Custom Search

Monday, November 15, 2010

UPDATE Saint Paul Fair housing lawsuits/ City denied ENBANC hearing! City housing Gestapos face jury trial!

93 Comments:

Anonymous continued said...

ORDER
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The petition for rehearing by the
panel is also denied.
COLLOTON, Circuit Judge, with whom RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN, GRUENDER and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc.
The panel opinion in this case holds that the owners of rental property in St. Paul, Minnesota, have presented a submissible case that the City of St. Paul violated the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, by aggressively enforcing the City’s housing code. Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010). Even though there is insufficient evidence to infer that the City acted with intent to discriminate against any person in violation of the FHA, id. at 833, the panel reasoned that the City can be liable for its enforcement of the housing code, because enforcement of the housing code increased costs for property owners, the increased costs reduced the supply of “affordable housing” in the City, and the reduction of supply had a “disparate impact” on racial minorities. Id. at 835.
I would grant the City’s petition for rehearing en banc. The petition raises important questions concerning whether “aggressive” enforcement of a housing code is the sort of facially neutral policy that can trigger disparate-impact analysis under the FHA, whether the plaintiffs have shown that particular aggressive enforcement practices actually caused a disparate impact on racial minorities seeking to rent property in St. Paul, and whether the property owners have presented sufficient evidence that a less aggressive enforcement program known as “PP2000” – which had a success rate of only seventy percent with the limited sample of properties included in the program (R. Doc. 219, Attach. 4, at 34-35) – would be equally effective as, and no more costly than, the “heavy enforcement”

and “code to the max” approach that was adopted citywide by the responsible policymakers and challenged by the property owners in this litigation. See generally Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 660-61 (1989); Oti Kaga, Inc. v. S.D. Hous. Dev. Auth., 342 F.3d 871, 883 (8th Cir. 2003); cf. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 240 (2005) (concluding that Wards Cove’s pre-1991 explanation of disparate-impact analysis remains applicable to a statute with identical text as Title VII that was not amended along with Title VII in 1991).
In addition to these questions, the panel’s expansive rationale raises significant threshold issues concerning the application of disparate-impact analysis in this context. These issues likely warrant supplemental briefing by the parties and careful consideration by the court.
First, it would be useful for the en banc court to examine the basis for disparate-impact analysis under the FHA. In applying disparate-impact analysis, the panel opinion never mentions the text of the governing statute. The provisions cited by the panel provide that:
[I]t shall be unlawful –
(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(b).
The Supreme Court has not decided whether the FHA allows for recovery based on a disparate-impact theory. Town of Huntington v. Huntington Branch, NAACP, 488 U.S. 15, 18 (1988) (per curiam). In 1974, a panel of this court, also without discussing the text of 42 U.S.C. § 3604, held that a plaintiff advancing a claim under the FHA need prove only that the conduct of a defendant had a “discriminatory effect,” and thereby introduced disparate-impact analysis under the

11:20 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”).
The FHA likewise does not include text comparable to that relied on in Smith and appearing in § 703(a)(2) of Title VII and § 4(a)(2) of the ADEA. Rather, the text of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) makes it unlawful to “make unavailable or deny . . . a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” This language appears similar to § 4(a)(1) of the ADEA, which the Court in Smith said does not support a claim based on disparate impact alone. 544 U.S. at 236 n.6 (plurality opinion).
To be sure, most of the circuits have applied disparate-impact analysis under the FHA, and perhaps that approach is justified. Some district courts have ruled after the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith that disparate-impact analysis remains applicable to the FHA. E.g., Nat’l Comm. Reinvestment Coalition v. Accredited Home Lenders, 573 F. Supp. 2d 70, 77-79 (D.D.C. 2008). But there has been little consideration in this circuit of the textual basis for this theory of liability, and virtually no discussion of the matter by any court of appeals since the Court in Smith explained how the text of Title VII justified the decision in Griggs. The district court and the parties understandably have taken disparate-impact analysis as a given under circuit precedent, but recent developments in the law suggest that the issue is appropriate for careful review by the en banc court.
Second, if disparate-impact analysis should be applied to claims under the FHA based on the “purpose” of the statute, see Black Jack, 508 F.2d at 1184, then it seems appropriate to consider whether the purpose of the statute extends to declaring a city liable for disparate impact caused by its “aggressive” enforcement of a housing code. The Seventh Circuit, while applying a disparate-impact theory to evaluate a city’s refusal to rezone property when such refusal had the consequence of perpetuating segregation in housing, refused at the same time to conclude that every action that produces discriminatory effects is illegal. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1290 (7th Cir. 1977). “Such a per se rule,” the court thought, “would go beyond the intent of Congress and would lead courts into untenable results in specific cases.” Id.; see Knapp v. Eagle Prop. Mgmt. Corp., 54 F.3d 1272, 1280 (7th Cir. 1995) (explaining that “disparate impact analysis is not appropriate in certain contexts”). The Tenth

