Custom Search

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Saint Paul/ Property investors pressured by police to evict law abiding citizens.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

201 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

This isn't the first time I told a story here like the one I am about to tell.

Today I was contacted by some very good people who invest in rental properties, Ron and Dianne Staley. Like many of you, they don't post here they lurk. They have a duplex on the West Side of Saint Paul that was fully rented. Not anymore!

Here is the story. A male teen living downstairs with his parents was dating a teen female living in the upstairs unit with her parents. The male teen tenant from downstairs has confessed to stealing checks from a resident upstairs. So the police are involved.

Sgt. Connie Bennet of the Saint Paul police department informs the tenants living upstairs that the tenants downstairs below them are dangerous and have a long criminal history. The tenants upstairs were so fearful they moved out promptly leaving behind an apartment they had paid rent for.

Ron and Dianne get a very perturbed phone call from Sgt.Connie Bennet demanding they evict the entire family from the downstairs unit. The officer was demanding of what type of rental screening criteria they use. She went on to inform Dianne and Ron with information concerning the past of their tenants residing downstairs in an attempt to convince them they should be evicted and thrown out on the street for the crime of a single member of their family.

All you regulars know how I feel about this. I believe in individual responsibility. This teen who stole the checks needs to be held accountable. Nobody else! Although his family members who he reside with may have a criminal history they should not be punished for the actions of a single member of their family.
Dianne and Ron should not be subject to financial loss over this kids criminal actions.

I know there is those of you in local government who believe you can bend the rules in an attempt to circumvent civil right when you deem a citizen undesirable. You justify in your minds you are good and these people you transgress against are bad they do not share in the civil rights you believe you deserve.

Well you are wrong! All of you who behold these beliefs are criminals. You have become what you despise.

This shouldn't surprise anyone, THE FAMILY IS BLACK.

10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well suprise suprise! While I was reading the story I was thinking in the back of my head that the family must be African American. The city has a campaign going to get rid of them as most people who rent to low income renters already know. Nothing discriminatory here huh Eric? This is your cur by the way to hop on in here and tell us how the family should go to Human Rights, Legal Aid and all these other sham orgamizations that just give lip service to these types of matters.

11:09 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Must be Old Timers folks. I forgot to mention.

A complaint was filed with Don Luna the liaison to the police department. What a joke, Luna was one of Kelly's clowns.

A complaint was also filed with the mayors office. Like this complaint will go any place either. However, it is now a matter of public record.

11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Bob, Bob...

The upstairs tenants moved out because they were robbed by the downstairs tenant.

They were robbed Bob. What in the Hell did you expect them to do after they were robbed? If the owners of the duplex isn't going to do anything to make sure the building is safe you get the F out of there to protect yourself and your family and your belongings.

AND IN YOUR WORLD THAT IS THE CITY'S FAULT.

This landlord isn't going to do shit to make sure the building he owns is safe. He won't evict the people who rob from his good tenants and is pissed at the cops for letting the good tenant know that its the downstairs tenant that robbed them!!!!

Bob, I worked in corrections I believe in rehabilitation but these people you are defending JUST ROBBED THE UPSTAIRS NEIGHBOR!!
This isn't about rehabilitation and redemtion this is about consequences for current behavior.

If the owners had either any class or brains they would have given them the eviction notice as soon as it was learned it was one of them that robbed someone who was renting from them.

I don't know about you Bob. Do you realy expect the upstairs neighbor to live above the people that robbed them.

Not on this planet.

What rights do the upstairs residents have Bob? None? They have to leave to protect themselves from these crooks because you think check theft is OK.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:43 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
Bob, I worked in corrections I believe in rehabilitation but these people you are defending JUST ROBBED THE UPSTAIRS NEIGHBOR!!
This isn't about rehabilitation and redemtion this is about consequences for current behavior.

My response;
"these people" Chuck? WRONG, a single individual from downstairs stole checks from a resident upstairs. Nobody was ROBBED! The terminology you use suggest violence Chuck. But then you intended it to.

Chuck, you are hypocritical. You defended "code enforcement gestapo Dawkins" right to support an extremely dangerous ex criminal publicly lving in Saint Paul. Mind you this ex criminal was complicit in murder and planting car bombs under police cars, and yet because some members of this family in question have a PAST CRIMINAL history they aren't good enough and should pay for the violation of law a single family member committed.

I almost forgot Dawkins acceptable model of an ex criminal is white, wealthy, and a big player in the DFL party. This family is black low income and deemed by you and like minded folks undesirable.

12:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical city operation. Take the law into their own hands. Judge, Jury and executioner.

There is a real lack of fair play and common sense by these dandys.

12:14 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

What rights do the upstairs residents have Bob? None? They have to leave to protect themselves from these crooks because you think check theft is OK.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

My response;
Spinning the merry go round Chuck in hopes of getting the readers dizzy. Sorry I have to slow your momentum down Chuck, I don't want folks to get sick.

Show us where I said stealing checks was OK.

What I said, (quote) "All you regulars know how I feel about this. I believe in individual responsibility. This teen who stole the checks needs to be held accountable. Nobody else!"

12:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Bob, think a second.

You live upstairs from this family someone steals checks and writes them for $500, $1,000 whatever.

You are violated you want to break this jerks neck.

If he is a teenager as you say, he is coming home Bob. Worse case he is doing 6 months in Red Wing and then he is coming home, and home is right underneath you.

There is no way you are going to tollarate living above this jerk who took your checks Bob.

And Bob, I am pretty sure I know the Staley's and I would say the same thing to their face. You can not be so low as to not take action to support the law abiding tenant that had the right to quiet enjoyment of their unit when they rented it. The downstairs tenant violated that right.

I don't care if the parents are excrooks or not...they are the people that rented a unit that one of the tenents violated the rights of the other tenent upstairs. If they are not evicted they are letting the kid back in or if I lived upstairs I am assuming they will.

Back to Sara...who I have never met. She was an EX crimminal Bob. Dawkins would argue she should to community service work for her crime that occured twenty years ago...

You think she should rot in jail for a crime that occured 20 years ago and that the people who have just had their home violated by this thief should suck it up and take it because it might hurt the Staley's rental income if they moved out.

Piss on the victim that had there right violated because the most important thing is the Staley's making as much money as they can.

Ron, Diane... show some class give these folks a learning experience, let them know that it is not ok to steal from your other tenents. Tell them that you actually expect them to not hurt your other tenents.

Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers Past Present Or Future

Chuck Repke

12:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"
What rights do the upstairs residents have Bob? None? They have to leave to protect themselves from these crooks because you think check theft is OK"

The tenants have the right to expect the government to do its job Repke. That means the gy that did the robbery goes to jail. Got it? Not in St. Paul though because the crooks that run the government identify with the thugs that roib people, so the bad guys walk free and the city blames it on the landlord. The burglar belongs in jail.....period.

As far as the cops go I find it odd that they won't tell the landlord jack shit about who he may be wanting to rent to but they can drive out to someones house and tell them all about the tenant. Sorry Chuck but the blame goes to your side on this one.

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She was an "Ex Criminal" Chuck? Excuse me but she was a fugitive from justice for the pete sake. She was involved in a bank hiest where someone was murdered and she was on the lame and when she was caught, her attitude and demenor suggested to everyone that she wasn't a bit sorry. How dare we law abiding people want her to answer for her crimes.

12:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These two were not strangers. They were dating and it's a he said she said. Sure maybe he wrote some checks but how do we know that is wasn't with the other parties OK? How many times have you seen couples get mad at each other and then try to manipulate the facts to be something else so they can be one up on the other one?

12:58 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I have a lot to say about your comments Chuck. But right now I am preparing a fest. I didn't eat today and I busted my ass!

If I'm not falling asleep by the time I'm done eating I'll throw my opinion out here. OR, you can count on me commenting in the morning before work.

I am asking everyone not to mention Sara's last name here. I didn't want to bring her name up period and was trying to make my point without any further embarrassment to Sara and her family. She served her time and has a right to live here just like the ex criminals of this family I speak of here.

I am merely showing the double standard that exist in the fruited minds of some past and present city officials.

12:59 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Bob,you mentioned that this thief who stole checks was a teen.

Chances are, the teen is listed as a person on the lease and his parents are heads of household.

I am almost sure that the lease stipulates that situations like this will result in eviction anyways. However, the landlord has discretion.

This teen thief will either be put in jail someday soon, fosterhome, boys town or Lino Lakes Correctional facility. Wait, I myself was in there as a juvenile so I know all about it. I also grew up in the town.

Parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children and teens in some circumstances.

We do have some laws on the books that currentley make parents responcible for their teens bad behavior.

Parents can be held accountable for not getting their kids to school etc. Want more examples,I would be happy to provide them.

It would be fair to assume that this teens behavior mimicks one or more of his parents criminal behavior or from bad parenting .

I would say that the landlords should use their discretion here when considering eviction. I believe that most leases permit landlords to have no-fault eviction clauses. Also disguised as month to month leases that can be terminated for any reason.

I would give this family a chance to straighten their kid out, but only one chance.

Is that fair Bob or when do you say enough is enough ?

If these landlords knew about the criminal history when they rented to them, then this family already had their chance.

What did Ron and Dianne end up doing ?

Are they opposed to the police tactic ?

Really, I don't think the police have totally acted out of line here.

Their motto is to protect and serve.

They told the landlords the tenants had a criminal history and were dangerous.

I know people with criminal historys have to live somewhere, but, like a bank can refuse you a loan because your a credit risk, even prospective tenants ruin their chances when they involve themselves in crime and like pedofiles who have to register to their respective communities, it surprises me that other dangerous criminal don't have to report.

I would consider giving a chance, but I just can't support this couple if they neglected to properly screen their tenants in the first place.

I was a caretaker for a landlord manytimes and have personally experienced violent tenants.

My landlord boss threw them out the first time something happened.

I am with the cops on this one.


Jeff Matiatos

12:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I going to agree with Jeff.
We don't know the whole story, but what we know is this:

Checks were stolen by the teen who lives in the building.
There is a past criminal record.
When the victims of the crime were informed there is a criminal background and it appeared the landlords were not going to evict the thief, they moved.

Parents and signers of the lease are certainly responsible for non-adults and even adults who live in the unit.

I don't care what color you are, once a crime is committed, the concern becomes that of the victims and then the rest of society over what color they are.

Am I wiling to believe race and dating the daughter could have played a role? Sure, maybe. But, its secondary to the point that the safety/security of the family upstairs was violated.

The cops apparently solved the crime and let them know that there was a criminal history which, the landlord should've known. The landlord made a calculated decision that renting the unit was more important than the risk of the safety or security of the other tenants.

So, one of their other tenants moved out. It was a bad risk.


Eric

2:20 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

First of all there probably is only a handful of landlord here who wouldn't follow a rental criteria if the city had the "BALLS" to write one up and distribute it to landlords, relieving landlords of the policing powers the city has delegated upon them to violate citizens rights.

Jeff, you have no civil rights to credit. So your analogy comparing a bank denying a person credit based on past history isn't applicable.

*Denying citizens deemed undesirable rental housing-

Who determines the severity of crime needed to evict a renter?
I know a landlord who was asked to evict a tenant some years ago because the police seen a bong in his rental unit. Cars speeding down a residential street and blowing the stop signs are a greater threat to society than somebody toking themselves into a peaceful state of mine. Should we evict dangerous drivers from their homes?

I challenge you fruited minds in local government to come post here and let us know who landlords shouldn't rent to.

Should landlords rent to someone with a year old conviction?
How about 2 years old? Give us a time line. I have shown undeniable evidence here one of our council members doesn't think a 5 year old convicted ex criminal has a right to housing in Saint Paul.

What kinds of crimes would fit the rental criteria of who landlords should or shouldn't rent to?

The movers and shakers of our city won't write ordinance that blatantly violate civil rights. They would be setting themselves up for a law suit if they give us a criteria. So they use these back door methods of meeting their objectives and who pays for it? INNOCENT people. And soon the tax payers will be with the pending lawsuits.

These crimes that bring the quality of life down in a neighborhood must be dealt with. However, they should be dealt with in a responsible manner that doesn't effect innocent people and violate rights.

This kid can get a lot more than 6 months Chuck. You are deceiving folks again. If family court deems this kid is in a bad environment he could end up in a program that can hold him up to a year. And foster homed after his release. You know this.

We do not need to continue on the present coarse that is fueling so much disdain for local government. Criminals need to be held personaly responsibile. We need strick laws that send a message to criminals that if you commit a housing related crime the punishment will be more severe.

Chuck, I have lived next to neighbors from hell more than once. People who had shoot outs with the cops when they were raided. People who told the police I was selling drugs so they could cover for traffic they were bringing to the rental building I was residing in. All kinds of shit has happened to me because I am confrontational and speak my mind and I don't care who you are. I've had my cars vandelized numerous times for bullying wangsters. I had severed dogs feet in my mail box put there by some dumb ass who attempted to burgalrize my apartment and he met my rotweiler. This jerk through bleech in my dogs eyes and stabbed him in the nose, he still didn't get through the door. He threaten to kill my ole lady because she confronted him about burgalizing everyone in the building and attempting to burg us and hurting our dog. I blamed my landlord at first and was very angry he wouldn't evict the guy. When I calmed down and rationalized the situation I stuck with my values and wanted this guy held responsible. I sided with my landlords decesion not to evict him unless we could get him convicted of a crime.

Jeff you are a smart legal beagle, what happened? You throw out "due process of law" when it is convinent to your belief system?

8:49 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

My dog, after the attempted burglary, didn't go after this assholes wife or kid, but, when my dog seen this burglar in the backyard he charged him with a viciousness I have never seen in my dog. I commanded my dog to stop and my dog stopped dead in his tracks from a full charge he turned slowly to walk back to me, looking back at the burglar showing his teeth to this asshole. My dog knew who was responsible and who should pay. It's a damn shame some folks aren't as smart as my dog.

9:27 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Bob, you have advocated for landlords ever since I've known you. What lurking landlord reading hear is going to support you on this one, if only because when a landlord rents, they know that first and foremost, screening tenants is the " Most Important " first duty of a landlord before they let somebody in to rent.

How many landlords have been sued because they rented to a criminal that molested or physically harmed an innocent tenant and the landlord never did a criminal background check ?

The city requires criminal backgroud checks. Correct me if I am wrong, and if in this case one was not done, then the Staleys have violated the law.

If the Staleys did, then the cops can say well then this is just the kind of landlords were dealing with and the Staleys building and properties will probably be on some sort of police hot sheet for trouble.

The police will inform the city code people that the Staleys have violated the law and an administrative action may be taken against them for not conducting criminal background checks.

Sure, the cops and city cannot tell landlords who they can rent to, but at a minimum, they expect landlords to at least check them out.

I don't like code anymore than you do Bob, but, citizens first line of defence to feeling safe and secure in the city is the safety of their home.

Landlords sometimes go out on a limb renting to those who they know have a criminal history because they have some sort of compassion.

Would you propose granting immunity from prosecution to landlords who rent to dangerous criminals then ?

I notice Bob you won't give credit in support of the police by the fact that the police went out of their way to notify the Staleys tenants about the very questionable tenants downstairs with a criminal and dangerous history, you continue to interpret the police notification as a threat.

Hell, I wonder if the Staleys ever thought that part of being a landlord meant checking out it's tenants for criminal and financial background concerns ?

It's just the way it's done in the rental buisness.

If the cops hadn't informed the Staleys upstairs tenants, then who would have ?

The article here fails to provide it's readers ( like me ) of the specific criminal and dangerous history that these downstairs tenants had.

If I am the landlord, I have first opprotuniy to decide whether applicants will get to live in my building.

I have a duty to ensure the safety of all my tenants.

I dare some landlord to come on here and disagree with me. If they do, I want them to post with their name.

I agree with you that the cops suggestion to evict crossed the line.

A landlord doesn't need to be told when to evict if the landlord has any common sence.

It's a discretionary decision that the landlord will suffer the consequences for if something goes very wrong and gets sued for renting to very questionable tenants.

How have I ignored due process of law ?

Evicting tenants is a landlords function and our courts when called to assist.

The police crossed the line by suggesting eviction but they served by being informative.

