Custom Search

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Saint Paul/ The victims of code enforcement.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.


Anonymous Betty Speaker said...

Code enforcement destroys elderly womans life.

Link above "Betty Speaker"

10:53 AM  
Anonymous Nancy Osterman said...

Code enforcement out of control

Link above "Nancy Osterman"

10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leo Side forced from his apartment due to illegal condemnation of the duplex owned by Kelly Brisson.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lois Jacobs is a victim. She says a St. Paul inspector tried and shake her down and steal her home for less than retail.

12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Nancy was a victim.

Betty could not afford to keep her up and the interior fell into a state that was not fit for habitation.

According to the RICO suit, Leo Side sued Kelly Brisson for not repairing his his property. Leo was a disabled renter who supposed to be a friend of Kelly. Brisson admits that when he bought the property, he could not afford to fix it, yet, he still rented it out. In his own testimony, which is found here on A-Dem, he admits to not doing anything with the property because he couldn't afford it. He still collected the rent from Leo Side's disability income. Nice guy.

The Lois Jacobs story is what we expect. Anonymous rumors on hear say. Is there court testimony from Ms Jacobs? Anything? The other three have a record of facts on display for research.

Hey Bob, I thought we were going to post the dozens of victims. If you want to start a rumor mill, I'll find some current tenants who have filed unfounded complaints against landlords.

Didn't Frank Steinhauser have a police report that stated he was freely throwing racial epithets and illegal threats at his tenant who didn't want to in the rat infestation? Yes. I thinks its part of the RICO suit record.

Set some standards about what goes here, or anything goes. I'm starting to see why Nancy kept her distance, whenever there seems to be a legitimate trail, here comes the unsubstantiated statements and rumors that only casts further doubt over the entire group.


3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These are disgraceful actions by the city. Why won't they work with people?

7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Didn't Frank Steinhauser have a police report that stated he was freely throwing racial epithets and illegal threats at his tenant who didn't want to in the rat infestation? Yes. I thinks its part of the RICO suit record."

Only 1 problem. There was not a rat infestation and I remember where the inspector testified to that in a deposition.

7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Lois Jacobs story is what we expect. Anonymous rumors on hear say. Is there court testimony from Ms Jacobs? Anything? The other three have a record of facts on display for research."

There are may affidavits signed by people alleging basically the same facts that Jacobs talks about....all signed by people who do not know each other. Not hardly hearsay. All of them are filed in court in the rico case and aare fact issues whcih will be heard by a jury after the current racist judges order is overturned by appeals.

8:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They have worked with people. Everybody had been given chance after chance after chance. There is not one person that can show they asked for an extension from the original write up and didn't get it, or two, or three.

The shock here is that after years of non-enforcement and weak compliance, code enforcement started to do its job. It only happened after a Mayoral candidate promised to do it, and the council supported it.

For years some of these landlords had nothing to fear and the people with means, just moved away. Now that there is the ultimate risk of losing their property, it a different story.

Ask why Betty Speaker's sons allowed their mom to live in a place that was uninhabitable? Why didn't they come around to help her, if they were going to let live alone? The bottom line is, when code enforcement cited her, they still didn't clean up her place and over the two years it fell into deeper disrepair until they condemned it. Her son then found a way to picket city hall. He should be ashamed. She is not a victim. She was legally cited.

Kelly Brisson's testimony is here on A-Democracy. The bottom line with him, he bought a place knowing it needed a lot of work, he knew he didn't have th emoney to do it but he signed for it anyway. He ignored citation after citation. The place was a mess that dogs shouldn't live in but, he still took monthly checks from Leo who was disabled. Real Prince Kelly is. He bought the place with no intention of bringing it up to code, and pimped his own friend situation for money.

Lois Jacobs is fictional.

Nancy O was a little late getting her work done but, in the end it appeared that it was there. However the end came beyond the deadline and it was a call I wouldn't have made but, within the law to demo.

What's disgraceful are people who think because you're poor, you don't have the right to live in safe conditions.


8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They have worked with people. Everybody had been given chance after chance after chance. There is not one person that can show they asked for an extension from the original write up and didn't "

Don't listen to him folks. He's a filthy god for nothing liar and most of you know it because you've had the displeasure of asking for an extension or in many cases the shock of having no violations only to find some made up and finding out the city is after you cause of behavior issues.

Talk your NAZI propaganda somewhere else Eric. Lots of us lived through this hell with the city. We know better.

8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ask why Betty Speaker's sons allowed their mom to live in a place that was uninhabitable? Why didn't they come around to help her, if they were going to let live alone? The bottom line is, when code enforcement cited her, they still didn't clean up her place and over the two years it fell into deeper disrepair until they condemned it. Her son then found a way to picket city hall. He should be ashamed. She is not a victim. She was legally cited."

Actually Eric.....why don't you find out what you Are talking about. Speakers sons lived with her in the house and the city was after the son cause he had a criminal record. The son didn't protest until after they moved out and went to live with the other son who was also retaliated against because he had the nerve to go question what the city was doing to his mother. The city targeted that house too and tried to condemn it. This is the point where the 1 son decided to protest.