11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andy Dawkins and Mayor Kelly sure did a costly disservice to the city for starting this.

It will be great to see what role people like Moermond and Humphrey had, and also find out who is more responsible for the abuse: the inspectors, the inspector's leadershit, the city council, or the Mayor.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following was posted by Eric during one of his rants dissing and trashing Jeff over Jeff's understanding of the law and his predicition that the landlords were right and the city was wrong:

"So after five or six years this is it. However, people like Jeff, are bending over backwards to construct a scenario which is not congruent with the law, judicial procedures or precedence. Explaining that would take or three things that are missing from here:
1. Legal background
2. Some kind of understanding of judicial procedures
3. The contemplation that the plaintiffs could be wrong"

It now appears that mr. Jeff does not need a legal background and has a very good understanding of judicial procedures.

As far as his contemnplation that the landlords could be wrong it seems like the majority of the 8th circuit court is on Jeff's side....they don't thnk the plaintiffs are wrong. Maybe jeff should be sitting on the 8th circuit.

12:55 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric is part of the problem not the solution. Eric is like many blacks in positions to influence change and he chooses not to do anything but defend the racist policy's. This attitude comes from the pocket book and not the heart.

Eric I understand why you don't show your face around here. With recent court rulings you appear to look more and more like a token black to white institutional racist.

Speaking of token blacks, Council member Melvin Carter run on a platform of concern over gentrification of our neighborhoods. If I was you council member Carter I'd crawl under a rock someplace because now that this shit is hitting the fan I intend to make sure all your neighbors learn what kind of guy you really are. "PLAYING" councilman isn't going to be fun anymore!

Black leaders in this area have been aware of gentrification of our neighborhoods for years. They have done nothing what so ever to stop it. They have sold their soles to white institutional racism.

As one property rights investor was told by a black community leader, quote "if this ever gets to jury then we'd like to talk to you, until then we have funding to consider".

2:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kind of funny that all this time Chuck and Eric have been saying this is all a bunch of hooyey but now that the appeal is complete it appears there is an entire court saying it is not BS.

2:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These property owners are heros for the action they have taken. They should run for office.

3:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

love it love it love it---- landlords chasing the city down the highway to hell with the city smirking all the way thinking they have the upper hand. How could they be so darn stupid to let this matter get this far?

6:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob your right about Eric. I have on many occasions pointed out about direct attacks against blacks here by the city and Eric has NEVER rushed to defend so long as the city was mentioned in the same breath.

It is that pocketbook mentality your talking about .

Me, I feel I am honest when I speak of the black / white trash that runs around this city commiting crimes and having kids like rabbits.

We have illegals that get sanctuary from the democrats and still others can't see and don't want to see how this policy has helped drag down the economy and has given more rights to illegals than our own natural citizens.

Turns out that even the city, in the face of having lost this en banc request has continued their Gestapo tactics by sending Code Enforcers over to harass tenants of the plaintiffs.


Jeff Matiatos

11:14 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I have that story coming up Jeff.

Preveiw-

I heard Saint Paul code enforcement inspector James Thomas received the Himmler Award. We will be talking about this shortly.

11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing left for Chuck and E to say. No way to spin their way out of this. The court they have respected so much when they thought they could spin has now spoken and a trial is going to happen. Thank God!

