,
the upper unit was not inspected. Both tenants in this duplex home were
AfHcan-American mothers with children. The surrounding neighborhood was
occupied by predominately white families in single family homes.
43. Following this inspection, Martin prepared a Correction Notice dated October
18, 2002, and forwarded this Notice to me and my tenants by mail.
44. Martin's October 18, 2002, Correction Notice, contained false statements,
including that there was evidence of rodent infestation in the building, that
there were sanitation issues, that the foundation was deteriorated, and that there
was a lack of properly installed and operable smoke detectors. See Exhibit
No.4, attached hcrcto, Bates No. 0010268 and 0010269. Martin admitted in
her Deposition that the rat was in the yard and not in the building Martin
deposition, Vol. 2, pagc 522; see Officct' Kcohncn deposition, pagc 599.
Martin demanded that I remove "rodent harborages" in the yard, tuck-point and
repair the foundation to prevcnt re-infestation, and provide functioning smoke
detectors by October 21, 2002.
45. At the time of Martin's inspection, the smoke detectors were properly installed
in both units of the duplex; the tenants had simply removed the batteries. There
were no "rodent harborages" or sanitation issues present at the property
justifying Martin's false claims. However, the adjacent property had a large
volume of trash (at least 20 cubic yards) piled up in the backyard and this may
have been thc source of rodents in the area. Ilccausc of thc extensive trash on
the adjaccnt property, I had been baiting rats at my rental property for two
months prior to the inspection and my efforts had been successful as evidenced
by the dead rat Martin and Koehnen observed outside in the yard on or about
October 17, 2002. The building's foundation did not need tuck-pointing and
was not dcteriorated and was not a source of entry for vermin. I had
dctcrmined that my tcnants had frequently not closcd thc outsidc door to the
building and had dumped len-over food right outside the door.
46. Ancr the Octobcr 17, 2002, inspcction by Martin and Koehncn, I worked on
the other items listed in the October 18, 2002, Notice. I had met the city's
timeline and had all of the repairs required on the correction order completcd
on 10/21/02 which was the first due date for compliance on 6 of the 10 repairs
requested by the city. Exhibit No.5, Batcs No. 0010268 and 0010269 pagc 2
- duplicatc Batcs No. from abovc.
47. On or about October 22, 2002, Martin and Officer Koehnen re-inspected the
downstairs unit at 910 6th Street East. Martin and Officcr Koehnen also went
upstairs and knocked on the door of the upstairs rental unit at 910 6th Street
East and forced their way into that unit against my tenant's wishes and then
conducted an inspcction.
48. Following this re-inspection, Dawkins and Martin prepared a written Notice of
Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated October 23, 2002, and forwarded
this written Notice and Order to me and my renters through the mail. See
Exhibit No.6, attachcd hcrcto, Batcs No. 0000005, 5 Ilagcs.
49.ln the October 23, 2002, Condemnation Notice, Martin and Dawkins listed 18
items as being in violation of Code. Exhibit No.6. Many of these items listed
were false. It was false that the conditions present at my property constituted
"material endangerment" as the property did not lack a "basic facility" and was
not "infested with rats". Martin falsely stated that the building's foundation
was in a state of disrepair, that there was a lack of light fixtures, that there were
plumbing leaks, that the units were lacking deadbolt locks, that the storm doors
were in disrepair and that the furnace needed attention.
50. Martin and Keohnen claimed my false ceiling was in disrepair even though 1
put two new ceiling panels into it to replace two damaged ones that the tenant
had caused damage to. Martin and Keohnen tore out the two new panels and
threw them into the corner. The repair they wanted done was in the original
ceiling which was concealed and above the false ceiling. Some plaster had
fallen out years before and there was a small hole there above the false ceiling.
1 had owned property for 17 years prior to this inspection with the same false
ceiling and no inspectors from PI-lA's Section 8, or the City had ever removed,
asked or cared what was above the false ceiling tiles installed in this bedroom.
51. Many of the other items Iistcd by Dawkins and Martin on the first correction
order (Exhibit No.5) had actually been corrected by me by the time of the
October 22, 2002, re-inspection but when Dawkins and Martin realized I was
actually in compliance with the original orders issued just days before, they
escalated their attack on me by illegally entering the upstairs apartment against
the tenants will and proceeded to write down items to give a false impression
that I had not made any efforts toward compliance with their orders. Items I,
4,7, 8, II, 13, 16, 18 were t'llse claimed violations. Exhibit No.6, attached
hereto, Bates No. 0000005, 5 pages. Several violations on this list were
duplicated in order to make the problem appear bigger than it really was. The
violation for tuck pointing the foundation, which was totally false, was called
out in # I and 4. Violations 1/ 14 and 15 arc duplicative of each other except for
the addition of the word screen. \Vindow assemblies have a screen as a
component to them and calling out each is just a way of increasing the number
of violations to fit their agenda in stating a high number of violations to trigger
the city's illegal "code compliance" requirements and removal of State
grandfathering protections.
52. At all times there were deadbolt locks on all the apartment doors and there was
nothing wrong with the heating plants. When the code compliance certification
was completed, these items remain unchanged. The heating plants were also
inspected and tested by a licensed heating contractor. His test readings show
the heating plants be in safe working condition. Exhibit No.7, attached