8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Only 1 problem. There was not a rat infestation and I remember where the inspector testified to that in a deposition."
Well you should look at Exhibit 19 in the RICO hearing:

Steinhauser admits that there were rats at his property at 910 East
Sixth St.
but claims that the rats in his property came from a large pile of trash that was
next door. (Exhibit 19, pp. 504-505). Steinhauser claims that there was an illegal entry at
910 East Sixth St. because his tenant LaChaka Cousette did not want the code enforcement
officer to enter her apartment. (Exhibit 19, pp. 500-505). However, Cousette testified that
on October 21, 2002, Lisa Martin and Officer Dean Koehnen came to her door and Martin
explained to her that the unit downstairs was being condemned. (Exhibit 35, p. 69). Once
Martin explained to Cousette why they had come to her door, Cousette agreed to allow
them in. (Id., p. 143-144). Martin did all the talking. (Id. p. 144) According to Cousette,
Officer Koehnen never ordered her to admit them into her home. (Id. p. 143)

More from Frankie:
The Police were called to 1024 Euclid on October 29, 2002, by
a tenant because Steinhauser was “verbally threatening” the tenant. (Exhibit 40). Officer
Wroblewski found the property, which had just been condemned by code enforcement,
“uninhabitable.” (Id., 1770). She noted that there was “no heat or smoke detectors, rotting
floors, running water in the bathroom (won’t stop), water damage, holes in the walls
throughout where rats have access....”) (Id., pp. 1770-1771)
Steinhauser’s verbal threats
came after he learned that the property was condemned. The tenant reported to police that
Steinhauser stated “Why are you doing this black bitch? Why do you have the state on my
ass? Bitch you’re gonna lose in fucking court. You’ll be back on the fucking street!”
(Id., p. 1771).

Stand up guy.


8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What's disgraceful are people who think because you're poor, you don't have the right to live in safe conditions."

What's disgraceful is some piece of shit like you who comes here and twists everything to sound like it's somthing completely different so it fits the argument you want to distort and whitewash.

Louis Jacobs is fictional? Bob please post the afidavit from her. In fact post them all.

8:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We can debate rather the son had anything to do with it or not, bottom line, there were violations. Plenty of them if the place was uninhabitable.

Everything else is a sad story that really has nothing to do with rather the place was compliant or not.

Wipe your mouth, the froth build up making your words come out senseless.

Nobody has to listen to me. The double standard on this board is still in effect. I have to prove everything, the rest of you just have to pull it out of your asses.

Last I checked, multiple police calls are a problem and nuisance. However, each and every one of these RICO filers (who lost on lack of evidence) and 'victims' also had many code violations.

I've asked for several times to name the "many" people that have been illegally removed or cited- today nothing. You have presented one case that was a judgment call, Nancy's, but none that did not have extensive violations.

Yes folks, don't listen to me. Read for yourself. The entire RICO case as heard is right here. Point out the landlord or homeowner that did NOT admit to having legitimate violations.

Don't ask anyone else to do it, you'll be waiting forever or get called a nazi.


9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a guy who lives with his mom and can't read very well, you sure have a potty mouth.

Affidavits would be nice. Post them.


9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Legitimate violations don't mean shit you fool. Every house in the city has them. One of the points is that the city fabricated violations and then rigged the court so they could railroad people through it to force sales of property. They did it and it created a disparate impact on minoritites. Got it?

9:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:21 - like none of that is in the law suit. You just made that up on the fly did you?

Everyone in the law suit admits violations.

Those that sold, claimed that it wasn't worth it to keep the property up to code.

There is no one in the suit that sold their property to anyone that any employee of the City is alleged they might sell to...

Most of the people who owned the properties were white.

There is no evidence of any harm done was to minorities by improving properties.


Chuck Repke

11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But there is evidence that targeting, illegal code compliance requirements, and more serious fabricated violations in addition to the legitimate ones caused a disparate impact to minorities and the city knew what the outcome of their actions would be.

12:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Often, the city is destroying peoples' savings and their futures with their excessive demands. Then they make pompous arguments about violating code. They skoff at the importance of fair and reasonable code interpretation.

8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Nancy O has moved on with her life.
Your blog must be getting pretty stale that you have to keep beating a losing effort into the ground by postig the stories of days gone past.
Like Eric says, post some affidavits, some new cases of retaliatory enforcement.
Proof of disparate impact on minorities and tenants that the city knew of it can't be tied to the landlords losses even if true.
You slumlords that are crying about this didn't keep up your properties and were offended when code attempted to do their job.
Seems to me that any action the city took against landlords that adversley affected tenants would have resulted in tenants filing suit against the city.
So far, not one tenant has sued.

8:39 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

8:39 said;
Bob, Nancy O has moved on with her life.
Your blog must be getting pretty stale that you have to keep beating a losing effort into the ground by postig the stories of days gone past.

My response;
Your statement is ignorant. Nancy's issues are part of the Fair Housing Lawsuits. She signed affidavits.

