Custom Search

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Announcement On Housing Lawsuits Against The City Of Saint Paul

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.


Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

In the future I will not be using the term "RICO" in a title post concerning the housing lawsuits against the city.

After many months of reading the evidence I have come to the conclusion these lawsuits are fair housing and discrimination issues.

11:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'll have to check with Repke because he thinks it is rico all the way.

12:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck your lost without your buddy Eric.

Shouldn't you and Bucky be planning you next protest?

12:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


All we got is evidence--one way or another. Peace out!


1:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Bob, Bob, I have tears running down my face holding back the laughter.

Yes, Bob from the response to the Summary Judgement it is pretty clear that what was the original charge by the "RICO MEN" has been given up for lost.

There never was a conspiracy, there never was racketeering, there never was anyone who ever benefited from any actions of DSI, it was all total BS. There never was a RICO case.

As I have said all along there was only one point to this action, other than to harass the City, and that was to try and get the court to give the plaintiffs a financial reward for the City's inability to be able to find ever piece of paper and every email ever written in the last 7 years. That was the only thing that I was ever worried about might occur. But that issue already failed since the plaintiffs' case was so thin that the judge said look you have to have at least one piece of evidence to substantiate a case that someone is hiding evidence. You have to have something...anything for the court to give you money. They had nothing.

As to this being a fair housing case the issue is of course fair and unfair to who? For this to be a fair housing case you would have to show that somehow the City is whiter and wealthier than it was when Kelly took office. Or you would have to show that houses that had complaints against them and the tenants were white were not subject to the same code enforcement. Or, you would have to find that all properties housing minorities were targeted by the City.

Good luck Bob.

Boy, but you sure have brightened my day.

Bye, bye RICO Men.


Chuck Repke

8:50 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

We can all squabble about the definition of these lawsuits and the outcome of the suits based on the definition of the title, however, one thing that will never change is the fact innocent folks have been damaged by the city's actions.

Our city's leadership is partially responsible for the blighting effect of so many vacant homes in our city's low income neighborhoods. After all,the city has forced many homes into vacant status using code enforcement to address behavioral issues.


How bout arresting criminals versus targeting a home with a code compliance seeking to condemn it all in the name of "getting rid of the nest to get rid of the critter"? QUIT, strong arming a landlord to evict a whole family because of the irresponsible behavior of one or 2 family members and target the anti-social behavior of individuals.

The policy of "getting rid of the nest to get rid of the critter" spreads crime like a cancer through out the city. The targeted family at a nuisance property moves someplace else in the city with the anti social family member,where the cycle continues.

Remember DOM or Dominic, the car theft who with an accomplice stole a suv with a little girl in the vehicle from the liquor store on 7th and Saint Clair? This guy had been run out of several homes over behavioral issues and every neighborhood he moved to he caused trouble for citizens. I think an aggressives crime strategy would have recognized him as an habitual criminal and targeted him and not his family and their home. This is just one example. I have many other examples of the city spreading crime with the current crime strategy.

The current crime strategy of Police/Code Enforcement is convenient to law enforcement and our city leaders, it keeps public attention of placing the responsibility of doing something about crime off of them. The blame game has worked well for our politicians. It really is time to quit blaming innocent landlords
and other business's for crime.

10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck a guy as smart as you should be able to build a development without failing.But I guess you may talk like you know everything but in the end you're just another failure.With all the evidence that has been given by the ricomen I find it funny you think the city Did and does nothing wrong.Well my friend I've ask you before show me the proof the city is better off now then 8 years ago!

Tim Ciani

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Tim,

We are talking about an accusation of a Federal Crime that there has been absolutely no merrit for and a law suit that has cost the City two years of not being able to have meaningful discussions with landlords as a group.

Law suits like these force City policies to come to a screaching hault and remain generally static. Meaning everything stays the same. It stays that way because any significant change in policy would be viewed as an admitting that something was wrong. So, you change nothing.

I will be thrilled when this law suit is dismissed so that we can have a real discussion about how can we reclaim some of these vacant properties and put families back in them. The foreclosers that have occured have had a huge impact on almost every neighborhood in the City and we need to be working together to find ways to get people back into houses.