hereto, Bates No. 0000041 and 0000042. This contractor is licensed to do
furnace repair work in the City of St. Paul.
53. Another example of the city's outrageous behavior against me and my rental
business is the way they have classified all the violations on these orders as
being "Principal Violations" which had to be corrected before the
condemnation would be lifted and my tenants could reoccupy their home. At
all times in the past, it had been the city policy to classify violations on
Condemnation Orders in two parts.. ... "Principal Violations" justifying
condemnation, and "Other Violations". Once the Principal Violations were
corrected, then the occupant could reoccupy with a later compliance date for
the other violations. Dawkins August 2002 Rules and Procedures stated that
very long standing rule. Exhibit No.8, attached hereto.. When one removes
the duplicate violations, and then removes the falsely stated violations, what if
len is the City condemning this property for 9 minor violations that are some
of the most common violations existing in all homes in the City.
54. The property immediately next to my property continued to have large piles of
of clearly visible trash, and that condition continued for nearly 3 months until
January or February 2003.
55. Sara Anderson from Project Hope and I met with Martin and Koehnen on
October 23, 2002 at the Housing Department office to discuss my 910 6th
Street duplex. Martin and Koehnen started out the meeting by screaming at me
and Ms. Anderson about what they claimed were condemnable conditions in
the building. They showed pictures of conditions they stated demonstrated
code violations at the property. I pointed out that some of the pictures actually
showed the items were in compliance with the codes. These were photos of
electrical wiring that was nmning outside of the wall and original ceiling, but
was covered up and protected by another false ceiling they had torn down in
the rear hallway of the building. This type of wiring installation is done all the
time and approved by St. Paul inspectors as well as other inspectors throughout
the State.
56. During this meeting, Koehnen, who is 6'8" tall and weighed over 300 pounds,
while leaning over the table in a threatening and intimidating manner,
screamed at me and Sara Anderson. I was shocked at his abusive,
inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. I left the meeting almost in tears, as
I could no longer stand the abusive treatment.
57. Following my meeting with Martin and Koehnen, Sara Anderson and I
inspected my rental building that Martin and Koehnen had just condemned.
We reviewed the October 23, 2002, Condemnation Notice while inspecting
both the upper and lower rental units in the building. Most of the code
violations stated by Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen in the Condemnation
Notice were false and that the Notice had been written in such a manner to
make both the rental units sound very substandard when in fact the units were
very habitable and were decent and safe.
58. As a result of the condemnation of my rental property at 910 6th Street East, my
African-American tenant LaChaka Cousette and children in the upper unit of
the duplex were forced to leave their home. They were happy there and did not
want to leave. The children were heartbroken. It was hard for Ms. Cousette to
find another place to rent. I had no other rental unit ready that I could rent to
her. She and her nunily had to live in more than 10 different places, staying
with friends, family or in shelters, until she could once again find a place of her
own. She also lost her job and finalIy many of her possessions for lack of a
place to take them to or financial resources to be able to store them because of
the forced eviction by the City through Dawkins, Martin and Keohnen.
59. After condemning my 910 6th Street East duplex, Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen,
and Assistant City Attorney Dolan, on October 30, 2002, filed an emergency
tenant remedies action by the City and the lower-unit tenant against me in
Ramsey County District Court. In the City's court action, Dawkins, Martin
and Attorney Dolan made false statements to the Court to shut down my rental
property and business and to increase my costs so as to interfere with my
ability to rent to "protectcd class" tenants.
60. Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, and Assistant City Attorney Dolan abused the
court process by lIsing the "emergency" action rather than a regular tenant
remedies action in order to seek greater sanctions against me when there was
no "emergency". In fact they had no basis for even bringing the lesser action
because those actions are designed to lise the courts to force landlords into
compliance when all else fails. I had been at my property working before they
inspected the property. I met the city's repair deadlines on time. I continued to
work at the property to finish the rest of the repairs even to the point where I
chose to have my Attorney represent me in court in my absence so I could stay
and work on the propel1y because complying with the proper codes is
important to me and I believe to my tenants also.
61. Dawkins made nllse sworn statements in the court papers including the
Complaint and Verification, that I had failed to comply with three previous
Correction Notices directed at my 910 6lh Street East property, and Dawkins,
Martin and Koehnen falsely stated that the property had a rat infestation,
inadequate heat, broken toilets and sinks, missing smoke detectors and
defective ceilings and walls. I received the City's Complaint, Verification and
attached City inspection records through the United States Post Oflice. They
also sent copies of City papers by facsimile to my Attorney.
62. As a result of the condemnation of my duplex and the lack of rental income
from the property, in an attempt to gain City approval to once again rent my
property, I agreed to bring my property up to code requirements through what
was represented to me by Dawkins, Martin, Keohnen and Assistant City
Attorney Dolan as a "code compliance" inspection to "as built" standards.