It seems the Staleys put rental income before safety.

Hopefully everybody learned something here.




Jeff Matiatos

10:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Cullen has been trying to get an answer as to who landlords should rent to and who they shouldn't rent to for years and no one wants to define it. What I don't hear anyone talking about is a conviction. Sorry but with no conviction the family stays unless all you forward thinkers want to start judging everyone on mere hearsay alone.

10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:12 I think there was a pretty simple answer here...

I know you had problems in the past, so, I am giving you a break, but if anything happens from your unit I'm kicking your butt out.

How about that one?

I believe in second chances.

I think it would be insane to have a policy that says no one should rent to ex-offenders, but I have no problem with putting them on short leashes.

Look I agree with landlords that it is to hard to evict as it is.

Bob - Jeff agrees with me for Pete's sake! Jeff never agrees with me! If that doesn't convince you that you are wrong, well then you're hopeless.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children.

Tenants who sign the lease are responsible for the damage they do, or their guest do.

Landlords are ultimately responsible for the safety and condition of the building.

In your story:
"The male teen tenant from downstairs has confessed to stealing checks from a resident upstairs"

So, the 'due process' you ask about is there. The lower unit resident confessed to stealing checks.

He's guilty not just of theft, but going into someone's home and stealing.
--
"Sgt. Connie Bennet of the Saint Paul police department informs the tenants living upstairs that the tenants downstairs below them are dangerous and have a long criminal history."

Again, according to your story as told to you by the landlords, the police informed the VICTIMS that the tenants were DANGEROUS and habitual criminals.

That's not just the teen. That's more than one tenant and dangerous is not check stealing.

The landlords did nothing. They wanted the money and didn't care about the safety of the other tenants (sounds familiar?).

What would anyone do? This isn't some multi-plex, its a duplex and they have to see and almost interact with the criminal family everyday.

How could you ever leave your home an think everything was safe? How do you go to work all day knowing that thieves and criminals and living below you? How do you go on vacation with the family? What about church? What about their daughter being involved with a family the police thought to be dangerous? Should they have waited to be violated again from the family below, or wait until they prove themselves to be dangerous?

They left. It was the smart and safe thing to do. The landlords are scum for not tossing out the lower level tenants. You break the law on the rental property, you lease is over and you're out.

You've go some strange logic here Bob. You definition of 'very good people' seems to very loose.

Is there ever a time you think the landlord is responsible or accountable?


Eric

10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd say once the violate the safety and property of OTHER tenants, then its time to go.

Eric

10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Eric the shit bag hows your budy Barrack doing now?Have you checked his ratings lately you wind bag?!





Randy

6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I have Randy.
They are still 20 points higher than Congress and 30 points higher than any Republican leader.

Anything else you bag o' poop?
No? Well, stick to the subject at hand.

Eric

6:18 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Many citizens are wlling to allow government to violate a certain class of citizens rights in the name of "false security". I say false security because if this family is as dangerous as the cop says, then the city is attempting to spread the cancer of crime to another neighborhood, just as they have many times in the past. Maybe this family will be evicted and move near Jeff, or you Eric, we all know criminally inclined citizens are migrating to the Meth (West) End in large numbers. So expect some more classy neighbors near your rental property Chuck.

Today it is those deemed undesirables rights violated, tomorrow it will be yours.

What happen to "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"? Time served you have a clean start? There is no law on the books that makes citizens who aren't involved in crime responsible for others transgressions. Be it a stranger or a family member.

All that being said, MOST landlords do screen their tenants. A smart business man doesn't need the hassles that come with renting to irresponsible people. They trash the units, they have poor social skills and do not get along with their neighbors. I didn't like living next to neighbors from hell. """That was my choice""". The rent was cheap and to me it was worth putting up with the shit.

I don't care what policy's the city adopts there will ALWAYS BE AN UNDERCLASS. ALWAYS! Banning them from housing will not prevent crime. The criminals will be here living under the roofs of citizens who have no criminal histories. They will still be committing crime as they are being chased from one home to another.

I'm still waiting for that rental criteria. I won't hold my breath.

9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then you become a landlord Bob and you rent to them.
There is a difference of living next door to them and actually living in the same building.
You admit yourself that for money " The rent was cheap ", people like yourself and others shouldn't mind living on top of dangerous neighbors.
No thanks, I can find market rate living and feel safe elseware.
So why did the Staleys rent to these people ?
Because like the RICO landlords, they rented to scum and the type of people you would live next door to Bob. You even admitted it yourself.
You really shot yourself in the foot with this post.

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob said:

What happen to "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"? Time served you have a clean start? There is no law on the books that makes citizens who aren't involved in crime responsible for others transgressions. Be it a stranger or a family member.

Bob you said the teenager confessed to it. He did it right? That takes care of your first issue. The second is simple, he was one of the tenants downstairs and he destroyed the quiet enjoyment of the tenant upstairs any landlord worth anything would have booted the downstairs leasee out to protect the rights of the upstairs leasee. Not because of any law or regulation but because it is the right thing to do the fair thing to do and the humane thing to do.

To do anything else is to support the crimminal action. It is to send a message to the upstairs tenent that nobody give a shit about you.

But then again that has been your point for a long time Bob.

Support the crappy landlords and criminal thugs.

And, Bob I have rented to people with a past. I make it clear that I don't take any shit and they respect it if you live up to it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:38 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

9:07, I have given folks here a perspective they may have never considered. A well learned educated perceptive.

Tells us what you think about spreading crime around through a FAILED housing policy?

I say failed because there is proof the attack on affordable housing has not deterred crime. All over the country crime has declined except in Saint Paul Minnesota. That isn't my statistics that is the FBI's. I posted the articles here some months ago.

I suppose you believe that someday crime will just cease to exist because criminals will have no place to live. Frankly you would have to be STUPID to believe that.

I am sure since cave man days, man has been transgressing against each other.

Using the Monopoly game as an example. What is wrong with having the Baltic and Mediterranean properties in the city? That side of town where you go if financial means are troubling. A place where one of minor stature can find affordable housing.

9:46 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said, in response to my staement "What happened to Innocent until proven Guilty"
Bob you said the teenager confessed to it. He did it right? That takes care of your first issue.

My response;
Chuck, the kids family who is being threatened by the city to have the landlords evict them haven't done ANYTHING.

There is a legal simple solution that wouldn't violate anyones rights in this circumstance.

The cop should have said to the upstairs tenants. "Get a restraining order against the check theft". The rest of this kids family would have probably moved just to stay together.

9:53 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
To do anything else is to support the crimminal action. It is to send a message to the upstairs tenent that nobody give a shit about you.

But then again that has been your point for a long time Bob.

Support the crappy landlords and criminal thugs.

My response;
Chuck, I have done nothing but advocate stiffer penalties for criminals and you know it. I believe I mentioned it twice in this thread.

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

I promised myself to stay out of this blog, but this thread is one of my hot buttons. What is the screening obligation of landlords?

Jeff M said: The city requires criminal background checks.

Not through code, but they do through actions. I have asked city officials for years to tell landlords who they believe should not be eligible for housing. For the record, none of them will answer the question. I even offered to pay $1,000 for the information – still no answer. I believe the city could fix many problems if they required strict screening criteria. I promise to publicly support any attempt to create a city wide rental criteria. But, it will never happen. Why is that?

My favorite quote, as usual, comes from Eric: Again, according to your story as told to you by the landlords, the police informed the VICTIMS that the tenants were DANGEROUS and habitual criminals.

If the tenants are so bad, why don’t the police put them in jail? If the police won’t protect us, then, Eric, you have two choices: 1) declare that families St. Paul police claim are “dangerous” should not be eligible for housing or 2) agree that free people deserve housing.

Do I understand this right? Eric and Jeff both believe that some families – who are free – do not deserve housing?

Incredible. shocking.

Bill Cullen

10:21 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Thank you Bill for joining us.

10:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob and Bill,

If you take it upon yourself to provide housing to those who are active in criminal activity, expect the city, neighbors and your own other tenants to come down on you.

There is no uniform standard of whom to rent. Its a discretion that's left to the landlord but, there are consequences, re-read the first paragraph.

Bill,it's not my damn job to worry about where people with criminal backgrounds live. There are people who are trying to do the right thing everyday that can't afford a place to live or are given a second chance. You see these people as potential exploits to make money off of so you take the risk, a small risk as you don't live anywhere near where they would be. You're full of shit.

The tenants upstairs were the victims here. They were looking for cheap rent and shouldn't mean they have to be victims of crime. Its classicist and racist to equate poor or low-income with crime. So what, they should accept it?

The cops absolutely did their job in informing the victims of the trash living below them. The upstairs tenants were informed of the criminal history and they left. Free people exercising their right.

Bill and Bob,

This ridiculous defense of these irresponsible, disingenuous landlords is exactly why no one supports your cause. You're apologists for slumlords. Period. They can never do any wrong.

11:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob you're twisted logic is blowing my mind.

You really don't think the parents should be accountable for their son because the son didn't sign the lease, the parents did?

So, instead of stealing from other tenants, what if the kid kicked the walls out of the unit his parents were renting.

Would you support the parents in getting their complete security deposit back? Afterall, they can't be blamed for something the kid did, right?

Eric
(I also wrote the above unsigned 11:10 comment)

11:14 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric said;
Bob you're twisted logic is blowing my mind.

My response;
My twisted logic? You mean proposing stiffer penalties for crime that is related to housing?
OR, is it I expect citizens to be individually held accountable for their actions? Nothing twisted here and I'm sure the readers get where I am coming from.

Sure parents are responsible for minor children under 18. That doesn't include circumventing due process of law and punishing this entire family for a single family members actions and evicting them to the street.

I think you, Chuck, and Jeff are twisted on this issue.

12:06 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Eric,

You wrote “If you take it upon yourself to provide housing to those who are active in criminal activity, expect the city, neighbors and your own other tenants to come down on you.”

If they are really criminals, the police would put them in jail. You are talking about people you SUSPECT are criminals. Just say it. You think some free families don’t deserve housing and that St. Paul should “come down on” any housing provider that violates your judgment. Come on, admit it.

I see three housing options:

1) Put criminals in jail.
2) Everyone else has a right to housing.
3) Everyone else has a right to housing except those the city, neighborhoods and Eric suspect are criminals.

I support one and two. Eric is clearly advocating for three (and maybe one).

Shocking. Really shocking.

Bill Cullen.

P.S. I seldom rent to people with a criminal background and if I was in this situation I would absolutely terminate or evict the tenant. I am free to make that business decision and I am comfortable with it. My anger is when Eric, Jeff and the city play God with who deserves housing. We should all be angry.

12:10 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Well Bill, Bob and everyone else. Here is some interesting news.

The city of West St.Paul in cooperation with it's police dept. requires background checks on all buisnesses and owners that are licensed in the city.

For all new rental license applicants, a background check is required. City code 1005.05 Sub 5.

This code doesn't require that the background check be applied to tenants but I'am getting closer to finding the truth.

I would beg to differ with you Bill, because background checks are indeed in the code and therefore code will enforce it.

Could you elaborate further Bill on your comment about your saying Eric and I believe some familys don't deserve housing ?

Oh, you must be talking about the black family in this post.

Well, I stand by what I have said and race has nothing to do with it.

I sum up my opinion by concluding that landlords should always conduct criminal background checks when appropriate. Do employment and rental history follow ups.

TALK to previous landlords about the prospective tenant.

I told you Bob that I thought the cop should not have even used the words eviction.

I told you I believed in second chances but you seem to think that parents shouldn't be responcible for their childrens actions.

True, the parents didn't steal the checks, but, their lease is a standard lease that says they can be asked to move within 30 days under certain conditions and at the landlords discretion. Right Bill ?

I would like to see Bob get this downstairs family to post here.

These people are well aware of not only their sons bad habits, but their own and when they are asked to leave, they know why and they just move on.

They accept this fate because their past dangerous and criminal record is like 666 on their forehead and it's an unfortunate reality that only they brought upon themselves.

Had their son not fucked up, the spot light would not be so bright and the cops would never have gotton involved.

I do hope this downstairs family gets it all worked out.

I don't care what other people say about you Bob either. I still think your ok




Jeff Matiatos

12:21 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Bill, the cops called the Staleys and told them these downstairs people were dangerous and had a criminal history.

What about that did Eric or I fabricate ?

Give me the names of this downstairs family and I will post their criminal and dangerous history and put you and Bob to bed.

If they have no history, then the cops are full of shit and I will side with you





Jeff Matiatos

12:28 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Well thank you Jeff. If someone wasn't talking about me then I guess I didn't make my point. :)

If you will read my comments again you will see I agree parents are responsible for minor children under 18. As I stated over and over, I just do not believe that evicting this family is the answer. Are we assuning when this kid stole the checks his family was high 5 ing him and saying good job?

Arresting and convicting criminals is the answer. I don't care for this 13th century witch hunt bullshit. Why don't we just burn all the undesirables at the stake?

Also, the "tenants remedies act" has become a freckin sham. The word on the street is if you don't have your rent you can screw your landlord with this law.

12:39 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Jeff it doesn't matter if they have a history. Only one member of the family has admitted to committing a crime.

We may as well agree to disagree because it is obvious you, Chuck and Eric grew up in a home where your parents punished all the siblings when one violated a rule.

12:49 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Jeff,

I am not arguing the tenants in question are or are not criminals. My argument is simple: Free families deserve housing, criminals deserve jail. Your argument is that St. Paul should force some free families to lose their housing. Why? Do you think the tenant should be homeless or they should just move in the house next door? Precisely what do you think is the result?

If the kid is a criminal; put him in jail. If not, he deserves housing. Why do you and Eric want to punish anyone who provides him with housing?

Bill Cullen.

12:49 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

But " This " family has a dangerous criminal history that requires re-evaluation.

Now we don't know what that is and the posting isn't that clear.

The cops could be full of shit and or trumping up what little there is against these adults.

If you don't believe that this familys history ( if true ) doesn't require re-evaluation, then you just wouldn't make a good landlord and don't seem to give a rats about the other tenants.

Did I say rats ? I didn't mean to offend the rico guys. Just kidding.
I am on their side.

I am sure Eric and Chuck will be ammused though.

Anyways, the cities philosophy about tenant eviction is similar to that in the case where PHA conducts no-fault evictions upheld by our Supreme Court.

You see Bob, the City and State gravitate on cases like this as a means of bullying it's citizens.

There is a small number of cases that have worked against government like Morris / Sax.

But, in a way, no-fault evictions have been in rental leases for many many years.

It's called a month to month lease.

Kind of like when a person is asked to retire so they don't have to be fired in order to save the reputation of the company.

When it's discovered that your not the renter you claimed you were, I involk the 30 days notice clause and don't have to evict and I got your damage deposit and can get you out with a writ of recovery withing 3 days if you want to F with me.

Your couch and bed will be in the street. I might just keep all your electronics.

Anybody looking for a landlord I am your man.





Jeff Matiatos

1:08 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

When you rent from me, I get first and last months rent plus a damage deposit. LOTS of your money.

When your not the tenant I thought you were and did not disclose any criminal history I require to be disclosed etc, you have broken the contract and I have you.

I put an add in the paper for a vacancy then throw you out.

Offer the new tenants a sweet first month deal to get a quick re-rent and I make sure your stuff is out.

Then the tenant takes me to court to re-claim their money and claim wrongful eviction.

I show the court that the tenant signed a month to month no-fault lease and as long as I didn't discriminate ( Eric hold on to your hat ) then I am in the clear and the judge will rule against the tenant.

I can recover my court costs through their wages. Less any child support owed.


Anymore questions ?




Jeff Matiatos

1:44 AM  
Anonymous jeff matiatos asked said...

What is a free family ?

Jeff Matiatos

2:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My anger is when Eric, Jeff and the city play God with who deserves housing. We should all be angry."

My anger is when the Police refuse for whatever reason to do their job and instead push it off onto innocent 3rd parties and there's no one that says anything about it. Just stick it to these owners cause they're small fish and most of society hates them cause they're landlords and probably envious because they have some sucess so they are an easy target. Get a conviction and put them in jail or shut up. We had this mentality a couple hundred years ago when they had witch hunts.

2:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" would beg to differ with you Bill, because background checks are indeed in the code and therefore code will enforce it."

Where specifically in Chapter 34 of the city code does it say a background check is required? I think you're wrong.

2:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting that Jeff is willing to just take the word of a St. Paul cop in a city where there is an active agenda going on to force some blacks out of the city using fabricated violations and force owners to sell their businees.

2:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 1:44

Are you freaking nuts or what? You have no clue as to the reality of the eviction process and what you can and can't do in court with regards to a renter.

I'll bet you'd be a real piece of work to rent from.

2:18 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Check the West St.Paul code 1005.05subdivision 5.

Did I mention chapter 34 ? I think I didn't, and you better get to bed.

I think stated in effect that this cop could be trumping up the facts didn't I.


Now go to bed dammit !!!!


Jeff Matiatos

2:22 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

2:18,

You sound like you have lost lots of cases in eviction court.

I have worked for landlords who have never lost an eviction case.

I know all about the process and i challange you to show me just where in my statements about how the process works is inaccurate.

If it was, then it's only because I do things other landlords don't know of and attorneys haven't figured out.

Yes, I am a piece of work.

Your a piece of #@%$&*&*&%^ .

Oh my insomnia is getting to me.
Please forgive me !!!!!!!!!

I wonder if Michael jackson has any left over diprovan ? Did i spell that white ?





Jeff Matiatos

2:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The tenant never ever takes the landlord to court to reclaim possession you idiot because you can't ever get them out without YOU taking THEM to court. And as far as first and last motnhs rent plus a deposit, I am wondering what planet you live on. It's certainly not here. You sound like a college boy fresh out of school with the indoctrinated assumption that your thearetical view of everything works in relaity when it doesn't. You'll find out and good luck on that investment of yours. Let us know how it's working out for you in a year or so.

6:21 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

YOU SAID :

" A tenant never takes the landlord to court to reclaim possesion you idiot because you can't ever get them out without YOU taking them to court ".

I SAID :

" The tenant takes me to court to re-claim their money and wrongful eviction ".

( ie. the tenant files a counter claim ). The tenant can do this and raise the defence of a constructive eviction.

See: Engelsma limited Partnership vs. Jeffrey Wayne Danielson Minnesota Court of Appeals A05-2538Dakota County District Court

Now where in my statement fool, did I say the tenant wanted to
" reclaim possesion " ?

The tenant has a right to argue that I have wrongfully evicted him therefore the court should either rule wrongful eviction with damages allowed by law and allow me to remain, or rule for the landlord and require the landlord to release any moneys they claimed are owed from either the deposit or first and last months rent that the landlord has of theirs plus or minus any moneys that can be kept by the landlord for damages.

You must be the Jack that also said I was talking about chapter 34of the city code.

Can't you ever think outside the box ?

Jeff Matiatos

8:14 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

If a court finds the landlords actions were not legal, then the judge restores the tenant back to the same place he was if thats what the tenant demands .

This may sound like a reclaiming of possesion but it's really just the judge reversing the adverse action of the landlord. I never said " reclaim possesion " though.

But, you being the smarter one than I, should be familiar with the various defences raised by tenants.

No doubt you have been on the losing end of tenant defences many times.

Jeff Matiatos

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill - Bob

This case is not about if people with past histories should be allowed to rent of course they should.

This case is about a family having checks stolen from them by someone who lives in the unit downstairs and the landlord doing NOTHING to come to their aid or assistance by assuring them that he tries to run a safe building.

And, then when the police tries to explain to the landlord that this is a troubled family and that this kid ripping off the upstairs tenant is an issue that they could evict them for... the landlord view this as the city wanting them to kick out the "black" family.

Sorry, the cops were trying to tell you that the responsible thing to do when person in a unit steals from a person in the other unit is to kick out the people in the unit who committed the crime.

It is being civil.

It is supporting the family that had a crime done to them.

As I said in an earlier someone stealing checks isn't going to get more than 6 months in jail. That is just a fact. What is also a fact is that we in the USA lock up people for longer sentences than anywhere else on the planet. So, you can say that they should lock someone up for twenty years for stealing a purse, but it ain't happening.

So, booting someone out because they were uncivil is a reasonable response to the crime that occurred and will actually get them thinking about their actions. The problem with law breakers is that there is enough of them that they develop a culture that says it is OK to steal, sell drugs, etc...

It is breaking that culture and bringing home the notion that you have offended your neighbors and hurt a real person that will have a bigger impact on crime.

When I worked in corrections I have seen thousands of guys who have said, I can do 5 years standing on my head, but would have felt the impact of their crime much more if their mother had to move because they had brought shame on the family.

I mean having your mother have to move because you are a damn little sneak thief means something... what's 6 months in Red Wing?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:48 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

This case " is " about whether or not a family should be evicted because the Staleys were made aware of new information that the downstairs family had a criminal history and were dangerous.

The stolen checks adds fuel to the fire.

The Staleys apparently didn't know this and the cops informed them.

Even though the cops info may or may not be true, the Staleys have the next move.

It appears their main concern is about complaining what the cops said about suggesting eviction.

The cop has the same constitutional rights to express their opinion as we do to make a citizens arrest.

The Staleys don't have to do a damn thing, but they run the risk of losing good tenants, a lawsuit, losing the respect and trust of their neighbors if they don't act in the appropriate way.

I have never come right out and said " evict this family ".

Have the Staleys verify the polices investigation and go from there, but don't bash the cops for running a check. Something the Staleys should have done in the first place.

Suggesting eviction is not appropriate for the cops to outright suggest, but be glad they did something.

I would not evict this family unless I discovered information that the downstairs tenants failed to inform me of criminal convictions that would have made my decision to rent to them different.



Are you satisfied now ?

Sound fair Chuck ?




Jeff Matiatos

11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pretty soon St.Paul will require all residents to pass a bckground check or they can't live in the city if they fail.
Well there goes the black population and the problems.

11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Cullen.

P.S. I seldom rent to people with a criminal background and if I was in this situation I would absolutely terminate or evict the tenant. I am free to make that business decision and I am comfortable with it. My anger is when Eric, Jeff and the city play God with who deserves housing. We should all be angry.



Bill,
How dishonest are you? It took me a few posts to realize what you're saying. Its cheap and weak.

Jeff, Chuck or Myself are not advocating the CITY does anything. WHERE do we say the city or even the police should force them out?

This is a choice to be made by the landlord, he holds the agreement. I/we are criticizing the Landlord for the choice he made. I am criticizing him for obviously valuing the the 'rights' of the criminal tenant (yes, the kid is a tenant) over those of the victims.

Do you agree that landlords have a responsibility to their law abiding tenants over their criminal tenants? Or do you feel that those are the breaks of living in the city?


Eric

11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This fires me up for two reasons:

1. There is still underlying racism here.

These apologists, especially Bill Cullen and other anonymous posters, seem to think that by cracking down on criminals and consistent nuisance tenants, the city is trying to remove blacks.

To buy that, you have to think that most blacks are criminals. That would be the only way to tie in the crackdown on criminals and removing of blacks. You have equate one with the other. Racist.

2. Sgt Connie Bennett is working toward removing blacks from St Paul.

The Sgt Connie Bennett I knew, took her free time to run the PALS program for the police department. Helping poor and minority kids and their families in St Paul stay grounded and stable through athletics and other crime prevention after school programs.

I'm sure by informing the family upstairs to be careful of the one downstairs because they a troubled history and the daughter was involved with the son. Running with a bad egg, can have you running with a bad crowd soon enough. She was giving them an opportunity to help their daughter and maybe save more of their possessions.



Eric

11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I forget most of you are reading challenged:

That second statement is the premise on which I debate and pushback on by providing facts around the accused.

Its amazing the way being anonymous encourages people to rip up the reputation of others. The hide their identity so that their reputations can remain in tact.

Its almost criminal.

Eric

11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, Ron and Diane Staeheli own a duplex on Arbor (in that West Seventh Street neighborhood that you call the hot bed of Meth) and a single family home on Charles and a rental in Cottage Grove (as well as the house they live in, in Eagan).

Is this a newer purchase, cause it doesn't show up on IRIS.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

of course they do.
send the family in the lower level to live with them in Eagan.
bill, learn to spell the names of your friends if you're going to vouch for their credibility.

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

That figures, folks from Eagan buy property in St.Paul to cash in on the low cost of housing and they know nothing about being a landlord as far as we can see.

I guess it doesn't matter that you buy property in a neighborhood that has meth written all over it.

These people are in buisness of making money.

You folks get used to owning property in St.Paul because the city doesn't give a shit where your from ( Eagan )if your going to blight the neighborhood and
not care who lives in your property.

You folks better clean up your act.





Jeff Matiatos

1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, what makes this downstairs couple different than those you say you wouldn't evict without a criminal history ?
You won't see Bob or Bill answer Erics post at 11:36 because now Bob and Bill have been learned in the reality of their twisted logic.

2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right jeff. If nobody bought up houses in meth infested neighborhoods, sooner than later the city would be free of the stuff and St.Pauls population and tax base would go from feast to famine in a heart beat.
They don't help themselves by tearing down homes that don't need to be.
It's real simple logic, get rid of the pests and scum and then you have nothing to worry about.
But at least this couple from Eagan are making dough.

2:09 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Busy day so I couldn't respond. But, I just laughed out loud at this 11:37 statement from Eric:

"Jeff, Chuck or Myself are not advocating the CITY does anything. WHERE do we say the city or even the police should force them out?"

The title of this thread "Property investors pressured by police to evict law abiding citizens" is asking if the city should pressure landlords and I thought you disagreed!

If Eric, Chuck and Jeff think the city has no business telling a landlord to remove a tenant than we agree and there is little more to discuss. Landlords should be free to rent to any family they choose without gov't pressure.

Sorry I misunderstood all of you.

Bill Cullen

5:17 PM  
Anonymous jeff Matiatos said...

If I was a landlord, I would not want the city to interfere.

It is against the law for government to interefere with contracts between buisness and the public.

Except of course when you got our government ( U.S.Citizens ) owning 60% of GM, 20% to the UAW, and I forgot about the other 20%.

Government has been trying to manipulate the landlord / tenant relationship forever.

It uses every tool and trick in the book.

Cities intimidate landlords / tenants and citizens enough with code, parking enforcement, theft of citizen motor vehicles, police,
and through members of the city council.

It's an agenda driven society.

I am a landlord kind of guy and I appreciate the good ones who perform a service like renting to poor and building up communities.

I appreciate them especially because they provide houses for which people can enjoy renting, having a yard and having neighbors in a neighborhood type atmosphere.

Now I don't know what a city / landlord partnership would look like, but we need fair and equal representation in city politics by landlords.

PHA has a board made up of PHA tenants, city officials, PHA management.

I said this before, if landlords could " All " get together in some kind of association, they could control the elections because they constantly are in touch with it's citizens.

Every now and then you see that mayor going out to neighborhoods.

I saw Coleman on the east side a couple weeks ago speaking to a group outside a private home..

But the mayor cannot possibly get that close to it's citizens as landlords can.

The landlord can be trusted by his tenants and vise versa if the relationship is good.

We need a landlord mafia of the sorts to move in and grab the spirit of the citizens and to get city politicians to submit to the will of the citizens.

It's not a far fetched idea.




Jeff Matiatos

6:32 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Thats all it was Bill, was a misunderstanding.

We all kind of read the story and gravitated to waht about the story grabbed us the most.

For me it was " How could these investors " not landlords, have let this happened.

I mean not have checked this family out ?

Behavior can be predictable if people would just take the time to do things right.

Makes me think these " investors " are just that and not really landlords.

Shake it off Bill, it's no biggie.


Jeff Matiatos

6:40 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Get all the landlords to gang up and show the city what it's like to be left out.

The city would really like to know what this association of landlords is cooking up for them.

How the landlords are working with the tenants and citizens privatley.

But watch out, the city might say the association is a gang and use the injunction laws to keep the association from meeting.



Jeff Matiatos

6:54 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Bill, what makes this downstairs couple different than those you say you wouldn't evict without a criminal history ?
You won't see Bob or Bill answer Erics post at 11:36 because now Bob and Bill have been learned in the reality of their twisted logic.

2:05 PM

My response;
Eric hasn't schooled anyone that has experience with housing issues. I have over 25 years experience as a handyman and caretaker for low income properties. I have read every current study written concerning housing in Saint Paul over the last 4 years. I host the only blog in the city discussing these issues and I have done this for over 3 years, you don't think I have a valid opinion you need a clue.

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think there are some significant issues people are missing here.

1) Has the teen been convicted yet? What ever happened to innocent
until proven guilty?

2) How is the landlord supposed to stop behavior of the tenants when
those tenants have rights? Until the tenant was proven guilty, the
landlord cannot hope to carry the burden of proof in an eviction, even
if the landlord used a crime free addendum as part of his lease.

3) Is there aiding and abetting on the part of the other unit's
teenager in allowing the first teenager access to the checks? probably
not, but this isn't a standard crime here. It might even be what the
police often refer to as "a civil matter" every time a landlord calls
the police because a tenant has destroyed the landlord's property
(tenant has sole access to property, but because landlord didn't
witness tenant doing damage, no police action taken).

4) What was the landlord supposed to do here: interfere in the
personal relationships of his tenants to make sure that they didn't
commit crimes against each other such as stand and watch to make sure
one tenant didn't take something from another, that the teens didn't
have sexual intercourse (statutory rape), etc?

5) The teen committed the crime. The landlord cannot screen the teens
because they have no legal capacity to consent to have their
backgrounds checked. Unless the teens have prior serious criminal
histories that warrant being charged as adults, the teens' criminal
backgrounds would be unavailable for screening anyway because of the
juvenile laws.

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Now that we all agree gov't shouldn't tell landlords who they should rent to (as Bob initially argued), maybe we should jointly send a letter to Mayor Coleman and the city council asking them to quit pressuring landlords to remove tenants?

A letter from the landlords out here with Eric, Jeff and Chuck signing on. It might have an impact.

Waddya say? How 'bout you Bob?

Bill Cullen.

10:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) Has the teen been convicted yet? What ever happened to innocent
until proven guilty?

Maybe you missed this part in the story as Bob told it:
"The male teen tenant from downstairs has confessed to stealing checks from a resident upstairs. So the police are involved."

No need to prove guilt when guilt is freely admitted.


2) How is the landlord supposed to stop behavior of the tenants when
those tenants have rights? Until the tenant was proven guilty, the
landlord cannot hope to carry the burden of proof in an eviction, even
if the landlord used a crime free addendum as part of his lease.


We are discussing what actions should have happened AFTER the crime took place. After the admission, the landlord had every right to boot the family.

3) Is there aiding and abetting on the part of the other unit's
teenager in allowing the first teenager access to the checks? probably not, but this isn't a standard crime here. It might even be what the police often refer to as "a civil matter" every time a landlord calls the police because a tenant has destroyed the landlord's property (tenant has sole access to property, but because landlord didn't witness tenant doing damage, no police action taken).


There is nothing in the story that indicates the other teen but, feel free to make shit up as you go along. Its s.o.p. for this blog participants.

4) What was the landlord supposed to do here: interfere in the personal relationships of his tenants to make sure that they didn't commit crimes against each other such as stand and watch to make sure one tenant didn't take something rom another, that the teens didn't
have sexual intercourse (statutory rape), etc?


What the hell has the relationship between the teens to do with stealing? Nothing.

One unit had tenants that stole from another unit's tenants. You evict the family with the thief that is making life for your other tenants, unnecessarily cumbersome and unsafe.


5) The teen committed the crime. The landlord cannot screen the teens
because they have no legal capacity to consent to have their
backgrounds checked. Unless the teens have prior serious criminal
histories that warrant being charged as adults, the teens' criminal
backgrounds would be unavailable for screening anyway because of the
juvenile laws.


Which is exactly why parents, or whomever signed the lease are liable for the action of the teen.

Who would be responsible for damage done to the unit by the teen?



Eric

10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jeff, Chuck or Myself are not advocating the CITY does anything. WHERE do we say the city or even the police should force them out?"