And as far as tenants suing. The city was counting on no law suits from them. They are poor. The kicker in all of this is, us property rights advocates have been rounding up as many tenants as we can find. A lawsuit from the tenants will follow the landlords suit after they win.

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Bill Cullen, a realtor, real estate investor and Section 8 housing provider,
testified that he had considerable experience in purchasing homes in the City and
had experienced the City's "Code Compliance" Certification process, a very
expensive process that he expected to cost him at least $40,000 depending on what
was written up by inspectors. APP1214-1216.
Cullen testified that in his discussions with Dawkins that Dawkins knew that
the Code Compliance Certification process was a substantial renovation of an older
home and at times would have a significant financial effect in an adverse way on
rental property owners. Cullen 212-13.

10:02 AM  
Anonymous 785 Butternut said...

Code enforcement helped send them to the grave.

Link above

10:05 AM  
Anonymous Sochinda C Keopenchan said...

City code enforcemnet destroys mans business and condemns his family to the street.

Link above

10:24 AM  
Anonymous Johnny Howard said...

Civic leader wronged by city. letter requesting civility from mayor.

Link above

10:27 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

The victims are piling up folks. You have to remember there is collateral damage in most of these cases. These citizens names who I have posted here have family members living with them who have been adversely effected by the city's actions.

So the number of victims you see posted here is not the actual count. Like I said, the number of victims is in the hundreds.

I have a lot more to post. You just can't whitewash a fence covered with sh*t.

Chuck and Eric, I hope you guys attend the jury trial to come. Then I hope you attend the court proceeding of the tenants who file suit against the city.

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Howard, whom I know and spoke to a few times about this including when I came to sit in on the trial, is definitely a victim. I'll give you him.

I also know that he is not part of your suit because for years Howard was the advocate for many of your tenents.

When people like him and Caty Royce sign on to your RICO or Fair Housing suit, then you may have some credibility. Afterall, they'd have much more to say about these slumlords and how they treat the poor that rent from them.

That story about Sochinda C Keopenchan is the same old story. They had a property that fell into a state that was unfit for habitation. That doesn't happen overnight- or because of a missing window screen. In their own story, they waited 30 days after the fire inspector left to start any repairs. They waited until they had 24 hours to vacate the condemned property to inquiry about work being started.

Again, no victim. There place, at the time of inspection was unfit for people to live in.

Maybe we live in such a crybaby victim society that when people are forced to live up to their agreements they blame someone else for it.

Who's fault is it that most of these properties had people living in them, though they were health and safety hazards? Not the city.

The city has an obligation to make sure properties- especially low-income rental properties- are up to the minimum code for human habitation. The health and safety of the citizens are the priority of any city.

With the exception of Howard and the judgment call made on Nancy O., you have yet to present victims.

These are examples of people, for whatever reason, who did not maintain their property up to minimal standards.


10:48 AM  
Anonymous ADem_Magner 18Jun07 said...

Trying to help you out with forensic records

10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only tenants I know of filing suits, have doe so against your landlords.

In the third post on here, the tenant Leo, sued the slumlord Kelly Brisson.

We can pull up the records of three times the tenants suing landlords than landlords in your RICO suit.

If you want to keep any advantage, I'd keep the tenants far and away from the courts.

Of course if you're waiting for the landlords case prevail, it may take a while, like forever.


10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thread is devolving into the same ol' debate that Bob and his slumlords already lost in Federal Court.

I'm wondering where you think you'll find a jury who are against more code enforcement? The vast majority of homeowners throughout the cities are in favor of tough enforcement. Any lawyer would be crazy to argue against this.

The NIMBY effect is the only thing that will be going through the head of the citizens who serve on a jury hearing any of this.

If it makes it. So far, nothing in conflict with current law has been presented and absence of any mistrial evidence I don't see the Appeals process working in their favor.

What do I know? I've only been right about this from the beginning.


10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So far, not one tenant has sued."

And what difference would it make if they did? You use this to add credibility to your statements that the city did no wrong but when the landlords sue you ignore facts and evidence and say their crazy. You can't have it both ways.

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If it makes it. So far, nothing in conflict with current law has been presented and absence of any mistrial evidence I don't see the Appeals process working in their favor."

Sorry to rain on your parade but how about the fact that the city had no legal authority to require people to do code compliance certifications on their property? How about the Morris verses Sax decision that says the same thing?

1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop asking me.
Ask the Federal Judge who looked at all of the evidence and heard all of the testimony.

You are arguing against something that has been decided. Sorry Charlie, that's not how the federal appeals process work.

You don't move up to next level and argue the same argument you've lost at the circuit level. This is the opportunity to show that existing law is in conflict with the constitution or, somehow the original process had some procedural mishaps. That's not the findings of the judge.


1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Morris v Sax?

Chuck answered this back on December 7, when these same plaintiffs lost summary judgment.

The big difference between this and Sax is that Sax was saying that the City of Morris had written laws beyond what was allowed by the state. Not that they were out to get him personally or that they were conspiring to hurt people. They had a written ordinance. He had facts.