Martin faxed a list to my Attorney on my 1024 Euclid property indicating a
lesser level of compliance so my tenants could reoccupy their home. See
Exhibit No.9, attached hereto.
63. After my agreement to an "as built" "Code Compliance," Martin and Dawkins,
with assistance from Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan, forced me to
undergo a full "code compliance inspection and certification" process to
current or modern code standards instead of "as built" standards and they
thereby wrongfully removed my grandfathering protections under the State
Building Code. Exhibit No. 10; attached hereto, Bates No. 0010253 to
0010260. During the "Code Compliance" inspection by LIEf>, one of the City
employees James Seeger informed me, "The building is really not that bad ... if
you have a plugged toilet, you fix the toilet - you don't go get a Code
64. As a result of being subjected to the City's heightened code standards and
increased code enforcement, including City actions against my duplex rental
property located at 910 6th Street East, I lost rental incomes for many months
due to the targeting and illegal condemnations and code compliance
requirements. I also suffered substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs,
"Code Compliance" inspection and certification fees and legal expenses. I lost
rental incomes for many months due to the condemnation of that duplex,
incurred substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs, had to pay for City permit
and "code compliance inspection and certification" fees, had to incur the
substantial costs to renovate my duplex to the City's heightened standards to
meet the LIEf> certification.
65. Martin, Keohnen and Dawkins, and others working in concert with them,
including Martin's supervisor Steve Magner, and Community Stabilization
Project and its stafl~ coordinated their attacks against my 910 6th Street East
rental duplex with other illegal actions by City inspections at other properties I
owned during the same period. This included an inspection and condemnation
of a second rental property I owned at 1024 Euclid.
66. At the time of the City's code enforcement against me on all my properties, I
had African-American tenants resided in my 1024 Euclid duplex.
67. On October 25, 2002, as part of Martin and Keohnen's inspection of my
duplex rental unit located at 1024 Euclid, Martin and Koehnen once again
created false entries in their City inspection records regarding my property.
They then entered those false entries into a Notice of Condemnation dated
October 28, 2002, that was mailed by Martin and Dawkins to me and my
tenants through the United States Post Oftice. See Exhibit No. 11, attached
hereto, Bates No. Sec Bates No. 0010292 to 0010294.
68. The usc by Martin, Keohnen and Dawkins of the false entries of code
violations in their orders on my 1024 Euclid home then provided them with the
opportunity to claim that my rental home should be immediately condemned
on the basis of existing emergency conditions. That allowed them to force my
tenants from their rental units.
69. One of the false entries placed by Dawkins and Martin into the October 28,
2002, Condemnation Notice, included their assertion that 1024 Euclid was
subject to vermin infestation. The City's Code and Dawkins August 2002
Rules and Procedures required that there exist "serious infestation" of rats or
mice before the City could condemn a property in the City. At all times prior
to the fall of 2002, whenever I had acquired notice from one of my tenants or
from some other source including the City or a neighbor that there was an issue
concerning mice, rats 01' other pests, I had quickly responded to such notice
and either took corrective action myself or hired a professional exterminator to
handle and resolve the problem.
70. \Vhen the City and tenant finally allowed me access to my 1024 Euclid duplex
to conduct my own inspection, I along with my rodent exterminator determined
that there was no rodent infestation in the building and that there was no
evidence that there had ever been any rodents in the building. In fact, the
exterminator noted that no rat droppings could be found. Exhibit No. 12,
attachcd hcrcto, Batcs No. STP1762.
71. Another false entry deliberately and maliciously placed by Martin and
Dawkins in the same Notice of Condemnation was their false assertion that the
1024 Euelid building was without heat. This was falsely listed by Dawkins
and Martin on the Notice as constituting "material endangerment," in order to
falsely trigger the condemnation and a second Emergency Tenant Remedies
action in court against me.
72. Dawkins and Martin knew that their statements that the unit lacked heat were
false because when I was finally allowed entry into the unit, I discovered the
heat thermostat had simply been turned off by either the tenant or someone else
and there was nothing wrong with the heating systems that served both units at
1024 Euclid. This was confirmed by a third party contractor and the
paperwork was submitted to the City to confirm such findings. Exhibit No. 13,
attached hereto, Bates No. STPI761. In just a few days over a month later, a
second different heating contractor performed tests on both heating systems
and those test readings show both heating systems to be in safe working order.
Exhibit No. 14, attached hereto, Bates No. 0000112 and 0000117. Both of
these contractors are licensed to do furnace work in the City of St. Paul.
73. The combination of coordinated City actions against my rental business
including the condemnations of two of my duplex rental units, including loss
of rents from those four units for many months, along with the City mandated
improvements, and costs to bring my older properties to "current codes"
through the illegal "Code Compliance" inspection and certification procedure,
along with having to pay for alternative housing, all placed a tremendous
financial drain on my business and almost caused me financial ruin.
74. Since I knew Kathy Lantry had it in for me, and the code inspectors under the