12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These landlords will wind up being urban legends in the end and the city council will still just be the dirty slimy bastards they have always been.

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Erin Welle said...

Folk's Saint Paul Inspector James Thomas is a defendant in the fair housing lawsuits. It seems he hasn't learned anything from this experience.

More proof of the city's retaliatory ambitions toward fair housing lawsuit plaintiffs.

Please read the following complaint from a Saint Paul renter of Dadders Estates.

There maybe copy errors

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
DADDERS ESTATES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF ST. PAUL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
DISTRICT COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS
Court File No.
Assigned Judge: ______ _

AFFIDAVIT OF ERIN WELLE
Erin Welle, being duly sworn on oath, states as follows:

1. I am a resident of the State of Minnesota, City of St. Paul, and reside at 795
East 6th Street, #303, St. Paul, MN 55106.
2. I have been a tenant of Dadders Estates, LLC since September 1, 2010.
3. Other than the recent incident which is the subject of this affidavit, my
experience as a tenant for Dadders has been a very positive one. I have no complaints about my property or the service provided.
4. On Wednesday, November 3, 2010, City of St. Paul inspector James Thomas knocked on my door and accused me of sending an email to his supervisor.
I argued with Mr. Thomas as he was accusing me of not being Erin Welle, and he wanted to know why I had sent the email to his supervisor.
5. Mr.Thomas told me that Tom Gallagher (an owner of Dadders Estates) was supposed to meet him there for an inspection, but cancelled due to the
illness of a child and that was unacceptable. He told me that the nature of his being there was due to a mold & cockroach infestation in the building. I have not had mold or cockroach issues at the property
6. I was very concerned because Mr. Thomas told me that Dadders Estates was losing the building I was living in (795 East 6'h Street), and that he personally
had closed down 6 other Dadders buildings, and that new management
wou ld be coming around soon to introduce themselves.
7. Mr. Thomas told me he shut down Dadders' location on West Maryland and it would happen to Dadders at the East 6'h Street location where I lived.
8. Mr. Thomas then pushed me about a couple of missing screens on my
apartment windows. 1 explained to Mr.Thomas that the owner had the
screens out for repair, and would have them returned within a couple of days. Mr. Thomas told me that this was unacceptable.
9. I was very confused and concerned about the statements Mr. Thomas made to me about my landlord losing my home, and it made me very uncomfortable. I expressed my concern with Dadders employee Jill Veenendall when I went to pay my rent on November 5, 2010.
10. I was shocked and surprised by the nature of the statements and allegations made by City of St. Paul employee James Thomas. His statements certainly caused great concern and discomfort over my housing situation and relationship with my landlord.

12:31 PM  
Anonymous JILL VEENENDALL said...

There maybe copy errors

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
DADDERS ESTATES, llC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF ST. PAUL, ET Al.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
DISTRICT COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS
Court File No.
Assigned Judge: ________
AFFIDAVIT OF JILL VEENENDALL
Jill Veenendall, being duly sworn on oath, states as follows:

1. I am a resident of the State of Minnesota, City of Cottage Grove, and reside at 7402 lilies Avenue South, Cottage Grove, MN 55016.
2. I have been an employee of Dadders Estates, llC since September 2007, as
office leasing manager.
3. On the morning of November 5, 2010, at 10:30 am, I met with Erin Welle, a resident
of a Dadders Estates building located at 795 East 6th St. #303, St. Paul, MN 55106.
Ms. Welle came in to pay her monthly rent.
4. While Ms. Welle was paying her rent, she seemed very upset and concerned, and
asked me if we were losing the building at 795 East 61h Street. I told her no, that
Dadders was not losing the building, and asked why she would ask me that.
5. Ms. Welle explained to me that on Wednesday, November 3, 2010, City of St. Paul
inspector James Thomas had knocked on her door and accused her of sending an email to his supervisor. Ms. Welle continued to explain to me that she argued with
Mr. Thomas as he was accusing her of not being Erin Welle, and he wanted to know
why she had sent the email to his supervisor.
6. Ms. Welle stated to me that Mr.Thomas told her that Tom Gallagher (an owner of
Dadders Estates) was supposed to meet him there for an inspection but cancelled due to the illness of a child and that this was unacceptable. He told her that the
nature of his being there was due to a mold & cockroach infestation in the building.
7. Ms. Welle showed great concern to me because Mr. Thomas told her that Dadders
Estates was losing the building located at 795 East 6th Street, and that he personally
had closed down 6 other Dadders buildings previous to this, and that new
management would be coming around soon to introduce themselves.
8. Ms. Welle stated that Mr. Thomas said he shut down Dadders' location on West
Maryland and it would happen to Dadders at the East 6th Street location.
9. Ms. Welle explained to me her confusion and concern regarding the statements
from Mr. Thomas and that it made her uncomfortable.
10. Ms. Welle stated that Mr. Thomas then pushed her about a couple of missing
screens on her apartment windows. Ms. Welle explained to Mr.Thomas that the
owner had the screens out for repair and would have them returned within a couple
of days. Ms. Welle stated that Mr. Thomas told her that this was unacceptable.
11.Dadders is not losing the building at 795 East 6th Street.
12.Mr. Thomas did not shut down Dadders' location on West Maryland.
13.Mr. Thomas did not personally close down 6 other Dadders' buildings.
14.As office leasing manager for Dadders for the past 3 years, I have never had to deal
with a tenant as concerned as Ms. Welle over their residence based on such false
and egregious allegations and statements that were made by City of St. Paul
employee james Thomas.

12:35 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

15.0n November I, 2010, I also spoke with a Dadders Estates tenants, Dora Alvarez
and Devin Wiley, regarding past due rent and statements made to them by City of
St. Paul inspector james Thomas. I was informed by Ms. Alvarez and Mr. Wiley that
Mr. Thomas had instructed them to allow Dadders Estates to file for an eviction
against them for non-payment of rent. It is my belief that Mr. Thomas gave this
advice because he inspected Ms. Alvarez and Mr. Wiley's unit, and found a crack in
the wall. To the best of my knowledge, this was the only issue at this unit. As of
today's date, Ms. Alvarez and Mr. Wiley have vacated the unit.
16.As office leasing manager for Dadders for the past 3 years, I have never had to deal
with a tenant who vacated their residence based on the advice given to them by a
City of St. Paul employee to allow an eviction, as did James Thomas to Ms. Alvarez
and Mr. Wiley.
17. The nature of the statements and allegations made by James Thomas to Ms. Welle,
Ms. Alvarez and Mr. Wiley would certainly cause damage to the landlord-tenant
relationship and cause damage to the business of the landlord.

12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And so we are back to what I said almost two months ago about the hearing that is left to you...

"What it reversed was the lower court saying that the charge of disparate impact should be thrown out. So, there will be a trial to determine if the impact of the City's housing enforcement adversely affected minority groups and if it did what should be done about it.

So, from my end of seeing things, everything that I care about or concerned about comes out fine.

Every claim that the landlords had about them being picked on... thrown out.

Every claim of conspiracy... thrown out.

Every claim of not producing evidence... thrown out.

All of the Rico claims... thrown out.

What is left. Did the housing code enforcement have an unfair impact on minority members?

It is clear from what is left standing in the suit is that the policy was designed to give the people who live in those units a better living environment and to stop the landlords from exploiting them.

If those policies had a disparate income on minorities then the City needs to develop a way to assist those impacted tenants or to reduce the impact.

That is the question that is left to the court. Did the City's actions have a disparate impact of residents of color and if so what was the City doing to reduce that impact?

We shall see if there was disparate impact and if the City had taken adiquate actions to reduce that impact.

One of two things will happen; either the City will be found to have not created disparate impact or had developed adiquate ways to address it; or it will be determined that there was disparate impact and the City will need to find a way to reduce the impact on communities of color.

And if anyone is going to get something out of this it would be tenants not landlords.

Sounds like a win - win to me."

I stand by that..

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to me the evidence cannot be ignored that the city aggresivley and maliciously enforced it's housing code.