More disingenuous Bullshit. Sure you don't say the city should force them out, but your OK with the city making the landlord do it while they hold a gun to his head. Amusing how qick you three are to give up everyone else's rights cause you think you are being inteligent but if it were you who were on the hot seat for the same thing you'd be yelling like crazy

11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe you should find out what your taking about Jeff before you start telling others to clean up their act. I know Ron and Dianne. They used to live in St. Paul and were very active in the neighborhood and city and even continued to be up until the last election when Coleman got elected Mayor. They moved out of the city because they got sick and tired of living in stink from the ethenol plant that the city wouldn't do anything about. Would you like me to go on about how little you know about people before you start trashing them.

11:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob is defending the irresponsible behavior by the landlord and trying to blame the city. Bill is trying to insert his already failed agenda into this. Classic.

Asshat says:
Sure you don't say the city should force them out, but your OK with the city making the landlord do it while they hold a gun to his head. Amusing how qick you three are to give up everyone else's rights cause you think you are being inteligent but if it were you who were on the hot seat for the same thing you'd be yelling like crazy

What are you talking about?
What rights are being violated by throwing out tenants who committed a crime against other tenants?
You don't know me or what I would do. I've already told you what should happen.

Excuse us for trying to be 'inteligent'[sic] but, pulling stuff from your ass seems to not be working well at all.

asshat#2 says:
Would you like me to go on about how little you know about people before you start trashing them.

Like you all are doing with Sgt Bennett? Or me?

Eric

11:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go back to bed Eric. It's late and you are not thinking so straight.

1:43 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

11:12,

Well maybe it would have been better for you if you would have said that about them 20 postings back.

These investors, as the story portrays them, sounds like they could use some pointers about being landlords. That seems to be it as far as their concerned.

The story makes it seem like they gave in to city pressure. Or, couldn't handle it. You did say they were tired of the crap here, well then shouldn't they have taken their investment with them ?

I can only comment on what I see. Now if someone like you comes on and says these people were long time residents then I might just consider that.

However, I stand by my analysis
of the facts as presented by Bob and I have to say that if your in the " Buisness " of renting, you have to resist the efforts by the city to want to interefere.

You have to make tough decisions as a landlord who is legally and ethically responcible for his tenants in a buisness capacity and in return, he is getting paid to do it.

When you become an " investor ", regulation is part of the deal.

Who regulates ? Banks that lend to the landlord to keep up the investment. The city who provides the permits to help assure that the landlord uses his investment loan wisley by getting qualified contractors, the police protect and serve the investment by responding to calls for protection, break ins of the investment, domestics that take place at the investment and so on.

These investors made an all to common mistake, they rented to a family without checking them out.

St.Paul wants investors not just in the form of landlords willing to provide decent sanitary and safe living conditions, but other buisnesses willing to re-locate here to provide jobs and build character in the community.

There is a right and wrong way to do it.

Everybody is quick to blame the city for overeaching, and sometimes it seems like they do and they will, especially the ones on the city council who got elected on some platform of saying they will make this city better but never told the votors the way it was going to be once they got in. All to common a story.



Jeff Matiatos

6:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe more of you slumlords should ask a bank for a loan to get your properties up to code.

7:03 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Eric: "Bill is trying to insert his already failed agenda into this."

Typical Eric. When he is unable to discuss the issue, he attacks the messenger.

My argument is twofold. First EVERYONE deserves a home. For criminals that home might be Jail. Second, it is shocking that St. Paul applies "pressure" on landlords to take homes away from families.

Eric, what part of that do you consider failed?

Bill Cullen.

7:13 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Over the past 24 hours, the argument by Eric and Jeff have change from the city must “come down on” a landlord to, as Eric wrote at 11:36: “I/we are criticizing the Landlord for the choice he made. I am criticizing him for obviously valuing the 'rights' of the criminal tenant (yes, the kid is a tenant) over those of the victims.”

That is a fantastic point. Do landlords have a moral obligation to keep out tenants that are disruptive or even evil? First, I believe most landlords, including myself, choose to screen out disruptive families because of the problems they cause. However, I don’t think it is a moral obligation. I think it is a business decision.

Let me pose the obvious corollary… Do all service providers have an obligation to screen out disruptive/evil clients? Restaurants? Grocery stores? Gas stations? Utility companies (like St. Paul water)? Certainly bad things happen at all these locations too. I include utility companies because if St. Paul really wants to move disruptive/evil residents, they could refuse them water service. (Of course, that would put the city in the hot seat and why do that when they can put the landlord in the hot seat).

How are landlords different from these other service providers? We all provide one of life’s necessities.

Bill Cullen.

7:41 AM  
Anonymous Les Lucht said...

it is against law for the landlord tell tenant histroy to any one.

To evict someone you need proof.
not just speculation on some one.

The house court is gose by the law,

If the police knows that person did the crime, My question is way did they arrest him/her??

Why is the landlord respobility to
police there units?

Why do we pay taxes? And pay for
the police force??

So, eric and chuck read the the law.


I think that you guys are crazy.

7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My argument is twofold. First EVERYONE deserves a home. For criminals that home might be Jail. Second, it is shocking that St. Paul applies "pressure" on landlords to take homes away from families.

1. 'Everybody 'deserves' a home?'
Are you saying St Paul must provide everyone with a home? They already do. That's a stupid question Bill. Everybody deserves to eat, should we not regulate grocery stores or restaurants? Eliminate the health code?

2. St Paul has ordinances and regulations for every business within the city. Rental property investors feel they shouldn't have to be regulated by the city like a restaurant or grocery store or car mechanic garage. Well they do.

You own rental property in St Paul or any city/town/suburb/ you have a set of ordinances to follow. If you fail to keep your end of the deal, the city can revoke your privilege or running that business within the city.

Eric, what part of that do you consider failed?
Bill Cullen.


The way you try over and over to frame this as a way to go after the tenants when its a default on the landlord behalf and violation of an agreement.

You don't have a right to own rental property in St Paul. Its a privilege that comes with rules (codes). Those rules say that you must maintain your property to a minimum standard of health and safety that inhabitable for human beings.

You see, people do deserve their government to do its job and be confident that when they rent a unit in the city, that unit has met certain MINIMUM standards when its comes to health and safety.



Eric

7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les,
Why is the landlord respobility to
police there units?


Because its YOUR property and YOU are legally responsible for it. You don't want that responsibility? Get out of the business.

Why do we pay taxes? And pay for
the police force??


We pay taxes to enforce the ordinances and laws. Like, making sure the building codes are enforced for rental property so that the poor are not living like animals while barely literate landlords continue to take money for unhealthy and unsafe units.



Eric

8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city also has laws and they should start enforcing them and holding up their end of the bargain like they expect property investor to do. When do you ever hear about the city going after the renter for dmage to property or disturbing the neighbors? They never ever do! It's much easier for city leaders to manipulate the shallow and narrow minded people like Jeff, Eric and Chuck into thinking that certain classes of people have less rights or no rights as other classes. What's shocking is that they go along with it happily as long as they can bash someone else and it's not them who'd having to pay the price.

8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...thinking that certain classes of people have less rights or no rights as other classes...

Like the poor living in units and property that is unfit for human habitation?

You landlords do exactly that. You think that because they are poor they do not deserve to live in safe and healthy units.

You are fighting against equal protection and fair housing.

Eric

10:13 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Bob is defending the irresponsible behavior by the landlord and trying to blame the city. Bill is trying to insert his already failed agenda into this. Classic.

My response;
What a "dumb" ignorant statement.

I am defending the principles that has made this country great! Civil Rights! It's about time this city's leadership quit using the blame game of passing the buck to landlords and other businesses for issues of crime. The police need to do their JOB and investigate and arrest criminals, not chase them from home to home spreading the cancer of crime all over the city.

What we haven't talked about here is how convenient it has been for politicians to demonize landlords to get elected. When they do this they take the pressure from the public off of themselves to do something about crime. "Those pesky landlords must be out there advertising for criminal renters the way the media and city portrayed them in the past".

Like I said there will ALWAYS be an underclass they aren't going anywhere and haven't gone anywhere since we all lived in caves.

Here is a question for the readers. When was the last time you heard of local big media blaming landlords for issues of crime?

They haven't done it since I started this blog. Because in the past, every time they opened their mouth on this issue I took them to task for it. Some would like to think it is the lawsuits that have slowed the media assault on landlords, but the fact is local media had done a number of stories after the lawsuits had been filed.

Now, they know there is another side of the story and it will be told with a vengeance if they raise there head in defense of this city's malicious behavior toward it's citizens.

10:30 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

8:11,

YOU SAID : " When do you ever hear about the city going after the renter for damage to property or disturbing the neighbors "

I think the police is part of the city and we also have civil courts.

Call the police when someone has damaged your property. Its called criminal damage to property otherwise known as property crimes.

You want to go after the renter for damage to your property or disturbing the peace, call the cops and they will come.

You want to sue for loss of property use the courts but don't come on here trying to make an ass out of me.

I happen to be very good finding my way through statutes and case law where I don't have to depend on minds like yours or the city you say manipulates me to solve the questions.

I have sued this city on more than one occasion so your barking at the wrong person.

I expect Eric and Chuck will be chopping you down to your knees a little bit more in the coming posts. I just gave you a name you can use to post with " STUMPY ".






Jeff Matiatos

10:33 AM  
Anonymous Lewis said...

Bob, these poor people you defend, on many occasions live like poor people and let in mice, roaches, bedbugs, they destroy the landlords property, don't pay their rent on time, steel shopping carts from cub foods or rainbow, run drug houses to supplement their poverty, loiter about at all hours of the night, the cops are called constantly and when that happens, guess what, the landlord gets exposure and the city knows which landlords to target as trouble spots in the city.
The city has been dealing with this senario for at least 100 years.
Why don't you go out to these neighborhoods with your moses staff, wave it across the neighborhood and clean it up.
You and Bill don't like the city coming in and trying to restore some safe and sanitary conditions so I guess your going to have to do it.




Lewis

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am defending the principles that has made this country great! Civil Rights!.
(my dog thanks you Bob, for helping me spit out a mouthful of eggs and bacon after reading this)

There are a lot of things that make this country great. However, you'll have to explain how unsanitary living conditions for the poor is a civil right.

I do know equal protection is a civil right. Its under the equal protection clause that minimum standards are set for human habitation in living dwellings in the city.

What we haven't talked about here is how convenient it has been for politicians to demonize landlords to get elected. When they do this they take the pressure from the public off of themselves to do something about crime. "Those pesky landlords must be out there advertising for criminal renters the way the media and city portrayed them in the past".

No. Crappy landlords make it easy because the truth is, they pick guys like you who they know won't think things through and will fight on their behalf because you don't the like the city.

You ever think stories just like the one posted by you Bob make it harder to blame politicians? You show that landlords could give a crap about the tenants and only want the money. They had no regard for the health, safety or rights of the other tenants.

How easy is it for potential tenants to the read the story as you present it and decide that the Stahlei's are not the type of landlord they want to rent from?

None of you on here would stay there in the upper unit after what happened and then realized the landlord would do nothing- even after the one of the lower unit tenants admitted to be a thief.

No, Bob don't blame politicians for something the citizens can see for themselves. Without code enforcement, some of these landlords would not do s damn thing to their units as long as they could find a way to pimp money out of it.


Eric

11:32 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Like the poor living in units and property that is unfit for human habitation?

You landlords do exactly that. You think that because they are poor they do not deserve to live in safe and healthy units.

You are fighting against equal protection and fair housing.

Eric

My response;
That is the arguement the city would want citizens to believe. The fact is this is the way the city gets rid of the citizens they deem undesirable. They come in and condemn them from their housing. Often over little things like a broken dead bolt lock the police broke when they raided a house. Or the house will be condemned over the mess the police made during the raid.

Many have claimed the city has just plained lied about some violations.

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They don't condem the citizens, they condem the landlord for not following the law.

12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PHA does inspections for all of its family and individual rental units. When they spray for bugs, they get everyone. When they perform prevenative maintenance, they get everyone.
They don't take short cuts. St.Paul
PHA has a 93% and higher approval rating from HUD.
They can't get the funding and credibility without that kind of dedication to it's properties.
I know some of you will say that PHA gets a free hand in this town but the agency at least stays consistant with it's policys.
When you compare PHA to the typical St.Paul landlord, there is no comparison.
PHA doesn't have the number of code violations and police complaints as the combined landlords in St.Paul.

12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lewis is right, the landlords in St.Paul rent to the poor / slobs and when the property finally gets rundown to the point of the property becoming a health hazard and a blight in the neighborhood, factor in all the police calls and illegal activity, what do you expect the city to do ?
I don't see many landlords coming on here to dispute this.

1:11 PM  
Anonymous Les Lucht said...

eric,

you are full shit.

I have been layoff for three weeks.
I have at my units every day, and watch drug dealing going on. I have report it to the police.
They do nothing. I tell them to to get off my proporties. And they
"I will cap u." I tell that to the cops.

They can not do anythihgs.
Because the city lawyers with not
take to court for treaspassing.
Then they break in to one unit that I am fixxing up.
still the cops do nothings.
And they tell not to get a gun.

We will do something If you get killed.
So, I how do I police my units.
When drug dealers can anythings
I can not do anything.

So, eric your are full of shit.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les, how about moving out ?

5:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Chuck just lives to fight. I don't.

The fact is that that the tenant in question who lived upstairs was having a little romance with the fellow down stairs. He was most likely invited into the place when he took her belongings.

She several days ago upon vacating let it slip that she wanted to move back home so her Mother could baby sit and she did not want to pay the rent. She in fact used the situation to her advantage.

So please Chuck stop with the frightened family stuff. It is one woman and her baby who was looking for a way out. What your not hearing is that after she moved and the fellow down stair has confessed and is not anywhere on the property A St. Paul police Sergeant continued to contact us and be abusive and release information that is protected under the data privacy acts about the family down stairs and come close to demanding that they be evicted at once.

Connie Bennet (St. Paul police) has taken a strong disliking to the entire family and does not wish them in St. Paul. She stated a long history of the older children in the family that do not reside at the property and wants the father and his young children kicked out.

In yesterdays mail I received an inspection notice in 10 days. Quiescence? I don't think so. I also received a long grass notice. The grass was so short it did not come over the top of my shoe. It has now been bladed down to the ground and is dust. How short do they want it? Well now it's dirt. It would be nice Chuck if once in awhile you were open minded enough to see "if this many people have a problem... just maybe there is a problem."

I really don't understand why you are so hostile and angry. You need anger management because your sarcastic to a fault and offensive. All of this rage is here for many to see....run for office? People will depict a mad bull...who wants a mad bull in office?

You insult me as a landlord and with no thought as to our plight. It is a plight. I have worked hard my entire life. Why don't you lower the unlawful detained fees and get the judges to remove people in a week maximum? They let them stay to the end of the month and then they don't go so the next month is gone.

I don't think you understand the business to be so opinionated. If you have a problem with rental business well I have a problem with bars. Lets close them all down. L O L

6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We pay taxes to enforce the ordinances and laws. Like, making sure the building codes are enforced for rental property so that the poor are not living like animals while barely literate landlords continue to take money for unhealthy and unsafe units."

OK loud mouth so if they are supposed to be enforcing laws then why do they NEVER go after renters for their disruption to the neighborhood. Instead they choose the easier route of extorting money out of landlords. I could buy into t alot of your arguments if you took into account the renter factor but none of you political spinners are ever willing to do that. You have the idea that the renter is a innocent victim in the whole thing when most of the time the damage caused to the unit that makes it in violation was caused by the renter.

6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You damn fool....when you call the cops regarding anything with a renter they come out and tell you it's a civil matter. Even if they threaten the landlord with violaence it's a civil matter. Crawl back into your cave and research some caselaw.

6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what kind of score the landlords in St.Paul would get if HUD inspected them.
Can anyone say section 8 !
Were any of the rico plaintiffs renting to section 8 tenants ?
If so, you would think they passed.

6:32 PM  
Anonymous Stumpy said...

Oh..I forgot to sign my post. SOrry

Stumpy

6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe someone could explain to me what "don't pay their rent on time, steel shopping carts from cub foods or rainbow, run drug houses to supplement their poverty, loiter about at all hours of the night, the cops are called constantly" has to do with "safe and sanitary conditions." Stealing carts from Rainbow 100 years ago?

6:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Les, how about moving out ?"

Les I am afraid this is your best advice. Just refinance all of your property and take a hike with the $$$ and let the city worry about the vacant building since they seem to be so interested in property management now days.

6:43 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Looks like Bob didn't tell the whole story. I'am sure it wasn't reported properly though.

It's too bad that these landlords here got stiffed. Happens all the time. It's one of the hazzards of renting.

Isn't it true that you can write it off as a loss but it goes against the sale of the home when it gets sold ?

If you can get first and last months rent and a damage deposit you can minimize your losses.

How can anyone blame Chuck for saying that the upstairs family was scared ? The posting on this matter says " THE TENANTS UPSTAIRS WERE SO FEARFUL THEY MOVED OUT PROMPTLY......... "

Then the landlord comes here and says " SO PLEASE CHUCK, STOP WITH THE FRIGHTENED FAMILY STUFF ".

Bob, who are we supposed to believe ?

The whole story just got turned inside out.

Thats why they say don't believe everything you read.





Jeff Matiatos

7:02 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Ok 6:37 aka. Stumpy,

It means that these are the kinds of people that rent from slumlords.
Got it ?



Jeff Matiatos

7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It appears the rental business is the place for high school dropouts.

I'm wondering if any of you can read. You sure as hell can't express yourself using the English language or writing a basic sentence.

Anyway, looks like Ron and Diane are on here complaining about the police giving up private information AFTER they give up information on a private situation. Who gives a rats ass about the relationship?

You're now trying to portray this as a single mother framing the teen. Well, you'll excuse us if we roll our eyes because when Bob first presented the story he said:

"A male teen living downstairs with his parents was dating a teen female living in the upstairs unit with her parents.

So almost 100 posts later you decide to come on and change the story.

You got a few problems:

You are really into their business but, not in a way that matters. You decided that because of the character of the girl, she didn't deserve any action on your behalf.

But, in reality I know exactly what you did. That family upstairs was probably threatening to leave anyway. So you kept your bird in hand and decided that since the tenants in the lower may stay longer, you can care less about a robbery. Afterall, you need the rent. It doesn't matter about their relationship or if she is single mother. You're the landlord and should be obligated to provide safe rental units. When one of your tenants steals from another, a responsible landlord bounces the unit with the thief.

You think you could get away with that disregard in Eagan? I know Mike well enough to know that he doesn't side with criminal behavior justified by making a buck. Before him, Pat was ten times the headache when it came to slumlords.

You people bitch about St Paul then you move out to a burb where the regulations are even more tight but- that's OK there, you live there.

Bill Cullen, how are the rental ordinances out in Minnetonka where you live?

Phony complaints created to keep from being responsible business owners.

Nobody forced any of you into the rental business. Its apparently too tough for you and you should find something else to do.


Eric

7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Eric....You have just proven that you are a nut burger.

8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I wonder what kind of score the landlords in St.Paul would get if HUD inspected them.
Can anyone say section 8 !
Were any of the rico plaintiffs renting to section 8 tenants ?
If so, you would think they passed."

They all rented to Section 8 and they passed with flying colors. Read the court paperrs and depositions that were posted here. One guy was OK'd by section 8 and then condemned by the city the next day!

And bye the way the poster who claims Section 8 has a 93% approval rating from HUD is just spinning crap to the ignorant.

Just because they come in and spray some bug spray around and do preventitive amintenance means nothing. Go back and look at some of the evidence from the lawsuit. Section 8 people living in deadly mold for years and the city won't do anything about it. The city themselves admit that thier own PHA has severe gang and violence problem while they target the private sector for less. Hell it's so bad at the city palces they have to have their own private police force to handle it and then they have secret call in numbers for complaints so the stats don't factor into the citywide numbers.

The city gets the funding because they lied on the grant application and committed fraud to get it and the lawsuit papers showed that also.

Perhaps this Bennett cop should be downtown threatening Kathy Lantry.

8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This upstairs renter whoever she is probably knew the background type of this guy from the start. It's not hard to tell by the way a person talks and the company they keep. What did she expect? Talk to any cop and he'll tell you they see the same people over and over and one time they are the victim, next time they are the witness and then they pop up a perpetrator of something. And every single time they are trying to manipulate the situation to favor their self serving interest. But forget that, just listen to guys like Jeff who want to roast the landlord with hald baked facts that don't even apply. It's a good thing your assessment of what should happen to the landlord Jeff was not final as it appears that they were the real victims in this but what would that matter to you? You're just like the rest of the majority of the country who cares nothing about what happens to someone else as long as it's not happening to you.

8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are really into their business but, not in a way that matters. You decided that because of the character of the girl, she didn't deserve any action on your behalf."

What the hell does the character of the girl have to do with it? If the Government with all their power and all their guns either cannot or refuse to do anything what do you expect a private citizen to do. What if this tenant takes care of the place and pays the rent on time and you happen to get along with him and now without a conviction for anything the owner is supposed to go on the word of the Police who have an agenda and just go ahead and throw the tenant out? Lots of luck with that. The tenant would get some Legal Aid lawyer to sue you for discrimination in heartbeat and you'd wind up giving them $10,000.00 just to not have to hire an Attorney and go to court. You people are terrible to run these people down just because they want to be the victim of legalized extortion from a heard of shit sucking Attorneys looking to make victims out of everyone they can find,

8:40 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Your wrong 8:32,

As the story is now, the young teen upstairs with the baby wanted to stiff the landlords using the excuse that she intended to move in with her mother.

What happened to the downstairs family ? Did they get evicted ?

I never gave an assesment of what should happen to the landlord.

The landlords " Investors " here made rental choices that went very wrong.

They were victims of their own buisness dealings.

They wern't the first and they won't be the last.

Time to move on and get some better renters plain and simple.







Jeff Matiatos

8:51 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

When Eric finds himself with a flawed position, he changes the topic. This thread is discussing the fact that St. Paul is pressuring landlords to remove tenants they consider bad. Eric then changed it to landlords have a moral obligation to remove such tenants and when that went bad, he changed it back to old faithful: The city is doing all of this for health and safety.

Hilarious.

My work is done here. Eric is now admitting the city shouldn’t pressure landlords and he ducked the questions about what is the moral obligation of ALL St. Paul service providers by changing the topic.

Good; I have real work to do. Have fun everyone.

Bill Cullen

9:09 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

It's true that the topic headlines the allegation that police want to evict law abiding citizens.

I guess this means the family downstairs were the law abiding citizens ( not including the admitted thief ) ? Or was it the upstairs teen having sexual relations with the thief downstairs and the teen wanting to stiff the landlords ?

The article really should headline " LANDLORDS GET THE SHAFT BY RENTING TO TENANTS THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE RENTED TO, IF ONLY THEY COULD HAVE KNOWN ".

I think these landlords made an all to common mistake.

They may not have known but could have forseen trouble.

As far as the police interefering, yes, they put some pressure on, but it would not have changed what occured one way or the other.

The only people here with the power to prevent what happened were the landlords.

A little bit of pressure by the police after the fact changed little about the end result.

Landlords have no moral obligation to provide housing.

It is strictly a buisness decision and the landlord must comply with all relevant laws and abide by the lease, same as the tenant.

If that contractual arrangement includes provisions that landlords conduct background checks, then one must be done.

If not, then the landlord should realize that he is putting his investment and reputation with the city in jeaprody.

I believe, and I will look this up, that a certificate of occupancy can be denied on grounds that repetitive police calls can shut a landlord down.

If so, these landlords in this story were certainly testing that possibility.




Jeff Matiatos

9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok I was not going to get sucked into this madness anymore but I can't just sit here and not try to make you understand.

The man living downstairs is black. He is hard working he is a single parent. He pays his own rent and in this case we actually lowered his rent to help him out. He has no convictions with the law. He is a hard working man. He has small children and it is his older children who do not reside (sleep) on the property that were the problem.

This is much the same thing as, your a good person and you have a child who has criminal behaviors and you can't control that. It does not mean that the Man who is actually renting the apartment was at fault for anything. He did nothing bad to anyone. It was a kid of his over the age of 18. The police want the father removed. He has no criminal record and has no place else to go. The renting of the lower unit was an act of kindness. We met his ability to pay. Not everything is about money.

(Just a quick note, there is no shortage of renters. I had over 25 phone calls today and the unit will be rented soon.)

The neighbors that I have talked to have told me he is nice. He helped someone jump a car in the winter. He shovels the walk, he is respectful. One neighbor said, he is a good Dad. Also that he plays with his children at the local park.

Understand that in America we should be able to live where we want. With out fear from housing inspections, police....we are giving up rights when we allow the police to slander information to a landlord and then insist that we throw someone one into the street. There has been threatening and bulling from this Sgt.

Yes it would be easier to get rid of this tenant. Does anyone care about making a family homeless? I do. This man deserves a chance. I will end up fighting the city to give him that chance. It has already started.

There is nothing in this world more scary than the police, even helping, decide where people live.

And I am really sick and tired of the way certain people repeatedly call other people slumlords. Slumlords is a very specific thing, please read the history of the word. It is meaningless and you are clueless to use it.

10:03 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

So now are you saying the " Male teen " that stole is really over
18 ?

The police can't evict anyone from a contractual agreement between a tenant and landlord let alone the city.

Now the city may deny the certificate of occupancy which in that case would mean no one could live there except perhalps the owner.

Please, get your story straight.





Jeff Matiatos

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok your right I thought all this was out in the line. It was the son of the renter. I have had a bad day and things have been going wrong all week. My Mother is dieing of breast cancer and is now actively is in rapid decline. My apologies. I can't do this.

I was born in St. Paul. I love St. Paul. It has been heart breaking to see the decline. So I will slither back under my rock...you play ruff here.

10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Landlords have no moral obligation to provide housing."

Maybe not according to the law but most landlords and decent people in general are never going to apologize for giving someone a sceond chance. That is after all the notion that this country was founded upon and it's also a religous value of most people.....DFL not included. Their values are "ends justify the means" and they don't give a hoot how they get there, they just want control and thus you get all these sham arguments from people about nothing more than BS. If there's criminal trouble with renters or anyone else the government should do the job we pay them for. That doesn't include scapgoating innocent people or spreading crime to other neighborhoods for political expediency.

10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No need to keep them housed, the city wants them out then throw em in the street and let em starve. These professional spinners here say landlords pimp the renter for money and that's all they care about but with 25 calls to rent it can't be about the money because the money is an automatic......there's always another one waiting. Maybe people should stop renting to the undercalss period as they seem to be the ones making all there trouble according to some people here. Why bother with them and get hassles from the city. Raise your standards and let the rest live in a park or in Chuck's back yard......problem solved!
Now the politicians have extra time to look around society and see who else they have a problem with

10:57 PM  
Anonymous Jeff matiatos said...

10:46,

I know how rough this city can play and I have met them eyeball to eyeball in court.

I have learned that when you live in a society of laws,rules and regulations, you have to obtain the ability to understand the ones that directly affect you and your buisness.

Governments only legal basis to interefere with you is through the
creation and enforcement of laws.

No doubt you felt the " pressure "
from this cop but it was just that.

It would be hard to get judicial relief from somebody pressuring you, as opposed to being harassed.

So the end result is stress.

As far as your concerned, you have the right as a landlord to rent to anybody and evict anyone that you feel needs to be evicted.

Something unfortunate happened at your property and it all unraveled.

The police have no indpendent power to legally force you out.

But,as we all know, the police have considerable influence on others in city politics enough to make your life hell.

You could have gone to this officers superiors or filed an internal affairs complaint.

Some losers here might complain and say that doesn't work.

It worked for me and I had a Ramsey County Sheriffs Deputy Clerk demoted and a letter of stiff reprimand placed in her personel file.

Sorry that your going through the crisis with your family member and
if what you say is true, ( there has been many holes in this story )
we should be thankful that your one of the many landlords that do give people a second chance.






Jeff Matiatos

2:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I was born in St. Paul. I love St. Paul. It has been heart breaking to see the decline."

10:46PM

A lot of other people feel the same way.

5:30 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

At 9:57 PM, Jeff wrote: “LANDLORDS GET THE SHAFT BY RENTING TO TENANTS THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE RENTED TO”

Jeff, can you please elaborate on who YOU think landlords “shouldn’t rent to?” In other words, who do you think doesn’t deserve housing?

Bill Cullen.

9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the story as Bob told it went from:
Here is the story. A male teen living downstairs with his parents was dating a teen female living in the upstairs unit with her parents. The male teen tenant from downstairs has confessed to stealing checks from a resident upstairs. So the police are involved.

That's the story we've been going on. Two families. Each with a teen living with them.

You're telling us that its one family downstairs, and one single teen mom upstairs. The teen mother was robbed by her boyfriend, who did not reside in the building, but was a relative of the lower lever family. The father in the lower level has no criminal record.

You are also saying that the cops are calling you and the victim saying that the family below (assuming its the father and teen) have a criminal record and are a constant pain with the law. However, your research has produced no criminal background?
-----

You know this story is almost a 180 different on what Bob presented. It actually fits that title.

Everything I said previously stands with the facts as presented by Bob.

If what you say is true, you've got a case to file. Document the incoming calls from the police since the incident. Write down as close to verbatim what was told to you. Have the background check as you received it ready too. You've got two places to go, SPPD and Human Rights.

I'm defaulting to giving you the benefit of doubt over Bob relaying the story to us. Its still tough to believe that that cop who spends so much of her time (and no doubt money) working with young people of color to keep them out trouble would put on a uniform and go out and act this way.

But, that why we have these commissions.


Eric

9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PHA doesn't have the number of code violations and police complaints as the combined landlords in St.Paul.


>PHA has the luxury of not being inspected by code enforcement

9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cute how everyone is quick to trash the landlord before all the facts come out and they never question the motives ot actions of ANY renter. They are all the pillars of the community except when the city wants to exploit them to get rid of certain landlords.

10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill been a busy boy this morning:

When Eric finds himself with a flawed position, he changes the topic. This thread is discussing the fact that St. Paul is pressuring landlords to remove tenants they consider bad. Eric then changed it to landlords have a moral obligation to remove such tenants and when that went bad, he changed it back to old faithful: The city is doing all of this for health and safety.

We were debating this one case Bill, you brought in your agenda which is to eliminate code enforcement. You tried to take it off course, and you did.

First and foremost, the city has an obligation to enforce the the code. Its the law and part of what you pay them to do.

That code is set up for equality at the minimum level in relation to safety and health. It does the same thing for restaurants and other businesses in the city.

Every city does it. St Paul has some of the lighter ordinances when it comes to rental property in the East metro.


My work is done here. Eric is now admitting the city shouldn’t pressure landlords and he ducked the questions about what is the moral obligation of ALL St. Paul service providers by changing the topic.

I didn't duck the question. Each landlord has to make that decision for themselves. Some make the screening process so tough, most people won't pass. Some count you out if you haven't been employed for a year straight or have section 8. Others take anybody who show up with rent money. That's all up to the landlord.

However, whatever the consequence of that process they choose (multiple police calls, violence, drugs, overcrowding in units, neighbor complaints) they are responsible. Its their property and their choice to go into that business. Figure out how to handle the problem without being illegally discriminatory, or figure out that the rental business is not for you.
------

Jeff, can you please elaborate on who YOU think landlords “shouldn’t rent to?” In other words, who do you think doesn’t deserve housing?

Landlords already make that decision and I gave examples above. 99% of the landlords are not on here complaining about the city. 99% of the landlords have very few problems. They make good decisions and have decent businesses that remain constant.

There are relative few who complain about the city and when we have looked deeper, there places were piling up the code violations. The same codes that are not a strict as they are in surrounding burbs- when most of the complaining landlords live.

Its been pretty constant that the ones with the most complaints, have the worst property too.

Bill lives out in Minnetonka. You think he complains to Minnetonka about the 'anti-freedom' restrictions they have for not only renters, but homeowners too? No. He's a hypocrite. Only St Paul and Minneapolis should have no bottom standards and only there should the landlords rent to whomever they please.