control of Dawkins and Lantry were lying to get my rental properties
condemned and forced into "current code" Code Compliances," I knew my
time was up in the City and that in order to survive, I had no choice but to sell
all my rental properties as soon as I could before being subject to fUl1her
attacks. I had no choice in selling my business in order to save almost two
decades of sacri fice and investments in the properties through hard work.
75. Because of the heightened code standard and increased code enforcement
directed against me, I was forced to sell all fifteen (15) of my rental properties
in the City, and 1 presently own no property in the City.
76. The city's increased code enforcement starting in the fall of 2002 against me
and my rental homes was an extreme barrier to my ability to provide affordable
housing to my African-American tenants and other "protected class" members
looking for affordable housing in the City.
77.1 continued to receive calls from prospective tenants looking for affordable
housing in the City during 2002 through 2004. 1 have continued to receive
caBs from former tenants and potential tenants after 1 had sold my rental homes
in the City.
78. Because of the Defendants' coordinated attacks against my rental properties
and against my tenants, including interfering with their rights to enjoy their
rental homes, I sustained losses across my rental business as I lost income and
equity from many of my rental properties. I have also been damaged with
respect to not being able to take advantage of future and current business and
investment opportunities because of this loss.
79.1 lost profits and investments from condemnations, and forced sales, increased
tax burdens, inculTed substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs, permit and
code compliance fees, and other costs and expenses, including alternative
housing costs for tenants that were forced from their homes, and court costs
and attorney's fees.
80. Additionally, because of all the pressure and coordinated targeting of so many
of my properties in such a short period of time, 1 was afraid of the City
government and afraid to rent to anyone for fear that I would continue to be
targeted because of who I rented to. I have also suffered damage to my
previously good reputation from the City labeling me in the newspaper as
being "among the worst offenders."
81. I have been damaged from the city's malicious attempted and failed criminal
prosecution of me for something that not only did I have no control over, but
the city has at all times given other property owners whatever extension of
time is needed when bad weather has prevented exterior repairs. The city's
own inspectors have testined to this fact in their Depositions. How can you
possibly expect someone to paint a house in the rain and wet weather without
letting the exterior dry out? At no other time that I know of has the City of St.
Paul prosecuted someone criminally for not painting the exterior of a property
when it rained almost every single day of the month. Martin, Dawkins,
Magner, Koehnen (and other City ofncials and employees behind the scenes
driving the prosecution) tried to prosecute me as retaliation for my coming to
this Court to assert my rights against Defendants' illegal conduct, and to try
and nm me out of resources so I would not be able to pursue my rights in this
81. I learned in 2003 that Dawkins had created a "Distressed Properties" list and
placed that list on the City's website. See Exhibit No. 15, attachcd hc.·cto, Batcs
040015-040017. On Dawkins' 12/31/2002 version of the Distressed Properties"
list, Dawkins listed nve of my rental properties on the City's website - each of
these five properties were occupied at the time he created and posted his lists on
the City's website: 910 61h St. - all African-American tenants; 1024 Euclid - all
African-American tenants; 719 Sherburne - African-American and White tenants;
118 Litchfield - African-American and mixed race couple tenants; and 953 Wilson
- African-American and mixed race couple tenants. These properties were not
"distressed" in any sense, as they were in good condition and well maintained for
"C" class properties, were cash-flowing prior to the City's coordinated efforts
against me, my tenants and my properties, the taxes were current, mortgage and
contract for deed type payments were current, and all City and other government
charges related to my properties were paid.
82. Dawkins' action to label my rental properties as "distressed" greatly injured
not only my reputation, but also my ability to sell my property. This negative
public disclosure by Dawkins was quickly used by real estate investors as a
shopping list for distressed properties and I received written inquires from about
six or seven different investors seeking to purchase my properties for quick cash
with expedited closing.
83. Director Dawkins policy of heightened standards and his labeling all of a
landlords property as a problem when only one property was a problem had the
effect of spreading this bargain basement shopping mentality for investment
property to all of my properties.
84. I learned in 2007 from review of City documents produced in this litigation,
that in the many months before the City issued its Chronic Problem Properties
Case Studies in March 2002, City Council staff had searched City and other
government data bases for a listing of addresses and all information concerning all
of my rental properties and for expansive information related to all of my rental
properties and they had surveyed certain of City inspectors and members of
neighborhood councils about me and my rental business. Exhibit No. 16,
attached hereto, Bates No. STP168712 to STP 168753.. I was shocked by this
disclosure. Not only did they have a Demographic report, Bates No. STPI68713,
but they had an electronic list of my African American tenants living at this
address. Bates No. STP168719. It's very obvious that the City Officials intentions
in creating this list were to target me specifically as is evidenced in the results of
their electronic searches. They searched the name "Steinhauser" looking for every