What you have here were a group of people who had properties where there had been write ups by the City and in court show that there were problems with the properties but assume that the only possible reason that they got written up over someone else was either the City was out to destroy them personally or it hated all poor people and their case was since they had no evidence the City must be extremely good at hiding it.

That isn't a case.

As to appeal Bob, this is a Summary Judgement, meaning that the facts of the case have been presented, they are generally agreed to and there is NO EVIDENCE of any criminal wrong doing.

I went to find the summary judgment but, of course in the pursuit of truth, this blog 'forgot' to print it. I'll get it later and post it here for the newcomers.


2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, it seems to me that the RICO landlords do not have standing in court to argue indignities on behalf of alleged victim tenants.
Plaintiffs have an affidavit from Nancy O but no deposition. Why no deposition ? Because she can't prove what she says in her affidavit and as such, would surely not give any weight or add to deposition testimony.
Considering what Nancy says happened, no criminal action or civil litigation was taken against those Nancy claims stole from her.
All these victims Bob refers to are simply complainers.
Why not include them in the RICO suits "As parties" for damages ? With the exception of a few of the alleged victim with whom it appears have some sort of legitimate arguement of harassment, thats where it ends.

2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't you wisw up Eric. You know what the acore is here and yuou know what's coming down the road for the dirty inspectors and council people you want to stick up for. You think your fooling anyone?

8:05 PM  
Anonymous Code enoforcment officer Geri Boyd said...

Link above to alleged Department of Safety and Inspections fraud.

11:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city sure lost a superstar when they started jerking Johnny Howard around. They've lost some of the city's best people - those with heart and a conscience.

11:10 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

2:47, I am not trying to weigh the merits of the fair housing lawsuit here. If some is willing get into that debate with you that is just fine with me.

Eric, challenged me to post "12" victims of code enforcement. I have easily passed that number and will continue on for days posting victims names and stories until I feel satisfied I proved my point.

11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12 is more than 5. You people have been going on for years about all of the victims and overwhelming evidence. Yet, when its time for the rubber to meet the road, you got nothing.

You've put up one, maybe two victims (johnny and nancy), the other three are sad stories of what happen when you don't maintain your property.

As I have said many times, there certainly may be some abuse or harassment by individuals but, this is not what you're after here. You never went that route- I do know that Johnny Howard went that route.

Keep posting. Its generating more traffic to the blog and bringing my fan club out of the woods. I haven't been called a nazi since the courts ruled against this sham the last time.


11:39 PM  
Anonymous R. Glenn Gausman said...

Link above to another victim of code enforcement.

12:17 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

OK Eric. so Johnny and Nancy are YOUR only victims. 2?

Did you read Johnny's letter to the Mayor? A whole family was being condemned to the street. Johnny's tenants! Isn't the whole family a victim? What about the suffering of Nancy's family?

Very inconsiderate of you not to think of the totality of code enforcements actions.

And Eric, I'm sure you feel quite satisfied with your comments here, only thing is I highly doubt the masses reading agree with you and I will tell you why. I'm not telling these stories, the victims are.

You say two, my guess is the readers here can count better than you. :)

This blog is a melting pot of despair. I can post victims names here for days.

12:33 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

One more thing Eric.. You made claims I didn't post the summary judgement here. That isn't true. I am looking for the summary judgement in the archives. Many of you may remember I posted a big white horses ass when I posted the summary.

1:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric doesn't give a hoot about any tenants unless they are bashing landlords and he can use them to bolster the credibility of the shit he spins.

All these people who come here to support the city refuse to look at facts and instead want to minimize and dismiss everything the city has done by distracting it with things that they don't describe in the whole context of what happened.

When someone mentions something about the city fabricating and lying about violations that never existed they come back with some crap that because there were some violations then the rest of it never happened or the landlord had it coming.

You'll never get anywhere with these city spinners Bob. Their mind is in a different place.

2:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember you posting the Summary Jugement Bob. Hell you even posted all the affidavits from a whole bunch of people.

2:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it interesting that 2:47 thinks that civil right violation are nothing more than indignities? I wonder what he'd think if some of these things happened to him or his mother?

3:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks, you did not present enough evidence to back up the accusations.
In addition, with the two exceptions I named, every one of the landlords had multiple violations and ignored ordered to bring the property up to code.

Its not the fault of the tenants at all. Its the Landlords/HomeOwners who refused to maintain the property.

Landlords are legally responsible for any damage done by tenants- they all know this. Its a risk of the business. Its why they charge a deposit.

There is only one person on this blog who went to city advocating for placement of victims (real victims) when the property has been condemned- that only person who did this, including asking Magner about this - me. Chuck brought up solutions and offered to lobby for it himself. I'm sure no one followed up with him.

For review:

1. The Federal Court found that the 'evidence' presented, did not support the claims. (So they appeal with the same argument.).

2. The landlords/homeowners had multiple violations and ignored warnings over and over.

That's it. Thats the story. That's the case. Everything else fall outside of the policy and can be addressed - if it hasn't been addressed.

Go to your archives and look under 7-27-2008 for the third post down for the Summary.