Eric

10:22 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I told the story as I heard it.
I didn't say the tenants downstairs had a criminal history and were dangerous. The cop did! And even if the guy had a PAST record and the police THOUGHT he was dangerous, still doesn't give the police the right to go and pressure landlords to evict. It doesn't give the police the right to convince other tenant they should move for their own safety.

The new information doesn't change anything.

Eric, one can have a PAST criminal record, and become law abiding. SO the title fits regardless of this new information.

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob said...

I told the story as I heard it.


Really Bob? Then someone is lying. Lying to manipulate the response on here.

Just to refresh our memory.

Two families both with teens living with them. One admits to stealing from the other unit. Police inform landlord that the family of the thief were dangerous. The landlord does nothing after the confession and the family upstairs moved out of fear.

Those were the facts as Bob presented them.

Landlords come on here and say:

Two units, one with single father and young children, the other with single mother and baby. Self admitted check-thief does not live in the lower unit and is not a teen but an adult. Single mom was moving out anyway and appears to also be an adult. Single father downstairs has no criminal record. Cops keep calling and harassing landlord.

Bob, these are two completely different stories.

The first one is an example of irresponsible landlords focused on money.

The second story is an example of the city over-reaching into the business.

The first 90 posts we were going by your story and it wasn't looking good for your friends. So they come on and dramatically change the story.

They hung you out to dry Bob. Nice friends.


Eric

10:43 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

I'll answer your question this way Bill.

I am not going to duck the question but you realize your trying to divert from the topic by asking me to opinion on Landlords in general. I can't speak for them.

Landlords in general shouldn't rent to prospective tenants who have been convicted of serious crimes.

UNLESS, the landlord has a good insurance policy to cover potential lawsuits in the cases of legal actions against the landlord for negligence. And, the landlord has weighed the potential risks vs. the safety and welfare of other tenants against the interests of the buisness.

If your going to rent to those with troubled historys of criminal behavior, I really hope you have escrowed enough money into a legal fund to cover all your legal costs in defending a lawsuit against the buisness.

I personally would be one of those landlords with very strict rental criteria and would turn away most rental applicants with criminal history.

Knowing full well that there are other landlords who will take them in.

It's a big world out there.



Jeff Matiatos

11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

somebody is lying about what happened and who did it over there on the west side.

I'm going to be on Bob's side with this one. There is too many details for him to have made a mistake, I think the landlords are lying.

They aske Bob to post this so I'm sure they read it when it first went up. They wait until a lot of posts before they speak up and change the story.

I wouldn't trust these people at all.

11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thrwo em out nd condemn the place. It'll be oine more on the list that Repke can buy and then run it properyly.

2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So who's lying?

Is it Bob, who's saying he wrote what he was told?

Or, is it the landlords who come back with an entirely different story?

Bob- you're mighty silent. I think you've been played for a fool.

3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" I told the story as I heard it "
says Bob Johnson.
Were you drunk at the bar when you heard it ?
Or maybe you were drunk when you told us.

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one waited to see what the post would do with wrong information. The story was told in less that 2 minutes and it is complicated and there was a misunderstanding. We did not even read what was happening until yesterday. I did not read everything up the page. As soon as I did I tried to correct the story.

No one lied about anything. Nothing was done intentionally to miss lead anyone. As soon as it was discovered action was taken. So please get off Bob's back. It just happened. I apologize for any problems that were caused.

We own no building that is a "bed of meth" be careful here. The men who live at that property are all military and honorable men. They have been in Irac and back and forth several times. All are on active duty for a second term. Not by their choice but by the governments demand. All have responded to the call.

Chuck you make everone look so dirty. I think it comes down to that many people here could buy and sell you 10 times over and you just can't deal with it. You look like a jealous spoiled child trying to get even. You don't care about who you hurt or how you do it.

You on many occasions over the years have hurt my feelings. If your ok with that then we all know your just a mean old man and I except that. Heaven waits and justice will come. God don't like ugly and you make almost everything ugly. No need to respond to this I won't be back. You have taken over many forums and chased many people away. You are unable to hear another side of anything.

6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You probably should have painted Eric with that brush too, maybe Jeff also in some instances. They're quick to bash the landlord every time. Landlords lie, they jave no civil right because they have a code violation, they rent to the wrong people, they let tenants burn alive for money, the only thing they care about is the cash they take so they don't have to report it IRS, and the list goes on and on and on. Yet they have never brought up the shortcommings of the renter who the entire city right on up through the city council seems to hate with a passion excecpt when they can use and exploit them for a political agenda. Too bad because it just discourages investment and providing housing to the class of people who need it the most. I know Ron and Dianne. They're decent people who work hard and try to make a difference in a world that don't give a damn about anything but self serving interests. It's really easy to sit around second guessing everything and a lot of these people should stop for a minute and consider what it's like to be on the other side of all this BS. It says something about a persons character when they're so quick to trash talk others.

6:34 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

True : It wasn't hard to second guess here because with all the holes in this story, thats all one could do.

True : Landlords with code violations have civil rights but most of the time those code violations have nothing to do with them.

True : None of us bash landlords all the time. Maybe sometimes.

True : Landlords do rent to the wrong people.

True : Landlords don't burn tenants alive for money but some landlords sometimes could care less if other tenants steal, harass, disturb,assualt, bring in pests and mice and some landlords put up with this for money.

False : That I bashed you two landlords. If anything, you could stand to learn a few things from what I have said.

Any one would agree that people with the worst criminal background who either got out of prison or have given up their life of crime needs shelter.

You seem to have alot of compassion, more than other landlords who understand the risks involved of renting to them.

In reality, the real only place for criminals who just did hard time and got out is a halfway house.

Thats part of their introduction back into society and they have something to prove so remember that.

Good luck to you though and sorry you won't be back.






Jeff Matiatos

7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They don't have to paint me with a broad brush, I write clear and direct enough for them to point out where they disagree with me.

I've already made my comments on both versions of what happened.

I like to beat up Bob a little but, how do you make a mistake about the key parts of the story?

I believe Bob told us the truth a couple of days ago. Its a tough sale that after Ron and Diane asked Bob to post their story, that it took a few days to read it. They seem able to come on board regularly. They come on after 90 posts and change the story.


Eric

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's a matter with you fools? There's an active and wide spread campaign going on in the city to destroy the housing for a small % of people the city deems unworthy of housing. Most of these people are in a certain economic class and the actions of the city is going to have a effect on everyone in that economic class because the landlords are not going to want to try and sort them out. They just won't rent to anyone without a good job and 3 months worth of money to put up at the beginning of the lease. Bash the landlords all you want but all your doing is supporting the city's effort in restricting housing for the lower income people. What they're doing to the landlords today is going to effect you tomorrow.

9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's an active and wide spread campaign going on in the city to destroy the housing for a small % of people the city deems unworthy of housing.

Really?
Then why is it MOST landlords who rent to low-income and section 8 tenants do NOT have a problem with the city codes.

The court documents presented here show that its the same few, over and over again that have problems. After a while you have to conclude that its something the landlord is doing and not the class of the tenants. Again, MOST landlords who rent to low-income tenants have no problems from the city.

Its getting pretty common around here to blame others for your own shortcomings.

If you can't handle the rental business, get out. There are plenty of people doing fine in it.


Eric

9:27 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Eric wrote: We were debating this one case Bill, you brought in your agenda which is to eliminate code enforcement. You tried to take it off course, and you did.

I didn’t bring up code enforcement; you did! I am still talking about police “pressure.” If you really want be on topic, then please answer the two questions I previously posed to you:

1) if landlords have a moral obligation to screen disruptive tenants, please define who you think are disruptive?
2) if landlords are accountable for the actions of their clients, shouldn’t all service providers?

At 11:02, Jeff did address #1. He said that “If you’re going to rent to those with troubled histories of criminal behavior, I really hope you have escrowed enough money into a legal fund to cover all your legal costs in defending a lawsuit against the business.”

On 17-Jun-2009 I attended MMHA’s annual landlord forum. RHR, one of largest and most respected screening companies in the twin cities, reported that in 2002, 21.8% of the people they screened had criminal records. In 2009 that number has increased to 43.8% and they project that by 2011, 47% will have criminal records.

Jeff, are you saying that 43.8% of rental applicants should be ineligible for housing?

Jeff & Eric, your argument that landlords have a moral obligation to refuse housing to a large segment of people is nonsense and unconscionable.

Bill Cullen.

P.S. I will send anyone the RHR presentation if they wish. It was very good.

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I hadn't read this chain in a while and find it facinating that while Jeff and Eric were trying to straighten out what happened either Ron or Diane came on, decided I was basicly a rotten human being and are never going to post again.

I'll assume that it is Diane feelings that I hurt somehow without even posting between the time she first posted and quit.

First its Bob that has called West Seventh Meth haven not me.

And I was an angry young man long before I was an angry old man.

I have never run for public office and never had an interest in it.

As Thune would say when I worked for him, Repke may be an ass hole but he's my ass hole.

There is no way that I could put up with the silliness of it all and keep a civil tounge if I was the person who was elected.

As to what happened in your building I have no way of knowing, all I know is what was posted as the topic and we went at it... you're story sounds nothing like what we started with.

As to code inspections, hell I have people on this list regularly call my property in just for the fun of it. So, wow tall weeds and grass, I got hit with a paint job for a SLATE siding building.

As to your love of Saint Paul wave as you drive out to Eagan.

Some of us have decided to keep fighting instead of running away.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you can't handle the rental business, get out. There are plenty of people doing fine in it."

Yup..there are and they are not renting to low income crowd either!

9:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jeff, are you saying that 43.8% of rental applicants should be ineligible for housing?"

That's just what they're saying Bill.

Throw them out and let the streets take care them and proclaim the problem solved. Now all the landlords who are doing just fine can do better.

10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting stats on people having criminal records. The government wants to criminalize as many as they can on technicalities and after the conviction they use it to control them.

10:10 PM  
Anonymous Stumpy said...

Hi Jeff

How's your arguments working out for you these days?

10:39 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

OK, I have been working all day and didn't see this until now.

First of all, there was no intended deception. I do not believe I was taken advantage of by anyone. The story when told to me was long. I didn't have a recorder. Normally I have the story written and sent to me. Either I missed something or Dianne and Ron missed something.
I for one am happy with the way the story panned out. It shows the mind set of citizens in this city who would use housing to address issues of crime or suspected criminal activity.

I believe everyone who is free is entitled to housing. Free people the police suspect of crime who haven't been arrested and convicted deserve housing. PERIOD!So whether this downstairs family were sinners or Saints it doesn't change the principles of those who side with me on this story.

11:32 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Bill, Your 2009 statistics said 43.8 % of tenants screened had criminal records.

If thats the case, then whats the % of those that are denied housing ?

Your screening company didn't report that. Some source you got there.

I already told you that I would not rent to " MOST " applicants with criminal records. Better than 50%. Not that they don't deserve housing because deserve is a term we use to reward people with whatever we thik that person deserves.

Housing isn't one of them.

Is it your right to public housing ?

Isn't it true that you can be denied entry into public housing for criminal behavior ?

What makes it any different in the private sector ?

Even our Government seems to support my take on the questions you propose.

Housing is a privilege.

You want the right to housing, pay for one and get a mortage and pay it off. Then you can say i have a right to housing. Unless of course the city or state needs your land you lose the right to that piece of property.

Eric and I NEVER argued that landlords have a moral obligation to refuse housing.

The right of refusal to rent is a buisness decision. Remember ?





Jeff Matiatos

11:52 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

You mean to tell me Bob that if I am renting my home you have a right to rent from me ?

Not so.

I check you out like I check out every other applicant and the best man or woman gets to rent from me.

Thats called you have the privilege of renting from me because I decided you deserve to rent from me because you meet my qualifications.

Now if your unlucky enough and I turn you down, you just keep looking and someone in St.Paul. will rent to you I'am almost sure of it. Especially on the eastside.

Hell, if your one of those 43.8 % with a criminal record, Bill will put you up in his Minnetonka property. It's your right.






Jeff Matiatos

12:11 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
First its Bob that has called West Seventh Meth haven not me.

My response;
People who abuse meth call the West End "The Meth End". Because the drug is so plentiful in this area. I didn't name it, I have the unfortunate circumstance of knowing people who abuse meth and they tell me this is the word on the street.

12:12 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Actually, a landlords right to rent to whom ever he decides is somewhat of a deserving benefit.

If it was me, you deserve to rent from me because you didn't have a criminal record as opposed to someone that did.

Is it some sort of legally recognized form of discrimination that I chose to rent to someone without a criminal record over one who had one ?

But thats what Bob and Bill are really trying to say.

If all my applicants had criminal records, I would say I was renting in the wrong neighborhood.





Jeff Matiatos

12:20 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Jeff,

Got it. If you think housing is a privilege and it is okay that a very large percentage of people are never able to rent a home, then the actions of the city are fine. Pressure landlords that rent to disruptive families, and live with the results: millions of homeless folk because the few landlords willing to accept them were run out of business.

I adamantly disagree with your viewpoint, but our agreement is not necessary.

You asked about rejection rates. The speaker did specify rejection rates for all applicants, but he did not break out applicants with criminal records. He reported that 59% of their applicants were accepted, 17% were accepted with “conditions”, 20% were rejected and 4% canceled.

I suspect the majority of the rejections were due to criminal records, but certainly some could be due to bad credit, bad rental history or something else.

Bill Cullen.

12:38 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Bill, notice if you will, I never talk about the city in any of my posts in the context of the city pressuring landlords to deny applicants with criminal records.

The police for that matter.

What I said about the police here is that I believed they were wrong for suggesting eviction. That supports your viewpoint.

I commented that the city might get involved here as they might be able to use the certificate of occupancy as a tool to threaten the landlord.

I think they can so i would be concerned about it.

Notice I also said I would not rent to most applicants with a criminal history.

I may rent to some.

Just like I would rent to applicants of any race or disability.

I just have very high standards thats all.

Now I hope my take on this seems clearer to you.

Let me know.






Jeff Matiatos

12:50 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

So these criminals living in the homes of owners with no criminal history, whats that like ?

What are the statistics concerning police calls to these re-location areas of renters with criminal historys ?

This just may be the test that helps someone like me change my %s of taking in more applicants in order to help them.

But, it doesn't look like someones done a study.

I am sorry, but I have to stick to the current rejection rate better than 50% until further notice.

At least it isn't 100%.

I know all about the east side.

A good friend of mine worked at magnolias for many years. I also lived there. Case street ring a bell ?





Jeff Matiatos

1:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill keeps asking:
1) if landlords have a moral obligation to screen disruptive tenants, please define who you think are disruptive?

Where do you keep coming up with this 'moral obligation'? I said that?

Whomever you rent to, is your business. You just need to be aware that you live with the risks. If they trash the place right before an inspection, don't cry about the tenants. If they are the cause of multiple police calls for nuisance activity (noise, parties, loud car music, fights) don't get mad at your neighbors for making the police wake you up out in Minnetonka, Shoreview or Eagan about your property in St Paul.

Disruptive should be defined as destroying property, multiple police calls, damage to neighboring properties, lease violations. All of that is cause for eviction.

Is that clear enough Bill?

2) if landlords are accountable for the actions of their clients, shouldn’t all service providers?

First, you're not a service provider like a non-profit. Your bottom line is your bottom line, you are running a for-profit business like a restaurant or hooker. Your business is not set up out of the kindness of your heart or taxpayers dollars to provide a service. Even Bob admits that Ron and Diane are property investors.

So, like any other business in St Paul, you are regulated and it doesn't matter if your business provides a necessary service, you still have to follow the rules and regulations or they shut you down. Restaurants provide a needed service -food- and everybody DESERVES to eat but, they have all kinds of health and labor regulations that they should follow or they loose their license to make money in St Paul. Same should be for 'property investors'/landlords.

I hope that clear.
'Disruptive' would be repetitive nuisance and criminal behavior, or lease violations. Those are causes to be evicted.

You are not a social service agency. You are a business and need to follow the rules, that were clear before you went into the business, or leave.

Eric

1:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I believe everyone who is free is entitled to housing"

No they DO NOT.

The insecure among us need scapgoats so we can feel good and important.

1:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, ease off the east side. Its 1/3 of the entire city and MOST neighborhoods over here are as safe as anywhere. In Payne-Phalen you can go north of Maryland and find it nice and quiet with well kept homes, younger professional couples and families. Parts of Frost Lake, Beaver Lake, Battle Creek, Highwood Hills and Hayden Heights are pretty damn nice too. I should know, I live in one of the above named neighborhoods. We looked in every one of the neighborhoods before choosing this one.

Its a big part of town its all not the Arlington Hills, Lower Payne and other 'popping' neighborhoods that are just collectively called the east side.


Eric

1:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats Case Avenue. Been out of the for quite some time now.


Jeff Matiatos

1:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Housing is a privilege"

Hitler thought the same thing!

1:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't Maryland and Hazlewood overthere ? Thats not so cool.

1:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're full of shit Jeff and you're just a self serving little twirp. Who the hell are you to be coming here talking about what you would be doing when you know nothing about the business at all. You act so self rightous about who you would accept and who you wouldn't like your some kind of authority. You seem to forget that those landlords you know so much about have mortgage payments, tax and insurance escrows, and water bills, on top of monthly monthly maintenance costs and probably a 2nd mortgage for improvements amde to the property. Do you really expect us to believe you would sit there and deny everyone because they didn't meet your standards? In a neighborhood where the only people who apply are ones that wouldn't meet such strict standards? It hurts to read your shit man. You must work for the government or a non profit because you have no clue what business in the real world is about.

1:46 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Well Heil Hitler then !!!!





Jeff Matiatos

1:47 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

I didn't say I would deny everyone but who the hell are you to tell me how to run my buisness ?

You took on more than you can handle and are one of the irresponcible landlords knee deep in trouble with the city because of your choices.

Is it wrong to deny occupancy to a convicted thief ?

Is it wrong to deny occupancy to a criminal who skips out on his rent ? Is that not theft ?

You support the kind of criminals you want.

I think your kind of criminal is different than the ones I would consider renting to you nut job.



Jeff Matiatos

1:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Jeff and his crew of DFL nitwits want to deny housing to everyone convicted of a crime. Great..lets go with that. Lets say everyone has that idea that no one gets a second chance. Now we have a bunch of people who can't find housing which also means they'll never find a job as hard as they are to find anyways with a record. So now they steal from the rest of us because they're not going to starve or freeze to death which means crime is going to go through the roof along with violence too and eventually it will get to the point where something drastic has to be done.

So what's your next move Einstien? Now that you've eliminated the housing for criminals and any hopes of a job or stable life along with it just in case they can turn their life around, how about if we just start executing everyone convicted of crimes and then we won't have the unintended consequences of deneying them housing in the first place.

Any certain groups of people you'd like to execute first or just take them on a first come first served basis?

2:18 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

It's not that I act self rightous, I was asked by Bill about how I would deal with applicants with criminal historys.

You don't like my answer too bad.

You ask how I have the balls to come on here ?

I didn't know I needed to be invited by you.

Don't give me your sob story of a sermon about how other landlords have bills to pay.

I know them all to well and wouldn't struggle half as much as you because I choose renters that pay their bills and don't damage my units.

Looks like your willing to provide a service for those that really need it.

But you tell your sob story to the owner of an upscale restraunt who has a dress code that any hobo off the street can enter if not dressed decent and see what it does to his buisness. Then, ask him why his bills arn't paid.

Get a clue bub.






Jeff Matiatos

2:21 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Your asking me MOSES ? Go wave your magic staff somewhere else.

Go turn straw into gold rumplehead.

Your pathetic sympathy for criminals only goes so far.

These people with criminal historys are living in housing and according to the stats Bill provided, 20% of the 43.8 are denied. Thats not so bad so stop crying. I am sure you want to blame me for the 20%. WRONG !




Jeff Matiatos

2:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm going to be researching your name Jeff. I can't wait to see some of these palaces you own with such upstanding people in them. Your probably some snob living in Highland. Probably nest door or down the block from Sarah and you don't even need the money.

2:54 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Eric & Jeff,

I think Eric put it very well: “Whomever you rent to, is your business. You just need to be aware that you live with the risks.”

The frustration we landlords have is that the risks have changed – and it is intentional. The city uses “occupant behavior” to increase pressure on landlords on all fronts. The goal of the cities’ effort was clearly stated in one of Andy Dawkin’s flowcharts: Remove the tenant, shut down the building or force the landlord to sell the property.

That process is relatively new and well beyond the “risks of damage, police calls” that landlords once endured with disruptive tenants.

You guys end many posts with something like Eric’s comment that we “need to follow the rules, that were clear before you went into the business, or leave.” You are getting your wish. Most landlords I know that are willing to “give a second chance” are getting out of the rental business. It will become increasingly harder for the 43.8% and others with troubled histories to find housing.

I don’t understand why anyone would celebrate the rationing of housing for those most difficult to house. I also don’t understand why anyone would justify, in fact advocate FOR, making housing a privilege. I think it is wrong. But we don’t need to agree.

Thanks for the discussion; I enjoyed it.

Bill Cullen.

8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey! Don't pick on Maryland and Hazelwood....

KSTP did a story on one of our gardens there the other night.

"St. Paul's East Side Garden Drops Crime" you can watch it by clicking on

http://kstp.com/?articleID=189227.

Scan through to the picture of the garden and click on the screen. I don't know how long the link will be active!

District 2 has been doing community gardening for a number of years but for the last two years the program has been almost totally funded by Council member Bostrom designating a significant portion of the COPP monies for Ward 6 to fund the staff person that did the interview. We now have over 100 gardeners better than 90% are people of color and almost 100% renters. Mostly from Roosevelt and the apartments near Maryland and Hazelwood.

Chuck Repke

8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They don't et it Bill. They think that just because you have some legitimate violations that somehow it's justified for the city to lie about other violations in order to get to the condemnation stage so they can remove the problem to another neighborhood. The ends justify then means with these guys.

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

2:18 a.m.,

You mention something about the DFL ?

I think your hatred for me is political.

No doubt your the poster at 1:46a.m also.

Don't tell me the story about Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Then in turn how we need to rent to them so they can get ahead.

Your story at your 2:18 a.m. is just that.

You say " NOW THEY STEAL FROM US " and these are the ones you would like me to rent to ?

Really ?





Jeff Matiatos

9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Jeff

You make the statement:


You say " NOW THEY STEAL FROM US " and these are the ones you would like me to rent to ?

My response is:

Why don't you try quoting it in the proper context? Do you even know what that word means?

People are not going to starve oe freeze to death. They WILL steal to survive if they have to. With you and your buddies wanting to deny them housing you are effectivly deneying them tyhe chance to get a job or anything else to be able to provide for themselves and at this point, THEY WILL STEAL FROM US. Tehy'll steal from you too.

9:34 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

You know, being in the buisness of renting doesn't mean all landlords have to operate safe houses for those who need a fresh start.

We can admire the landlords who do though and if you ever knew a man named Gene Poppler, he was just that kind of guy.

I know landlords who help the kinds of people you talk about.

Just don't go knocking the peoples rights to run the type of buisness that they choose.

You sound like these animal rights activists that go into pet stores stealing the pets because they believe they are rescuing them.

How about the pet store owner that depends on the buisnees and the children and elderly that need a companion.

Stealing doesn't make it right

Now you think about that.






Jeff Matiatos

9:48 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

If your really so down and out and want to steal to make your point to landlords that unless they rent to you they will get ripped off, If I actch you you will have your shelter.

3 hots and a cot. Jail.

It's alot better than starving and freezing now isn't it.


Jeff Matiatos

11:10 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Jeff Matiatos said...
You mean to tell me Bob that if I am renting my home you have a right to rent from me ?

My response;
It's your property you have a right to rent to "whoever" you want to.

Jeff said;
I check you out like I check out every other applicant and the best man or woman gets to rent from me.

Thats called you have the privilege of renting from me because I decided you deserve to rent from me because you meet my qualifications.

My comment at 9:04 pm;
All that being said, MOST landlords do screen their tenants. A smart business man doesn't need the hassles that come with renting to irresponsible people. They trash the units, they have poor social skills and do not get along with their neighbors.

Reading through this thread it seems the opinions are deadlocked. We seem to be repeating ourselves a lot here.

Jeff said;
Now if your unlucky enough and I turn you down, you just keep looking and someone in St.Paul. will rent to you I'am almost sure of it. Especially on the eastside.

My response;
Now, now Jeff.. You aren't speaking of me. :)I am sure there is a few landlords who would be happy to rent to me regardless of where the home is, and I was no angel years ago. I was in prison not once but twice when I was a younger man. I believe I am an asset to this city. I have generated employment for folks most wouldn't hire. I pay my rent in advance most of the time. I know and get along with all my neighbors.

Here is a good read for Jeff and others. Google The NIMBY REPORT
"Not In My Back Yard"

Going back hundreds of years there has always been the proverbial BAD SIDE OF TOWN with in our cities. A place where economically strapped citizens can find cheap housing and a up start property investor can find a affordable investment property. And why is it cheap? Because everyone "knows what to expect" if you move to one of these areas or buy property there.

A citizen "chooses" to move to these areas for economic reasons. Most of us who have suffered economically have used the bad side of town as a stepping stone to a better future. Saving money that wasn't spent on high rent that comes with better neighborhoods.

If we remove the bottom rung of affordable private housing by means of aggressive code enforcement ridding the city of the bottom rung of affordable housing, where will the underclass move? They will move to better neighborhoods with citizens who have no records, no unlawful detainers, and good credit. Many times they move into over crowding situations to afford the rent to get around the strict screening criteria landlords who would rent to them feel pressured into using. They will move to good neighborhoods spreading crime like cancer. Corrupting your children with drugs and criminal behavior.

Fact is most crime is committed by the underclass of the city. I am OK with containing these folks to the low income neighborhoods where they have been able to find affordable housing. It is easier to police crime if it isn't spread out everywhere.

Section 8 is a crime spreading entity. HUD and the city's attempt to deconcentrate poverty has done nothing but spread crime. Call any police chief in out lying areas and ask them what they think of section 8 housing. I think we should pick an area of Saint Paul and increase the section 8 housing in a small area of town. Focus our policing efforts on this area.

Something else to consider is the cost of policing. It is cheaper to police a contained area versus expanding investigations of crime to all parts of the city.

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Bob continued said...

Like I said earlier, crime will not go away just because housing has been made difficult for the under class to obtain. There will always be citizens with criminally inclined tendencies. There will always be an underclass.

It is a ludicrous idea to think by attacking landlords who rent to the underclass somehow the city will become a better place to live. This objective is not addressing our social ills responsibly. Eric, Chuck and I have stated the basis for addressing issues of crime responsibly more than once here over the years. Many of our suggestions could be construed as being soft on criminals. But we aren't helping them because we love them. We help them because our safety depends on it.

We need to bring back the parole board and educational opportunities in prison. Stiffer penalties for crime that disturbs the peace of neighborhoods. Don't let criminals out of prison until they have educated themselves and are employable.

We need to stop this world war 2 gestapo tactics of going after housing and blaming innocent investor and family members for criminals crimes.

Please, if you want to argue the points I made here just to argue, take a hike. I am interested in solutions to our social ills.

12:08 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Bob, what you say has alot of truth to it no one would argue.

I wasn't trying to deny the truth about rental applicants with a criminal history needing to have a place to live.

I just stated that in my buisness, renting in the more run down crime infested affordable housing areas of the city, doesn't mean you have to take in "all" the undesireables.

Now this jerkola from the land of shmo is casing on me because he has an over sympathetic compassion for thugs that want to rob and steal in order to get housing.

The fact that people will steal because a landlord chooses not to rent to them is pathetic but true.

Hurricane Katrina was a perfect example when all the looting started. Similar mentality

Well put yourself in the shoes of the buisness owner that got looted and then wonder why people like me feel the way I do.

If you want to be the hero that helps raise up the underclass fine with me.

I wish you and your tenants success.





Jeff Matiatos

12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, what drives me crazy about you is that most of the time I agree with your goals, just not your methods.

See, I believe that the reasons for crime have little or nothing to do with housing. So, your interest in maintaining a "bad side of town" to reduce crime makes no sense to me at all. People need affordable housing, and I don't care if it is the private or public side that provides it, I just want it to be safe and healthy housing. If anything having a "bad side of town" would actually increase crime because it increases people's belief that trying is futile.

If you have no successful roll models as a child, why would you think that things could be better?

What has happened in this country over the last 40 years with the ever expanding suburbs is that we have made the "bad side of town," the town, and the good side of town the burbs.... What you often advocate here is that because of that we shouldn't expect better in the City. We should just lay down and take it.

The bottom line as far as the increase of crime goes it the loss of living wage for marginally skilled workers. In the 50's and 60's there were jobs in the plants that paid good money to lift heavy objects and guys who were strong like bull and almost as smart as one could afford to live on the wages they were paid. That is gone. So, that starts to limit the options for young dumb men...

The other, as mentioned on another thread is the education system. We have an entire segment of the population who are totally disconnected from their kids education. There are kids in k-3 that will miss nearly half of the school year because their parent/s are only marginally functional. Those kids have little or no chance to recover without a huge intervention and that isn't happening. As someone I know once said, the cheapest way if you wanted to improve test scores and graduation rates 100% would be to pick up every kid at their door and drag them to school.

And, then where we both agree, the corrections system and the attitude about crime. We have convinced the public that they are never safe and that no one will ever change... and then we are surprised and upset that they don't change. If you are never going to allow the ex-offender to work anywhere or live anywhere, they will do something...

In the 50's and 60's anyone under 21 was a minor and was not sent to prison. Sentences were less than 1/2 of what we give out now. And the crime rate was a lot lower...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Section 8 is a crime spreading entity. HUD and the city's attempt to deconcentrate poverty has done nothing but spread crime. Call any police chief in out lying areas and ask them what they think of section 8 housing. I think we should pick an area of Saint Paul and increase the section 8 housing in a small area of town. Focus our policing efforts on this area.

Great tactic, you ever hear of concentration camps in 40's? They kept 'undesirables' in one area too.

Areas concentrated with poverty and crime become containment zones and forgotten parts of the city. People who live there are served or protected by the police.

Were you asleep in the 90's as major cities across country tore down huge housing projects because they did become as dangerous as war zones and innocent people, like children, were meeting untimely deaths?

Get the hell out of St Paul.

Today, there is no more Cabrini Green in Chicago (think of the opening for Good Times). More than a decade later most, I repeat MOST of those families are doing much better and many have moved up to working class.

There is study after study and case after case that show by de-concentrating poverty and crime ridden areas, police are able to focus more on the problem, criminal activity by those individuals actually goes down, and many have more opportunities to climb out of poverty.

Step into the present Bob, urban concentration camps do not work.


Eric

12:37 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
See, I believe that the reasons for crime have little or nothing to do with housing. So, your interest in maintaining a "bad side of town" to reduce crime makes no sense to me at all. People need affordable housing, and I don't care if it is the private or public side that provides it, I just want it to be safe and healthy housing. If anything having a "bad side of town" would actually increase crime because it increases people's belief that trying is futile.

My response;
I know crime has nothing to do with housing. Tell that to our elected officials. In Dawkins own words, the city is on a coarse to remove the lowest rung of renters who the private sector rents affordable housing to.

I know maintaining a "bad side of town will not reduce crime. It will contain somewhat from spreading like it is. Limiting affordable housing in areas where our social ills are most previlent does not decrease crime.

The city has used safety issues concerning housing to advance their agenda of removing affordable housing. A Home is no longer affordable if it has been "code to the max". A fully renovated home is worth more in rental income and out of reach to low income tenants who may of once lived there.

There is such a fear of some of these kids it is hard to find role models for them where ever they live. Which brings me to some good news.

I emailed the mayor with a request to help me put some gangbangers to work. Not a peep out of him and it has been a couple of weeks. As always I put my money and time where my mouth is.

First phone call I made I got an account with a big property investor to maintain a large number of yards. I have an appointment with them in the morning to get a lawn mowing schedule. I am getting a general contractors license in the coming days and expanding this lawn care into clean outs, and renovations of foreclosed properties. I intend to hire the worst of the bunch with the hopes they will find peace in living a good life.