single one of my properties as is evidenced by the return search results bearing
many other people with my last name. See FI'edrick Steinhauser (Bates
STP168732, Grace Steinhauser Bates STP168732, and MarI< Steinhauser
Bates STP 168733.
85. This confirmed to me that Councilmemher Lantry had tremendous
influence on City staff, oflicials and inspectors and that 1 and my AfricanAmerican
tenants were indeed targeted for abuse and forced sale and dislocation
from the City.
86. Within a few weeks of my filing this Federal Fair I-lousing lawsuit against
the Defendants in early May 2004, Defendant Martin issued two criminal housing
tags against me on my rental properties located at 915 and 921 York Ave. On
October 23, 2003, Martin had issued correction orders to me on claimed exterior
code violations for painting and soffit and caves repair against both of these
properties. I appealed the orders for more time to complete the work because the
colder weather made it impossible to properly comply with the orders. I was
granted an extension to May I, 2004 by the City's legislative hearing officer.
87. During the Spring of 2004, the Metro area including St. Paul experienced
signi ficant steady wet weather that made completion of the exterior work
impossible. I requested another extension and was granted a one month extension.
When the weather continued to be unusually wet over the next month, I again
timely requested an extension but was denied by the City saying it had granted me
enough extensions.
88. The same day I was notified of the denial of my reasonable request, Martin
issued two criminal tags to me on my two York properties. The City prosecllted
me to the full extent of the law all the way to the day of my trial and when
presented with all the evidence in my defense, Maureen Dolan simply dismissed
the City's case against me. During the discovery process of my criminal defense,
the City produced the probable cause sheet prepared by Martin to provide to the
City Attorney handling the prosecution, the same attorney who had been a
member of the City's Problem Property Unit ("PPU") with Martin, Dawkins,
Keohnen, and Magner. Martin wrote on the probable cause sheet, "Tltis is lite PO
who is part ofa major laU' slIit against liS for harassment!II"
89. This malicious action by Martin under the direction of Dawkins, Magner
and Assistant City Attorney Dolan, a member of the PPU, damaged me to the tune
of almost nve (5) thousand dollars in Attorney fees, lost time that I could not
properly manage my business, all in an effort to run me out of money so I could
not assert my rights in this Court. It also damaged my reputation with the entry in
court records of the City taking criminal actions against me. Even though they
dismissed the charges, it leaves me and my reputation to look as if I am a criminal
that just beat the system because the state didn't have enough proof.
90. The retaliation by Martin, and other City employees of the PPU against me
caused me to question whether I should continue to pursue my claims against the
Defendants as I felt I was being intimidated by those at the City who still had
police powers over rental properties and over me due to my business in the City
helping those who need affordable housing. It caused me great embarrassment and
humiliation and tremendous emotional anguish and turmoil and pain as they took
this action against me not only when I was trying to bury my son who had just
been killed in an accident, but I hadn't yet gotten back on my feet emotionally
from my brother passing away two months earlier.
9I. The city's code enforcement file on my property at 1038 Aurora shows that
inspectors were going by my property on a very frequent schedule and making
notes into the file that there was nothing wrong with the property, but that they
would continue to check on it. There were several entries like this and it appears
that whoever it was that was doing the checking was writing notes to someone
above him in the office who was looking over his shoulder.
92. I have evidence of illegal code enforcement at my 719 Sherburne and 953
Wilson rental homes. Representatives of a tenant housing advocacy group
Community Stabilization Project (CSP) who has a past reputation of persuading
tenants to claim false code violations and even damage the property to claim code
violations so they avoid paying rent by using the court system to enforce
Habitability Statutes under Minnesota law, were involved in the complaint on both
of these properties. The same organization was also working hand in hand with the
Martin and Dawkins when they launched their illegal attacks on my properties at
910 61h St. and also 1024 Euclid. This organization went so far as considering
condemning my properties. Common sense would tell anyone that these separate
yet coordinated attacks are all related. At the 719 Sherburne property the
representatives of CSP were at the property for Martin's inspection and were
greatly disappointed because Martin would not condemn the apartment. Doth of
these properties did have some minor code violations as does every single property
in the City, and had the tenant called me to take care of them, I would have done
so as I always have in the past.
93. At my rental property at 118 Litchfield St., CSP was involved and as was
the case in all of the other properties that were targeted, the tenants who lived
there never even called me to tell me about anything that was wrong with the
property. The same advocate organization was involved and the tenant with the
help of the free lawyers from the advocate group (CSP) and city partner started a
court action against me to try and get money back on their rent. This was
something inspector Martin had advised my tenant LaChakka Cousette at my 910
61h duplex to do.
94. The court action was decided in my favor and the tenant was ordered to pay
the rent. Exhibit No 17, attached hel'eto, Bates No. 0002407. Two months after
the repairs were made this tenant was evicted in court for again not paying the
rent. A Writ of Restitution was issued and she was removed with force by the