9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, and to your posting at 12:33 a.m.
The Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled that heads of households and other members of familys in PHA can be evicted for the conduct of others in their control.
No difference here as at least one of the "victims" you posted were other members of the family involved in criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court has said PHA doesn't even need a conviction to evict them Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v, Mai Lor. This backs up Erics post at 9:06 a.m.

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They did present evidence Eric. Just so happens they had a racist Judge that sided with the city. This will be overturned just like the New Haven case was.

10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction, I meant crimminal activity not crimminal prosecution.

10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, they had a racist judge ? Well I would surley file a complaint / lawsuit against the judge for being a racist. Better yet, have that judge post over here and Eric will rip him a new asshole. But that still doesn't change the lack of standing and facts that don't support the allegations of the RICO suit.

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Summary Judgment said...

Are you looking for this

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Affidavits don't mean shit if they will not support the elements of a cause of action.
It's tough luck that a person can get killed in Minnesota while driving on icy roads. Try to sue the state and they claim immunity and get it.
Thats what we have here folks, people complaining in affidavits of harassment and the Corts say wa. wa. Seems to me the folks that provided affidavits should have tried to get harassment orders instead of being leeches to the landlords RICO suit.

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Sum Jud @ slideshare said...

You'll probably delete but slideshare is easy read without negative coments

10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How much did the RICO plaintiffs pay to get these defunct affidavits !

10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."

Dwight Eisenhower

Here the city is valuing its privileges above its principles.

11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not many presidents hold true to their words either.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obamma has so far. He promised to wreck the country and he's doing it in record speed.

1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe your post wouldn't get deleted Sharon if you tried to come here and participate rather than post links to re-direct people to your insane asylum blogs that no one reads.

1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama seems to stay in the 60's on approval ratings with the American people. Your viewpoint is among the very few. America also chose to put Democrats in charge across the board.

I'm sure you think you're smarter than most people and is probably sitting back waiting for the rest of America to catch up. But, your side had its chance and it cost us thousands of American lives and over a trillion dollars for a war that was completely unnecessary and sunk our country in the economic downward spiral in its history.

You've had your chance of less regulations and government interference and it damn near wrecked the country.

Go away and let the adults fix the problems.


4:20 PM  
Anonymous Phil Krinke said...

Phil Krinke victim of code enforcement link above

10:10 PM  
Anonymous Carol M Rueb said...

Another victim of code enforcement linked above

10:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama seems to stay in the 60's on approval ratings with the American people. Your viewpoint is among the very few."

The popularity of my viewpoint depends on what time frame you draw the line in. As I've always been a little ahead of the curve, lets just wait and see where your guy is in November, 2010.

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

still in the white house, the election is in 2012. Put up Palin and he'll be there for another four years.

done the nice guy but not very bright candidate in 2000 and 2004, put us in toilet. thanks but no thanks.

10:24 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

10:38, thank you for the information. This doesn't surprise me coming from the Communist Supreme Court of Minnesota.

It is to bad the decision wasn't challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Most of the movers and shakers in the bureaucracy here in Minnesota have shit for brains. They are so progressive they see the Constitution as a barrier to their objectives.

10:41 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Bob, the issue before the Minnesota Supreme Court was followed up in the case of HUD vs. Rucker. (535 U.S.125)2002.

Our U.S. Supreme Court Reversed the U.S.Court of Appeals 9th Circut, which ruled that no-fault evictions violated the 14th amendment.

Sad isn't it ?

Jeff Matiatos

11:21 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Yes it is sad. And thank you Jeff for all the substance you bring to the discussions here.

11:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who the hell cares about the 14th amendment? We have ambitious politicians with agendas and then ends justify the means. Your right are nothing but unintended consequences that hamper government efficiency.

4:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric said:

Go away and let the adults fix the problems.

Sounds like Eric is starting to see the light. Get the dipshits in City Hall to go away and then the problems can be fixed.

5:49 AM  
Anonymous Hud v. Rucker said...

Thanks for Hud v. Rucker
Filings for Mayor and School Board are July 7th,2009 Fee of $50.00
Go get em

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right now, $50.00 is all about what the mayor should be paid.
If that.

7:30 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Just want to comment on this Rucker case.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress intended to give PHAs discretion to evict for these kinds of circumstances.

What it means is PHA does not have to evict. Only that it may choose to do so and when it does, your screwed.

However, what seems to be missing is a statement by the Supreme Court that when PHAs choose to evict, it may not abuse that discretion.

I think it is still possible to appeal such evictions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if an evicted litigant claims the PHA abused it's discretion.

Jeff Matiatos

7:42 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Actually, there is case law where PHAs cannot abuse their discretion, because when the evict, they act in a quasi judicial capacity and their decisions are reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard just like judges.

There is hope. I just haven't seen any cases where attorneys representing evicted litigants have argued that the PHA abused it's discretion in no fault evictions.

The courts have reversed the PHA before for abusing it's discretion in other matters.

Happy 4th.

Jeff Matiatos

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this bitching is not going to mean one thing unless you change the leaders in government.