I need a 2 ton dump truck or a roll off CHEAP! I need commercial mowers and other lawn equipment CHEAP or FREE. I need a pick up and trailer.

I will be contacting probation officer for my employees.
SO, if you can help me in anyway get this going please email me at A_Democracy@yahoo.com or call me at 651-644-4589 I am not looking to earn a lot of dough. This market is really tight. I will get my satisfaction seeing these guys I hire earning a living wage.

1:20 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric said;
Great tactic, you ever hear of concentration camps in 40's? They kept 'undesirables' in one area too.

My response;
Nice try Eric, but folks in concentration camps couldn't leave. Citizens have a choice to live in these bad areas or not.

1:22 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric I posted the studies here and we talked about the flawed concept you speak of. Now, I have some appointments. I will say more about this later.

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice try Eric, but folks in concentration camps couldn't leave. Citizens have a choice to live in these bad areas or not.

Not if concentrate the only housing they can afford or qualify for in one neighborhood.

Again, address my entire post. You are advocating against factual results AND, even against your own words.

On another note, I'm glad to see you use the term living wage. You'd like to see these young people earn a living wage? Work with us DFLers trying to pass a living wage ordinance, or those who want to punish business owners who hire undocumented workers which run wages down.

Also, in your post at 12:08 you said: "Stiffer penalties for crime that disturbs the peace of neighborhoods.". Amen brother. Join the city and code enforcement in executing these actions.

You're coming around Bob, there is hope for you yet.

Eric

1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A code to the max house takes profits away from landlords who want to profit by keeping their magor expences down.
A code to the max house is a safer and more attractive house which in turn raises property values and benefits the property owner and the city in the long run.
Thats what these rico guys are bitching about. Profits.

1:35 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

One more thing before I go.

Eric said;
Today, there is no more Cabrini Green in Chicago (think of the opening for Good Times). More than a decade later most, I repeat MOST of those families are doing much better and many have moved up to working class.

My response;
That is what the local government wants citizens in Chicago to believe Eric. I have family there. Crime has not decreased in Chicago enough for you to be hailing the demise of low income housing a success.

My relative use to live in Cabrini Green. I visited them often before they were forced out. They lived there for over 15 years.

No PLACE in Saint Paul do we have a place like Cabrini Green and we have NEVER had a place like Cabrini Green. Bottom line Chicago's low income high rises were corrupted with bad management. Our Saint Anthony Towers would be just like Cabrini Green if they didn't have their own security and good management.

Cabrini Green-
The gang bangers would fix the elevators so they didn't work and you would have to take the stairs.

Almost every square inch of the walls had graffiti that was not removed for months. There was feces, yearn, and vomit all over the stairs and landings. As you made your way to the floor your relatives lived on you had to pass gang bangers hanging out on the landings. In all honesty, I felt more security when I was in prison and often thought it was mere luck I made it to the security of my relatives apartment without injury. When my father in law had a heart attack the paramedics wouldn't even come up to the tenth floor to get him. We had to carry him down to the parking lot.

Eric, our local government and it's citizens would never allow a situation like Cabrini Green to evolve. The sad thing in Chicago is there were a number of Cabrini Greens.

1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A code to the max house takes profits away from landlords who want to profit by keeping their magor expences down.

"a code to the max home removes affordable housing from renters and first time home buyers"

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,
You are wrong about crime. I have relatives that live in Chicago- wait! I used to live in Chicago, born and raised there. Cabrini Green is just one, Robert Taylor homes is another (its right across the highway from the old Comisky Park).

Anyway, due to the massive ADD on here me included, lets stick with Cabrini Green.

It was the residents of Cabrini Green that brought lawsuits and the feds in to do something. That place was not safe for anyone and it was a violation of the 14th Amendment that these residents were not given equal protection under the law.

Cabrini Green had over 15,000 residents. After the feds ordered the demolition of most of the buildings and relocation offers for its residents, its population is around 4,000.

What has sprung up in its mist are middle and upper income condos and brownstones (some starting at $850,000)with units set aside for low income and section 8 renters(20%). The plan won't be complete for another five years but, as of now two things are clear:
Crime is down like 1000 percent and, families remaining have an absolute better and safer quality of life.

Concentrating poverty is never a good idea for that community or the surrounding community. That's what you're advocating Bob. many so-called slums of the 60's, 70's and 80's went through a renaissance in the 90's and 2000's and have produced wonderful quality of life and opportunities for betterment as a result.

Before my time, I hear that Selby and parts of Grand Ave were so ran down you couldn't give the property away. Now look at it.


Eric

2:57 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric crime has not declined in Chicago until this year. Crime stats for Chicago

And the reason crime has declined this year due to a joint community effort. No credit what so ever can be attributed to deconcentrating poverty.

Link to Chicago's drop in crime here

7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Selby was a major tragedy, and Grand was pretty rough. It took caring people and a lot of committment and heart to get those neighborhoods turned around.

This was before "code to the max" and the current morally bankrupt city thinking. While the city's hotshots and corrupt idiots claim successes, the city will go down if it continues.

The only place it can end up at is like some of the rougher areas of Detroit and Chicago.

8:17 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric said;
Concentrating poverty is never a good idea for that community or the surrounding community. That's what you're advocating Bob.

My response;
No I am not. I think citizens should have the right to move where ever they choose. I think property investor should be allowed to invest in affordable housing for low income citizens without intervention from the city. I am advocating for sustaining affordable housing that is slowly being taken away from a large proportion of a protected class of citizens.

It isn't a popular fight to defend citizens at the bottom of the economic scale. It isn't a poplar fight to defend landlords who rent to them. But I do it because it is the conscionable thing to do.

SELBY/DALE..When I first moved to Saint Paul some 40 years ago I lived at 721 Laurel. (The house was demolished after we moved and a home across the street moved in it's place) My parents didn't have a lot of money and this was the best they could afford rent wise. The neighborhood was predominantly black. And riddled with low income housing. If you were white it could be a rough place and not many whites dared to live there. This was in the late 60's and early 70's and blacks were very angry with whites over Martin Luther King and other civil rights issues. I never had to many problems with anyone, knowing so many kids from the neighborhood and having a paper route getting around meeting neighbors all over the area.

Living at 721 Laurel my parents were able to save enough money for a down payment to buy a house at 984 Hague (same area) My parents got a fully remodeled house cheap because of the neighborhood. They sold this house at a profit to the city and moved to Highland. I hope all of you reading see where I am going with this. In life we start at the bottom and work our way up. Take away the bottom and you take away oppurtunity for those trying to get ahead in life.

I loved my old neighborhood. I had lot's of friends, mostly black. I built a lot of character during those years. I was sadden to see so many of my friends move away from their homes.

Eric said;
Many so-called slums of the 60's, 70's and 80's went through a renaissance in the 90's and 2000's and have produced wonderful quality of life and opportunities for betterment as a result.

Before my time, I hear that Selby and parts of Grand Ave were so ran down you couldn't give the property away. Now look at it.

My response;
Eric, east of Dale the neighborhood is predominantly white yuppies.

With the current strategy in housing as time goes by opportunities for the bottom of the economic scale will dry up expect crime to rise. I predicted this last year and crime went up in Saint Paul when it has been going down all over the rest of the country.

The lowest of the economic scale will be forced into over crowding situations. Dispersed throughout the city bringing with them the social ills that come with being poverty stricken.

And Eric, NEVER would we have a Cabrini Green here. Our government here isn't at that level of corruption. Cabrini Green would have been managable if competant management and security was in place.

8:39 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
People need affordable housing, and I don't care if it is the private or public side that provides it, I just want it to be safe and healthy housing.

My response;
Chuck, it is very possible a jury will be deciding if the city was ensuring we had safe and healthy housing or displacing a protected class of citizens to improve the live ability of the city for others with higher economic status.

I agree with most of what you said in the post I took an excerpt from.

Crime isn't going away. There is a better approach to deterring crime without using code enforcement to do the city's dirty work.

9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Living at 721 Laurel my parents were able to save enough money for a down payment to buy a house at 984 Hague (same area) My parents got a fully remodeled house cheap because of the neighborhood. They sold this house at a profit to the city and moved to Highland. I hope all of you reading see where I am going with this. In life we start at the bottom and work our way up. Take away the bottom and you take away oppurtunity for those trying to get ahead in life.

GOOD POINT BOB! Keep on truckin brother..

9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where's all this money that landlords are supposed to be making? Most of the ones I know fo are making no money other than the principal reduction on the loan which isn't a whole hell of a lot. Maybe after 20 or 30 years when the mortgage is paid off they make out by selling and as far as I'm concerned they have it coming and then some for putting up with 20 years of BS and a lot of risk and everyone under the sun blaming them for everything under the sun.

10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also bought a house at the bottom and used it to pay up some equity on my loan so I could buy a nicer house in a nicer area. I'm sure glad my children or myself don't have to try to do it again in St. Paul. I don't know how you'd do it.

10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,
What are you saying that is different than what I'm saying?

I'm not even blaming landlords. We've moved into a discussion where the tenants behavior is the determining factor. I'm agreeing. I just know that concentrating bad behavior is much worse than defusing it. Eventually they will have to either modify their behavior or continue moving.

By the way, the links you gave show the Chicago's murder rate has been dropping every year since 1992.

Eric

10:44 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric said;
I'm not even blaming landlords. We've moved into a discussion where the tenants behavior is the determining factor. I'm agreeing. I just know that concentrating bad behavior is much worse than defusing it. Eventually they will have to either modify their behavior or continue moving.

My response;
Any veteran cop will tell you that criminals run in generations.
Meaning our generations trouble makers were replaced with our children's generation of trouble makers. Mostly young men between the ages of 15 and 25. I'm sure you know this Eric.

I have assumed the intent of the city condemning entire families to the street was to make families responsible for each others behavior. "My Brothers Keeper" so to speak. The problem with this is 1. it isn't legal, and 2, when we make citizens responsible for the behavior of others whether it be a family member or a landlord, it breeds contempt for government and does nothing to curb the behavior we do not want in our communities. And in the mean time these folks deemed undesirable are moving from home to home transgressing against others in the communities they move to. How is this anyway for a government to provide security to it's citizens? Investigate, arrest and convict criminals.

These young men and very few women with anti-social behavior will act out with little regard to losing housing. This is why I believe in individual responsibility. We must make the transgressors responsible for his or her actions.

I agree murder is down in Chicago. But the most recent significant decrease in murder is this year. The credit goes to Chicago's law enforcement agencies. Not to any effort they are using to deconcentrate poverty.

12:35 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Bob, you say Section 8 OR, public housing is spreading crime.

Thats concentrated living.

You also say that the city is attempting to de-concentrate poverty therefore is spreading crime.

So you admit that poverty causes crime and that poverty is one big reason for crime yet you support concentration of poverty through protecting low income properties that seem to breed crime.

But, the city supports public housing, even treating them better then landlords with low income housing properties.

It may sound confusing but refer to your post at 12:07 p.m. .

Doesn't it all come down to competition between public housing vs.the low income landlords getting treated differently by the city ?

Some of the recent posts about folks moving up and out of rough neighborhoods to find better homes is a success story.

I question though your philosophy of maintaining the bad side of town in order to provide opprotunity for someone to simply go in there, buy up a run down property to profit and then move out.

Well, anyone buying rundown property knows that in order to sell it to make a profit and move up, they have to fix it up. Costs money !

So you seem to support maintaining the bad side of town for at least 3 reasons.

So folks can buy up run down properties to profit and move up and out.

So landlords can provide cheap rental to impoverished people.

So we can concentrate low income housing so that lawenforcement can better control crime.

There just seems to be alot of conflict here in your reasoning .

What happens in prison when you overcrowed ?

What happens when you concentrate alot of underclass people in the same community ? Your OK with this and you said :

" Fact is, most crime is committed by the underclass of the city ".

Well, the city agrees with you about the criminal aspect and the underclass and thats why the city is cracking down.

They are trying to break up this concentration of underclass by coding to the max.

But, they can control public housing ( ie. the PHA board is stacked with police and local government allies ).

Is public housing and landlords competing for the right to control low income territories like a gang war of the sort ?






Jeff Matiatos

7:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WTF??????

10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WTF is that the best you can say ?????

10:48 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Jeff said;
Bob, you say Section 8 OR, public housing is spreading crime.

You also say that the city is attempting to de-concentrate poverty therefore is spreading crime.

My response;
Sec 8 Jeff. There is a very long waiting list for section 8 within the inner city. However, if you were looking for section 8 assistance and willing to relocate to Zumbrota, Farmington or someplace else distant, you could get a sec 8 voucher in a short time if eligible. There is a reason for this. You need to go to the front page of the blog and to the right of the screen scroll down to the link "Restructuring Local Government". The city is in cooperation with HUD to de-concentrate poverty within the inner city. Very long complicated story so I can't tell it here with the time I have.

I don't know if you have been following the topics I posted on section 8 in Dakota County and the lengths the sheriffs department is taking there to stop sec 8 fraud. Anyway, to many of us it appears the sheriffs department is using housing issues there to rid their communities of the low income citizens migrating from the inner city to to Dakota County. When they move from the inner city they bring their social ills with them. Crime is up in these areas where section 8 residents move. Before anyone gets their panties in an uproar, I am not suggesting that all low income people are criminals.

Jeff said;
So you admit that poverty causes crime and that poverty is one big reason for crime yet you support concentration of poverty through protecting low income properties that seem to breed crime.

My response;
Of coarse there is more crime among citizens who have nothing. Some people get desperate and feel they have no hope.

I am not for concentrating poverty.
Economics drive the concentrations of poverty.

The low income neighborhoods are a valuable part of our cities. If you remove this bottom rung you remove a stepping stone for others who are struggling to get ahead. It really is that simple.

For me it isn't just about the trouble makers in these low income neighborhoods. It is about the blue collar working class struggling to get ahead, and the fact is there is more of them than the citizens who collect assistance. Generally, the working class poor, understand they have cheap housing in these neighborhoods because it isn't a pretty place to live. That's why they moved there. They work hard to achieve away out of there living conditions. It's part of being poor and working harder to get ahead without asking for government assistance.

Government can not replace the affordable housing they are stripping away from it's low income citizens.

10:49 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Jeff said;
Doesn't it all come down to competition between public housing vs.the low income landlords getting treated differently by the city ?

My response;
I have not pondered that Jeff. Public housing can not compete with private investors. Public housing doesn't have the funds to provide enough housing for all who need it. There will be those left out. Example, a ex felon can not get housing from PHA. Also, I don't believe we should become dependant on government. Not a good idea.


Jeff said;
So folks can buy up run down properties to profit and move up and out.

I question though your philosophy of maintaining the bad side of town in order to provide opprotunity for someone to simply go in there, buy up a run down property to profit and then move out.

My response;
It works! And has for many years.

Jeff said;
So landlords can provide cheap rental to impoverished people.

My response; YES!

Jeff said;
So we can concentrate low income housing so that law enforcement can better control crime.

My response; YES!

Jeff said;
There just seems to be alot of conflict here in your reasoning.

My response;
I'm sorry you are confused Jeff. No conflict what so ever.

Jeff said;
Is public housing and landlords competing for the right to control low income territories like a gang war of the sort ?

My response;
Jeff, landlords are fighting for their rights! And this fight should concern all of us because these issues cut deep into our rights and safety.

11:00 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Jeff said;
I question though your philosophy of maintaining the bad side of town in order to provide opportunity for someone to simply go in there, buy up a run down property to profit and then move out.

My response,
I just had to elaborate more on this comment Jeff.

First of all, most property investors who buy rentals, make these homes a safe clean place to live. Code enforcement insures that! Secondly, what is wrong with someone buying property renovating it and selling it for a profit?

Capitalism has made our country great. Those who become dependant on government generally have issues with capitalism.

11:07 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

So I guess we wait to see what the courts say about overeaching and corrupt code enforcement.

The RICO plaintiffs have played all their cards, put it all out on the table and it's time to see the flop.

If the RICO guys are lucky, they will win it on the river.

Thats what I see happening.





Jeff Matiatos

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff do you even own a property or rental property? You seem to try to take over each topic as a know it all, yet a master of nothing.

2:54 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home