Ramsey County Sheriffs Department. Exhibit No. 18, attached hereto, Dates No.
95. The gas leak was found to be in the tenants stove at 118 Litchfield. I do not
rent apartments with appliances included and have not for years, and as such I
have a provision in my lease that gives notice to the tenants and requires them to
repair or replace any problems with appliances including the stove and the
refrigerator. Exhibit No. 19, attached hereto, Bates #0002384 to 0002390, more
specifically Bates No. 0002388 - item No.74.
95. Upon learning of the gas leak I immediately left my home in Inver Grove
Heights in the evening hours to go to the property and assess the situation because
I thought it to be a very serious safety issue. When I arrived at the property, there
was a cap on the gas line as the tenant had described. This is another example of
the city fabricating repairs, as there was no gas leak when the inspector visited the
property. The leak happened before the inspection and had been made safe by
capping the gas pipe until my tenant could obtain a replacement stove.
96. The city interfered with my contractual rights between my tenants and
myself by not allowing me to pursue the tenant for costs of repairing the damage
and in the event that failed by allowing me the time to evict the tenant in court
before repairing damages done by the same tenant. \Vhen there are no threatening
issues it just doesn't make sense to start making repairs and throwing money at a
problem until you are able to stop the damage from happening.
97. Rather, the city demanded the repairs be made on such a ridiculously short
time schedule that I had to hire expensive contractors in order to comply. Inspector
Martin did her inspection on 11/15/02 but yet waited until 11/18/03 to send it to
me through the United States Post Office. Assuming two days for mail to be
delivered, the correction orders gave me only 1 day to comply. Exhibit No. 20,
hereto attached, Bates No. 0010335 to 0010337. Some of these violations
claimed by the city are false, and the ones that did exist were not life threatening
so there was no reason to require such a short time to comply.
98. This is another example of how the city went out of their way to make
doing business so difficult that I had given up providing low income housing and
sold my property. Another example ofinspector Martin's attack on my business is
her correction orders to me on 1/8/03 demanding that I remove my tenants dirty
clothes from the floor and that I make sure that my tenant's medications were out
of the reach of her children. Exhibit No. 21, attached hereto, Bates No. 0010332
to 0010333. Martin has no authority under the city code to require this of me.
99. The City Police report that was created by members of the department
working together with Dawkins, Martin, and others to "document" the file to win
the first TRA action by Dawkins, describe how the police were called to my
property at 1024 Euclid. There are many untruths in Sgt. \Vroblewski's report. I
did not threaten my tenant. The statements the officer claims the tenant says I
made do not contain words that I would use, under any circumstance and do not
make sense considering my experience in the inner City. I do not talk that way.
As an example, I am very familiar with the different levels of local, state and
Federal government and their function. I had been in the rental property business
for 18 years and have been in Ramsey County Court more times than I can count
evicting tenants. I have been well aware for decades that the Police powers that the
city enjoys are enforced through Ramsey County and not the state of Minnesota.
For this tenant to claim that I said "why do you have the state on my ass" is just
not believable. Those statements are coming from someone else and anyone that
even knows me a little bit would know that it is not me saying any of those things.
This was obviously something made up by the City to be able to gain leverage
over me in their illegal court action against me.
100. Shortly before these Police Officers were supposedly called at 2: 14 p.m., I
was participating in many back and forth phone calls with my Attorney who was
in phone conferences with my tenants Attorney Jerry Kaluzny at SMRLS
regarding my getting into this property to do the repairs that had caused the
condemnation. My cell phone records show those calls to and from my Attorney
Patricia \Vhitney at her phone number 651-776-8034. Exhibit No. 22, hereto
attached, Bates No. 0001431, Page No.7 of 11.
101. My Attorney had arranged a time with the tenant's Attorney that I would go
to the apartment and repair the claimed life safety issues the apartment had been
condemned for. \Vhen I arrived at the apartment, the tenant refused to let me in to
do the repairs so I left and went out to my truck to call my Attorney and report
what had happened. I was advised by my Attorney to just leave and I did leave. I
believe Martin also advised this tenant to sue me like she had advised other tenants
to do the same so they could try and get money back. My tenant did not want the
claimed violations repaired because # I I would have found out that the things the
city and tenant were claiming were violations were really not violations and that
would have hurt their court case against me. Prior to the city condemning this
apartment I had tried many times to gain access to do repairs and the tenant always
refused to let me in and told me to come back at a later time.
102. There arc many very suspicious details in this Police report that the court
should know about. Exhibit No. 23, hereto attached, Bates No. STP1769 to
STP1773. This Police oft1cer was dispatched to the property for claimed threats,
but yet say hardly anything about the threats, but rather proceed to write a 5 page
report on everything from the condition of the house to how much rent and
security deposit I charge, to who I work with to get tenant referrals and how they
screen their tenants, to how broken the system is, to how much money I make and
how wrong it is. That doesn't make sense unless Dawkins or Assistant Maureen