Eric and Chuck are confident of their party to retain their seats and thus no change will happen.

I hear all this crap of change, but there is NOTHING that is done.

Thune won by 300 or so votes. You are telling me that you couldn't get out the vote to get 300 people to vote against Thune or anyother city council member?

All talk and NO action you folks are.

Stop your crying and get off you butt. Put some meaning into your words. I just can't stand it anymore. You all need a crying towel, as you are all cry babies.

7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And another thing, all the court cases will not mean one thing if you don't change the leadership.

Haven't you figured that out by now?

Chuck and Eric make a fool out of you all because they have figured it out. They support Thune and the DFL, they back them and so they can do as they please.

The world is run by those who show up. Eric and Chuck show up, they organize and they get their buddies elected. What don’t you understand about that?

I am tired of all your whining here, why don’t you get your act together and STOP whining!

7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whining is easier

3:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like you said, whining is easier. Getting out the vote for a candidate would be work. The easy way out is to just sit back and complain.

3:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now we'er getting the pompous lecturers.

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now we'er getting the pompous lecturers. 7:56 AM"


Where is the crying towel. You all have the correct message, but you don't have any follow through. You sit her and cry in your beer, but you don't chang anything.

At least Bob gets off his butt and puts puts actions to his words.

Oh now you are going to call me names and you may even swear at me. Oh my!

In the end you all just talk and NO action.

8:30 AM  
Anonymous Order_ without Appeal said...

Certain persons kicked out of E-Dem for downloading files?

Easy read for files, altho Appeal was made

8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Certain persons kicked out of E-Dem for downloading files?"


This will not get anyone elected to replace scum that started this all off in the first place.

9:05 AM  
Anonymous Ronald Lydon said...

Another victim linked above

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Manoucher Rostamkhani said...

Another victim linked above.
City council found arbitrary and capricious.

9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The landlords and others lawsuits will change things very nicely after they have taken their course so why should the rest of us do anything?

9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all of these 'victims' had run down properties, that's how the city gets away with it.

a judge has to look at the facts, no matter how sad or dirty its alleged to city played. everyone of these had homes that were unhealthy and unsafe and owners who couldn't or didn't maintain their property.

there is not one person who votes that would want that house next door. so, there cases are good for talking about over beers but, the city will win in court and with the voters everytime.

if you are going to beat anyone out of office, you need another issue. people are afraid of slumlord type properties and homes that look like a crazy cat lady lives there. especially when they find out the inside is not fit for people to even live in. it doesn't matter if you've been there 60 years. if its unsafe and unhealthy, no one wants it next door.

that's where you loose on the blog. your only hope is to find legal precedence. unfortunately all of your victims really do have very bad properties.

10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:36 looks like Nancy Lazaryan posting anonymously.
I think she is back. In some form or another.

12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"8:36 looks like Nancy Lazaryan posting anonymously.
I think she is back. In some form or another. 12:00 PM"

Sorry I am not Nancy, but just a LONG time follower of this blog. No, I am not Ms. Seeba either, she is better looking than I. Way better looking than I.

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:00 PM it looks like 8:30 AM has a point.

How many of you have signed up with Bob and his political work?

Do you even know who is running for mayor or school board?

I bet you can't name any of the candidates for mayor or school board except Chris Coleman.

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

To 2:34 p.m., how about posting with your name ?
Ok, who are the other candidates running for mayor ?
Your so quick to accuse us here of being ignorant so fill us in !
Your probably Amanda.
Were just not that into your
"I bet you can't name" game.
Put up or shut up ! Post with your name.

Jeff Matiatos

4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff Matiatos

This is all I know so far. More will be known when filing has been completed.

Mayor: Chris Coleman, Democrat, Eva Ng, Sort of a Republican, Bill Dahn??, Sharon Anderson??

School Board (4 year term): John Brodrick, Democrat, Elona Street-Stewart, Democrat Tom Goldstein, Democrat, Jean O’Connell, Democrat supported, Richard Easton,Republican

School Board (2 year term – Tom Conlon’s seat because he resigned on July 6, 2009): Vallay Varro, Democrat, John Krenik, Republican and Pat Igo, Republican

5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for info
The DFL endrosed candidates are:

Chris Coleman for Mayor

Elona Street Stewart
John Broderick and
Tom Goldstien for School Board

And for the special election to finish the four year term of Tom Conlon,
Valley Varro.

Those are the only names we (DFL) have endorsed. I can't tell you who the Republicans endorsed.

I remember Eva Ng coming out of the Republican ranks then running from that brand in her last interview.

I'll eat Bill Dahn's hat if any of the DFL candidates lose.

You guys are free to work at forcing me to grill and digest that sweat and dandruff laden chapeau of Bills.

I'm confident its easier to come here and call me names and blame somebody, or something else for your inaction.

Good thing the Founders were more like me than you. We'd be celebrating the Empire's victory over the terrorist insurgency of 1776 if the Founders were like more of you.


5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The abuse by code enforcement is fairly simple.