The remainder of this case ( in a nutshell ) pivots on the aggressive manner of how the code was enforced and how that enforcement increased costs and inflicted losses upon the landlords, reduced affordable housing in the city and how that reduction had a disparate impact on minorities.

Chuck does not understand the damages aspect to this case.

In 90% of any civil case for damages, a case could not even proceed if the plaintiffs claims for damages in the first instance were not authorized under any particular theory of recovery.

So for Chuck to say a verdict in the landlords favor would only yield an outcome to the tune of just getting the city to revamp it's code, is contrary to concept of damages in civil litigation in general.

Your just not learned enough in the law Chuck to understand these things.

I see no problem with the landlords being able to prove the rest of this case.

You can wave your flag and hoop and holler all you want about those parts of the case that have been dismissed but fact is Chuck, we still have a whopper of a claim remaining and my prediction is at least an offer to settle with the city admitting no guilt.



Jeff Matiatos

1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are an idiot Repke. The court already said there was a disparate impact. And as far as the tenants getting anything .....they are not going to get squat. The landlords brought the suit not the tenants. The city created a disparate impact and businessmen were damaged by it. They have protections against this under the fair housing act. The city pays and pays big time. If you want a factual explanation maybe you would like to consult with Jeff the staff attorney here.. I am sure he can expalin it simple enough for even you to understand.

2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are the idiot 2:00 chuck has been dishing out the gruel to you weasels for 4 years now you can't get enough of it

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can bet your ass the tenants will get something. Soon as they relaize there's liability on the city some legal aid lawyer will be there with an action on behalf of tenants. You can bet the farm on that! The suit with the landlords is only the beginning.

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you are the idiot 2:00 chuck has been dishing out the gruel to you weasels for 4 years now you can't get enough of it

2:16 PM"

you are calling me the idiot? This Chuck guy can't even grasp the concept of basic legaleeze. He thinks landlords start a lawsuit and someone else like renters get the settlement.

2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that all the the dog excrement has hit the fan in Gestapo Inspektor headquarters, I haven't seen anything in the paper.

This is important news, and the people should be allowed to consider its impact.

2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:00 PM - no idiot - the court did not say there was disparate impact, it said that it would allow a trial to occur on if there was disparate impact. It said that there was enough evidence that if seen in its best light there could be a case. That is all that has been said by the court.

And Jeff this is a case under the Federal Fair Housing Act. Anyone has the potential of being able to bring the case, everyone in the country has standing. This isn't a state, civil suit seeking damages. This is a Federal suit claiming that people's rights were violated. And the one "people" that the court has determined that there may be an action for is "people of color who live in private rental units."

If there is a violation on disparate impact to members of the minority community, you would be hard pressed to show why the landlords should get anything out of that.

They would have to argue that since they had buildings with code issues that the City wouldn't allow any human to live in, that created the situation that resulted in the effected "peoples" suffered disparate impact, they should be financially rewarded.

Jeff look up some of your other cases where disparate impact was found. What you see City's being ordered to give monies to people that were evicted, or in the future give emergency housing assistance, or monies given to programs that assist low income people in getting housing.

Find me one where the scum bag owners were paid for abusing people of color under FFHA.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob - post the link to the court decision that allows the case to go forward.

It is clear that the only issue on the table is "disparate impact."

Any "Gestapo tactics" are "disparate treatment" and that is dismissed through summary judgement or the unfair treatment - targeting... which were also dismissed by summary judgement.

Your case is now only Disparate Impact... which as I have said before is usually a stat's case... how many were displaced because of the City code and what happened to them (was housing found for them...were the thrown into the street...?)

Again... win/win in my book.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So these property owners had inspectors who came out and fabricated the serious violations in order to be able to condemn the buildings and they suffered damages to their businesses because of those fabricated violations and because of that they are scum bags. They had their rights violated by the city inspectors. What do you call them ? The heros?

3:05 PM  
Anonymous link here said...

This is the link Chuck requested.

3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:05 - the Federal Court has already determined that the plaintiffs have no evidence that occured.... or if it did occur the plaintiffs should have taken the issue to district court and they didn't.

So, that is dead.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:31 - thanks for the link...