Dolan had coached the Police Officers on what kind of "evidence" they needed to
attempt to gain leverage over me in their first TRA action.
103. Also interesting is that on a routine call where someone is supposedly just
making threats and no violence has occurred, there are two other Police officers
that accompany Sgt \Vroblewski and her partner Tim Bradley to this property and
they just happen to be Police officers Dean Keohnen and Mark Wiegel who are
assigned to Martin and Dawkins department. Four Police offieers responding to
take a call like this is far from normal based upon my extensive experience with
St. Paul Police Officers in the inner city, and this report is written more like a brief
to use as evidence in Dawkins' court hearing against me the very next day. This
report was immediately faxed to the code enforcement office.
104. It should be noted that this tenant has been evieted multiple times each year
since leaving my property along with traffic, theft and assault charges against her.
Exhibit No.24, hcrcto attachcd.
105. She also has a criminal record in Wisconsin and also has been evicted by
landlords in Wisconsin. Exhibit No. 25, hcrcto attached.
106. There were some legitimate code violations on my property as there are on
every property in the City. Ongoing code violations are a part of the rental
property business and they are always going to be present in one form or another.
Because of the high amount of damage by tenants, it is impossible to keep a rental
property violation free 100% of the time. My tenant base was a very-low income
people. Most are so poor that they don't have extra money to buy toys for the
children, so the children play with the house and things arc very often broken.
There is less supervision of the children and when their friends come over to play,
there is also a higher chance of damage occurring. With some of these rental
properties there was the clement of domestic abuse present and those situations
usually result in damage to the property.
107. When inspector Martin started her assault and illegal code enforcement on
my property at 910 61h St., I was at the property working. I had been there for
several days making repairs. When inspector Martin arrived I had left to get
materials for something I was working on.
108. I had some code violations at 910 6th Street and I knew it and I was at my
property repairing them like a good landlord should be. \Vhat I did not want to
repair were the repairs generated by the illegal "code compliance" certification
Exhibit No. 26 attached hereto, Bates No. 0010253 to 0010260 which illegally
removed all of my "grandfathering rights" and required me to bring the property
up to modern day building codes.
110. The additional claimed violations were not actually violations at all because
the requirements were contrary to the State Building Code and grandt:1thering
protections, even those recognized by the City in its code but subverted in
III. Portions of the City's own code recoglllze the "Building Code under
which" a building was "originally constructed". For example, City's 2002-03
Minimum Property Maintenance Standards for all Structures and Premises,
Sections 34.09 (2) (a) and (b); and 34.10 (2), (3) ("maintained in accordance with
the Building Code in effect when originally constructed"). The cost of the
legitimate repairs is normal expense to repair my property and the "excess money"
because of the city's illegal demands for Code Compliance Certification are
113. The reason I was able to comply with the repair orders was that I had been
at the property doing repairs for some time before I received Martin's 10/18/02
correction orders through the United States Post Office on Saturday afternoon with
a compliance date of 10/21/02 on the following Monday. Exhibit No. 27, hereto
attached, Bates No. 0010268 to 0010269.
114. I find it very hard to believe there were rats in the property because I had
been actively baiting the property for a couple of months because of a previous
compliant about rats. I was diligent in checking with my tenants to see if the
problem was still there and they had assured me that the problem was no longer an
issue. Martin stated that she saw a rat and not rats in the plural sense in the front of
the property and outside of the property. Martin admits that the rat was dead which
is proof that I was actively pursuing a remedy to keep my property rat free even
before she did her inspection.
115. I have noticed from review of City "Problem Property" files that Inspector
Martin makes changes in the file where she first cites mice on the property and
then changes it to "rat" in order to be able to increase the perceived severity of the
problem. Hessler Problem Property files.
116. I hired B & E Pest Control because I was forced to hire them by the City. I
had been baiting the property myself and was successful as my tenant told me the
rat problem was taken care of. When I hired the exterminator, I told him that I had
been cited by the City for mice and rats in the basement so I would assume that he
thought I had mice and rats. His notes on the receipt about sub par sanitation is a
tenant cleanliness issue and is not something I can control.
117. There were minor things wrong with the properties on York and I was there
repairing those items when Martin stopped by and issued orders. The city did
target me on these properties because my properties were some of the best on the
block. Most other neighbors had violations much worse and Martin and the City
allowed those violations to continue for years. I took photos of them for years to
show the lack of attention by the City. This single fact, plus the fact that they
started criminal charges and tried to put me in jail because I didn't get exterior
painting done when it rained almost every day of the month, is evidence of
targeting and also retaliation.
Dated: 81).11 O¥
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this"2,l. day of August, 2008.
Notary Public
Under Seal
,~S}- .ti-.~,
Frank J. Steinhauser, II I
_." Notary Public
. 'I!J Minnesota
..... M1ee.~~es~31.2010