I am so tired to listen to the worst of the worst whine about how they are being put upon.


Chuck Repke

12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck if these lawsuits were about nothing and the city feared nothing why would the come to a screeching hault?Why would they stop doing something that worked if they were in the right.I'll tell you why-They are skating a thin line and now are waiting to see if the court rules if they fell off.That is the real truth why they are in limbo.Chuck they are scared and employees are scared,people are talking about these suits at liep at fire and at nhpi.If it were nothing they would not fear-They do.

Tim Ciani

5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You never know what the courts will do. Crazy things happen. That is why you never change policies while you are being sued.

I was worried that the court could award monies for the city not being able to produce every email ever writen to every employee for the last seven years. That was the best chance to hurt the City with this.

I am pretty sure it is over now from reading the response. The plaintiffs have finally had to give up on RICO and that at least they had standing for, they don't even have standing for a discrimination case.

So, yes its over.


Chuck Repke

8:59 PM  
Anonymous Bill Clulen said...


I admit I am no legal expert. However, I believe service providers of primarily protected class people are also protected. Damaging a provider is one of many ways to damage a protected class(hence the protection is required).

I disagree the discrimination case is over. The city admits to three things that are problematic: 1) St. Paul targeted “problem properties”. 2) To be a problem property, there must be occupant behavior problems and 3) neither “problem properties” nor “behavior problems” are defined by St. Paul.

This leaves all problem property, and targeted enforcement actions, open to a very subjective process. If the plaintiffs successfully show that most of the properties targeted by St. Paul code enforcement had protected class occupants, it seems to meet the threshold required to establish a disparate impact case against St. Paul. But as you say, who knows what a court and jury will decide.

Bill Cullen

12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you nuts Repke or what? For months you have been saying there's no rico.....the landlords are wya off base. Now that the evidence shows Fairt Housing violations you do a flip flop and say the rico was OK and now they don't ahve a shot at Fair Housing when the evidence looks over the top supporting it? You should be on a political campaign somewhere!

4:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill and 4:55

Here's the deal. To win a fair housing case the plaintiffs are going to have to show that the City targeted minority residents, that there was a pattern.

That isn't what is shown in this case. What is shown in this case is that the City targets properties with code violations. They then argue that minorities are more likely to live in substandard housing, so to go after substandard housing is an assault on minorities.

That is just insane.

There are hundreds if not thousands of properties that had minority residents living in them, got written up, got repaired and now those minority members are living in a better house.

There are thousands of houses that minority members are living in that have never been written up.

The case that the Fair Housing Men (formerly RICO men until they gave up on that phony case) make is that some how it is discriminatory to try to assist minorities that are living in badly maintained houses.

It ain't going to fly.

And 4:55 I was saying that you would lose the RICO case now that you have given up, doesn't change the fact that for two years you all were claiming that there was a conspiracy, when there wasn't and that there was racketeering when there wasn't.

And, let's try this. How many properties have you owned in Saint Paul? (a lot) How many of them have minority tenants? (a lot) How many of them have been writen up? (I am sure a few) How many of them were condemned? (I don't think any)

Case closed.


Chuck Repke

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that last paragraph was directed towards Bill Cullen!


9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That isn't what is shown in this case. What is shown in this case is that the City targets properties with code violations. They then argue that minorities are more likely to live in substandard housing, so to go after substandard housing is an assault on minorities.

Actually Chuck Dawkins stated in his deposition that the city targets teetering neighborhoods and when asked what is a teetering neighborhood he stated,"Neighborhoods that have more rental then owner occupied."
Well Chuck I ask you what area of the city have more rentals then home owners?Well, we all can come to the conclusion that those would be neighborhoods with a high concentration of minorities.
So Chuck there is proof that they targeted rentals that housed minorities.

But I assume you don't mind the city targeting teetering neighborhoods and the definition of a teetering neighborhood.

11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuckie lets ask Bill if he owns anymore property in St.Paul or if he abandoned the city like Dawkins knew.

11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like Chuck got hit in the mouth with teetering neighborhoods.Chuck do you live in one.Let me guess no.Two reasons not many blacks and rentals around ya huh?