Every building in the city has numerous code violations. The inspectors simply code to the max anyone they feel superior to (the end justifies the means). Then they cowardly hide behind official immunity and are also backed up to the hilt by a city council that doesn't care. Then they start mouthing off about unsafe buildings (or find motormouths to do it for them).

6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

every building may have code violations but, you're stupid to say that about these when each one was also unsafe.

Eric said it earlier that you don't get condemned for having missing screens, rats or broken locks on the door.

by the way, the point you're arguing is that the law is unfair- not the actions of the employees doing their job. That's not what the suit is saying.

Keep whining losers

10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, what is the get out the vote effort?

It seems that there are some qualified candidates, but it is time to support candidates who will support your cause.

10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we'll see who the losers are at the end.

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone one ever wonder why the dreggs of society can go into these court and have the court literraly trip over themselves to give them every benifet of the doubt but when decent hard working taxpayers go to the court and try to assert thier rights they get one BS ruling after another and wind up having to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get justice? What's up with that?

11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's cause the judges in most courts are racist and elites and out of touch with reality and have the ideas like Judge Sotomayor that their life experiences as a this or that or anything except mainstream have something to do with applying the law and constitution as it's written. We're not a country of equal opportunity any longer. Your equal opportunity depends on who you're connected to and what political affiliation you belong to.

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:25 you are foaming at the mouth. Calling other people losers doesn't change it in yourself.

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Leslie Lucht said...

Dirty Deeds Done Cheap!
Link above,

12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the dirty deeds post. It takes your right to Satan's den where the 7 devils are spinning their evil magic.

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you people are crazy and should be locked up.

The whole world is not against you. You ever think that maybe you're an asshole?

5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I beg to differ.

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Brian Bates said...

link above

11:13 PM  
Anonymous Les Lucht said...

City protects criminals from landlords

link above

11:16 PM  
Anonymous Sharon Anderson said...

Sharon, a regular of the town hall here had troubles of her own with code enforcement.

Link above

11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous city employee said...

Some city employees have had enough.

Link above

11:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:17 AM  
Anonymous Troy Allison said...

Another victim of code enforcement.

Link above

2:19 PM  
Anonymous More victims said...

Council members acknowledged the financial hardship for property owners, but also highlighted the safety risk. They expect a report on the issue later this month.

Is the city following the law?
Kessler's effort to have unified enforcement has been complicated by disagreement within his staff
about the legality of what the city is doing.

A Minnesota Supreme Court decision last year invalidated a code enforcement action by the city
of Morris against a landlord and cast doubt on the power of cities to force property owners to make
improvements to existing buildings.

The Morris ruling confirmed Riddering's belief
that many city property maintenance and fire
codes cannot be applied to existing buildings.
Kessler disagreed. He said that although there's still uncertainty about the court ruling, it hasn't
significantly changed how St. Paul enforces its codes.

2 inspectors, 2 different rulings
The internal disagreement has had some realworld consequences. In January, one of Riddering's inspectors signed off on windows
being installed by landlord Thao Yang at 1318 Barclay St. Three weeks later, a fire code
inspector ordered Yang to replace those same windows because they were too small for proper

Yang appealed to Moermond, and lost. Last week, Kessler finally issued a policy that the
city attorney's office had sought for months,
describing his department's approach to egress
windows. Property owners like Yang, the policy
said, do not have to change their windows if they
had been approved by another inspector before
April 28. Riddering wasn't around to contest that policy.

After 10 years as a building official, Riddering
learned in March that Kessler intended to downsize the department and eliminate his position. Of the eight people affected in his area,
he was the only full-timer left without a job.

The others were temps, part-timers or full-timers who were shifted to vacant positions elsewhere in
the city.
Riddering said he thinks the city is acting out of a
"sincere belief they're making the world safer.
Then they should be changing the law, not violating it."
Kessler said he has a high opinion of Riddering, but that he had the least seniority. Riddering
intends to fight his termination. • 612-673-4148 • 612-673-4271

10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Victims here and victims there......hell.....victims every damn where! But don't tell Eric, he wouldn't believe it if it happened to one of his own family members.

12:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Most people are overwhelmed. They do not know of any way to make themselves heard or what to say.

6:41 AM  
Anonymous Sharon4Mayor said...

Since my name is mentioned Filed for St.Paul Mayor

9:56 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Sharon, I've looked at the link you posted and I think you do an excellent job at building the cite.

I really respect your efforts and I you are a very important citizen with very good intentions.

Thanks for helping to expose the rats and doing what you can for all of us.

Jeff Matiatos

6:01 PM  
Anonymous Nasty City Policies said...