9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our racial issue is still solvable. It takes people with backbone like Mr. Steinhauser who do what's right. I'd hate to see our country degenerate into a historic conflict such as those that exist in other parts of the world. St Paul used to take this issue seriously, but now treats it like a joke.

10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What ya at Eric? Hiding??? Isn't this the guy you were running your mouth about a while back? The one who sank the ship for the lawsuit? Come on in and take a couple swings man and give us an update on this sinking ship. It looks to me like they're building a ship not sinking one.

11:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric is done and a lost cause-leave him be,he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and is about to get his lunch ate after Repke.

11:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anything in this statement bother you Repke?

12:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

another one taken by the devils. they will pay in the end. you do not get to do things like this to people and have the world just let you walk away with no responsibility.

3:16 AM  
Anonymous Tony said...

It's hard to believe anyone going through something like this and have anyone advocate for the status quo like Chcuk and Eric.

6:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony are you kidding me?

This guy had so many problems with his properties that the Community Stabilization Project almost had to have a full time staff person just to take care of all of the complaints from his tenants.

Hmmm let's see what was said in court about Frank...

Caty Royce testified Steinhauser tenants would go to the Community Stabilization Project, where
Ms. Royce was the Director, to seek assistance because the homes that Steinhauser rented
them in were in such poor condition. Royce indicated that one of Steinhauser’s rental properties that she inspected had no appliances and literally no door
for the tenant to use. There was no adequate heat at the property, there were holes in the wall and rodents that she personally saw while she was at the property. She fought “vociferously” to have the Ramsey County Courts order Steinhauser to pay for the tenant’s hotel stay while Steinhauser completed the court ordered repairs to the property.



Chuck Repke

9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And everyone who's dealt with communirty stabilzation knows aboyt how they allege everything they can so the tenant can get out of paying rent. This is one thing people have said for years that you hear over and over about them.

You seem to want to take every word she says as gospel Repke, but what about what this document says about licensed people saying that those problems did not exist at his property? Does that count for anything in your world?

I also saw somthing somewhere in this where he says he doesn't provide appliances with the rentals. So why do you just mention Royce's statement in a way that makes it look like the landlord is not doing something Chcuk? More selective spin on your part?

9:24 AM  
Anonymous Lisa Martin Fire Insp.#109058 said...

Isn't Lisa Martin, the X Wife of Aaron Foster? Also Lisa Martin condemned Betty Speakers Homestead, while Betty in Hospital for kidney dyalisi (sp)
Martin apparantly is promoted to Lisa Martin
Fire Inspector
Ref. # 109058áÿ!€áÿn7ßç'ÅJ

11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:24 and Repke she Caty either speaks the gospel or not.She was used in a lot of the plaintiffs memo to the court.So we either have to believe her words about Dawkins and Kelly or call her a liar about evrything.


4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Lisa Martin is a real piece of work. No matter who you talk to tney always say the same thing....she writes up violations that don't exist and she's so petty about other violations that you can't help but wonder what her agenda is. It's certainly not getting the proeprty fixed up.

4:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frank, seems you became aware that your decision to rent to poor slobs was not such a wise decision after all. You made a buisness decision to rent to a a class of people that probably were out casts and bad renters from the start. They started busting up and trashing your properties. You decided to rent to them becausewhat the hell, the government was paying there rent and you had a steady cash flow. Seems like all the damages these slob tenants were creating was starting to cut into your profits and you chose to let it ride.
You admit in your affidavit to all these things and could you really blame the city ?
There is no grandfathering that protects a landlord from renting to slobs. Next time make better buisness decisions.

City employee

8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the slobs are in the inspections department, and at city hall. It's unfortunate that there are (were?) some decent people in city government.

7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frankie Boy, you're a scumbag.

2:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home