2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob did Dawkins really say this?Where was it?In a deposition or what?If he did thats pretty cut and dry and targets minorities.


3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes folks it is the job of code enforcement to write up properties that have code violations. There is going to be more code violations on West Seventh Street than in Highland Park.

So.... more code enforcement people will be in West 7th than Highland. That is not discriminatory you boobs that is call doing their job.

You guys take a quote like that and assume that it means something discriminatory, declare it yourself to be a fact and think it means something. This isn't evidence of anything other than that Dawkins was trying to change the biggest bitch against the department that it only responded to complaints and wasn't out there on the street themselves.

In another section of this case the claim that being complaint based proves that the City is discriminating.

Once again as always you guys want it both ways. Declare everything discriminatory when you have no evidence that either way is.

Sorry folks, you have no discrimination case based on the fact that more minorities live in badly maintained neighborhoods then well kept ones.

It isn't evidence of anything.


Chuck Repke

5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See how Chuck weaseled his pin dick past 11:51 and Dawkins targeting teetering neighborhoods.
I can say that that is the truth of what Dawkins said.

So Chuck anything wrong with targeting neighborhoods based upon having to many rentals?Come on big shot let us in on how you you feel!

Chuck its also fact that the people calling in complaints were city employees them selves.So I bet you ya think thats ok to.Till it happens to you!

6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Dawkins really targeting neighborhoods based on how many rentals there are I think the city has a real problem.Does anybody know if he really said that?


8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK this place is insane.

Its his job to send inspectors into the field to look for code violations.

How many inspectors should he have driving up and down Summit? Ford Parkway? Somewhere in Saint Anthony Park?

Buy a clue. Its his job to send the inspectors where there is likely that he will find code violations. "Teetering" neighborhoods is as good as a name for where he should send inspectors as anywhere you boobs.

That is not discriminitory to target areas with problems for where you send more inspectors. The City does the same with cops. They go where they expect to find problems.

They are paid to use common sense. Common sense would tell you if your job is to write up properties with code violations, don't drive a long time on Summit.


Chuck Repke

10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck your the tit. the facts are is there are code violations on summit and highland and even on you butt buddy Thunes house.And why is Dawkins sending inspectors into poor neighborhoods with monorities when its a complaint system ya jack ass?They do follow ups on complaints that what we've heard from your side.Its a complaint based system.Now your agreeing that targeting minority neighborhoods to tear down housing, condemn and make vacant is alright.

Chuck you say your for the poor but your just another elitest who acts like your fo the poor so you can get more money to build a whiter condo neighborhood with fewer affordable housing.Keep talking were finding a lot out about you.Next thing you'll say is government should run all schools and get rid of private ones-Thats your mentality.

And one more thing cops can't target specific cars in neighborhoods or go sit in neighborhoods with a lot of cars with shinney rims and fancy paint jobs on them-thats called profilling my friend and so is targeting areas with large numbers of rentals.

8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:14 Actually your right, I do think that public schools would be better funded and do a better job if wealthy people had to send their kids to public schools instead of being able to send them to private schools.

Rich jerks like you would be voting for candidates that support public education.

But back to the point...


He was trying to get the department to be more than complaint based (which you all bitch about) and get them active out on the streets writing up problems.


You are just flat out wrong if you think any court will view that as targeting minorities. Most people repair the violations. The improvements make life better for the people that live there.

Scum like you just refuse to keep up your property.


Chuck Repke

9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are just flat out wrong if you think any court will view that as targeting minorities. Most people repair the violations. The improvements make life better for the people that live there.

Looks like it helped the say 3 People x 2,200 vacant homes= 6,600 people living in those homes.Where did the people go Chuck?

9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck how about vouchers for the poor minority inner city kids to go where they want to keep schools competative?How about promoting the good teachers and getting rid of the bad-oh wait we can't there in a union.

Why are suburban public schools doing so well with private schools around them?

St.Pauls property taxes pay for schooling and rich people live in expensive houses which means they pay more on their tax bills for schools then you and you claim they don't even use it because they send their kids to private schools.So their paying for other kids to go to school while paying for their kids to go also.

8:06 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home