St. Paul / Power shutoffs increase fourfold
Electricity rules can cause headaches for homeowners
By Dave Orrick
Article Last Updated: 07/19/2008 09:34:16 PM CDT

The number of homes in St. Paul without power for a month has nearly quadrupled this year over last year at this time.
The situation is likely more fallout from the housing crisis and crummy economy, combined with a "normal" winter that racked up higher heating bills than those of recent years, utility and city officials say.
Because state law prohibits heat and power shutoffs until April 15, spring and summer always bring a wave of shutoffs. But this year is worse, according to figures supplied by Xcel Energy and St. Paul.
As of the first day of July, 397 homes had been cut off by Xcel for more than 30 days, compared with 105 last July 1.
Marion Pearson's house was one of the 397. And as she discovered, losing power in St. Paul can lead to a host of other headaches.
Like condemnation.
Pearson's husband of many years had moved out of their home at 1147 W. Central Ave., she said at a recent City Council meeting, where she testified in hopes of not getting kicked out by the city. Even though Pearson is listed as the sole owner of the house, her husband had always paid the Xcel bill, and it was in his name only.
She's an older woman, she told council members, and she hadn't thought about the power bill in years. When the electricity was shut off, it took her awhile to figure out the problem. Too long, it appears.
The city condemned her house and ordered her to vacate. After Pearson explained to council members what had happened and that she was
the process of working out a payment plan with the utility, she asked one question: "Will I be able to stay in my house?"
You can't live without electricity in St. Paul. It's illegal. Along with other essential "facilities" — fresh water and a few sinks, a toilet and sewage service, and a modern heat source — every residential dwelling in St. Paul must have electricity.
"This is not rural Minnesota where you can have a corncob stove in the back yard," Council President Kathy Lantry said in an interview. "People today want electricity, and they'll find a way to get it. It's our job to make sure it's safe."
If someone wants to live "off the grid," he can, as long as an inspector signs off on the set-up. But that's hardly the norm.
Extension cords strung between houses, poison-emitting gas stoves used to heat entire homes and other makeshift solutions are all-too-common sights for city inspectors when they discover someone has been living without utility service. Such fixes are dangerous, not only to the occupants but also their neighbors, city officials say.
Few other municipalities have enforcement as strict as St. Paul, and it's unclear how the economy is affecting utility customers elsewhere. Despite St. Paul's quadrupling shutoff rate, disconnections are actually down about 2.7 percent statewide, according to Xcel's figures. Utility officials suspect numerous shutoffs have been avoided so far by an influx of government funds, including the federal Low-Income Heating Assistance Program and the economic-stimulus tax-rebate checks.
Unlike other municipalities in Xcel's service, St. Paul receives weekly reports from the utility on homes where power has been shut off and not restored for 30 days. The city immediately sends out an inspector. If the home is occupied, the inspector condemns the place and tells the occupants to move out.

1:16 PM  
Anonymous story continued said...

"It's sad," said Bob Kessler, who heads the city's Department of Safety and Inspections, whose inspectors inform people they can no longer live in their homes. "We try to find them a charity to help pay the bills or maybe a place to stay, but in this economy, there are some people who just can't pay."
If the inspector finds the home empty, he or she recommends it for the vacant-housing list.
Bonnie Mae Gear's place was empty. The vacancy notice was the first Gear knew there was a problem with the house she owns at 1301 E. Minnehaha Ave. She lives in Vadnais Heights and had rented the home to a woman for seven years.
The tenant moved out without telling Gear. But she did tell Xcel to kill the power.
Xcel generally doesn't track down the owner of a home before disconnecting electricity. Patrick Boland, manager of credit policy and compliance, said sorting through ownership papers can be complicated, especially in today's environment, where overseas financial institutions often have an interest.
"Generally, the resider is responsible for paying," Boland said.
So Gear was never told, until the city tracked her down to tell her the house was scheduled to be placed on the city's official vacancy list.

Being on the vacant-housing list in St. Paul kicks in a host of fees and building-code rules that would otherwise not be a problem for older homes built under different building codes. Among other small problems with Gear's house, inspectors said the porch needed railings and the door needed a new screen. Meanwhile, the place couldn't be rented, they said.
Gear pleaded her case before the City Council, showing photos of the clean interior, including new windows and carpeting and a refinished bathroom with a new toilet.
"Why did this have to happen?" she said.
In the end, technically, the system worked for both Gear and Pearson after they made the trip to City Hall and testified. Council members voted to give Pearson more time to work out a payment plan with Xcel, and Gear was afforded a chance for an immediate inspection to avoid being placed on the vacant-housing list.
Lantry, who presides over such council proceedings, said later it may have seemed obvious that Gear's home should not have been caught up in a bureaucratic machine designed to avoid unsafe or unsanitary housing, but the city must enforce its rules.
"We don't have the luxury of saying, 'This person's a reasonable person,' " Lantry said. "We can't show favoritism and subjectivity. This system is the only way the city can protect its residents and its property

1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have ya had enough of the damn "vicitms" yet Eric?

3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of this is years old. I think the city has cleaned up it's act and everything is fine now.

5:27 PM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

5:27, either you are intentionally lying, or you are misinformed.

5:45 PM  
Anonymous les lucht said...

they're selling off the property and i tell the cops that but all they do is threaten me and etc.

8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... 3:02 PM
Have ya had enough of the damn "vicitms" yet Eric?

Eric is the person that makes people Victims of Crimes by this city in its "St. Paul victims of DFL code enforcement."

2:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home