If you go to that link and read pages 15-21 you will see everything that the court is allowing to go forward as a case.

EVERYTHING.

Anything else, every other claim that has been made on these pages is gone. Dust. Dirt. Over.

You can whine and complain and wish for something else and I expect that the lawyer will try and fail to bring that other crap back in, but its done.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What will be a win win Chuck is seeing you eat crow when it's all over. Landlords will be laughing at you, Jeff will be laughing at you, hell, even Dahn will be laughing.

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Chuck, my understanding from the cases I read and of this area of law is that all who were indignified under the FHA can be compensated. Even if it only means that the cities aggressive manner in which they enforced the code happens to be the sole reason why we'll have a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

Chuck said : " Plaintiffs have no evidence that occured, or if it did occur....... "


So Chuck, does evidence occur or just exist ?

Obviously the plaintiffs have evidence of something in the form of statistics, affidavits, proof of economic losses, depositions,
a witness list, and the testimony of the defendants. Isn't enough for you eh ?????????

So what do you think, were just going to have a trial so we can practice jury selection ?

Disparate impact means just that, like it's impact on everyone not just minorities.

You just don't like the thought Chuck that someone other than minorities, like the landlords could have suffered indignities.

If a person started a forest fire and your house caught fire, I guess thats just the impact from the out of control fire.

Same thing here, we have an out of control housing inspections program running minorities out of town and ringing up costs and heavy losses for the landlords.

He who lit the match must pay for the damages of the fire. Surely if your house is burned down by an arsonist, you would have a cause of action for damages against him don't you think ???

Same thing here and the city must pay for all who were impacted by the aggressive actions of the city.


Simple logic Chuck and thats all you need to know.





Jeff Matiatos

6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, your last statement would make for a pretty good closing argument for the jury.

8:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When is evidence just a fact and when does a fact become evidence. If there were no facts and evidence the appeals court would not have ruled for the landlords. As for all this other evidence or facts that Chuck thinks cannot be used, I am not so sure that is right. I think the plaintiffs will be able to show and discuss those things in order to show exactly how the city created this disparate impact. Also while the city is dilly dalying around trying to delay, if the landlords come up with new facts or evidence before trial they can always amend their complaint to conform to the new facts.....thus allowing in some more claims of action against the city. It seems like the delat tactic is not really in the best interest of the city. Especially since there are other lawsuits of the same nature going on with discovery being conducted. I do not think that is a position I would want to be in if someone were suing me.

9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God help me I don't know why I continue to try to explain even the most basic things to you guys...

"Disparate impact" means just that... that some policy while neutral on its face, adversely impacts against a particular racial, ethnic or sex group.

That is the issue that the court said could go forward. So, if you were to argue that Mrs Smith (some white English lady) got booted out of her apartment because of the City's policy... you would be arguing that there wasn't disparate impact, that the impact fell equally on all races. And if the impact was the same on all races the City wins the case.

Go back to the link and read the ruling. The court has already said that the plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of disparate treatment (that the City tried to evict more people of color than whites). The City has already won that case. And the City won on Rico and on any case the City was selectively picking on these landlords. All of those cases the City has won. They are done.

As to the question of facts vs evidence the real issue here has been facts or evidence VS accusations. These landlords have claimed all sorts of things with absolutely no evidence or facts. They are "so" because they say they are "so." The court determined most of that BS to be just BS.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you call landlords scum bags. Who are you speaking of? The plaintiffs,and if so do you know any? And if you are calling all landlords scumbags, wouldn't you be calling yourself and Thune a scum bag? You 2 are the worst offenders with your shit hole properties. Maybe its a good time for a property sweep in yours a Thunsies neighborhood.

If it weren't for the private sector offering offordable housing who will? Government? When the private sector does it, it doesn't cost a dime of tax payers money. When governmentdoes it it costs us all a fortune. But your a big fat government guy!pssst!!!!!!!!

9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:16 - Are you fucking kidding me!

Who in the hell do you think pays for the section 8 vouchers that they get as guaranteed payment?

Who do you think gets to write off all of their interest payments from their taxes?

Who do you think gets to write off depreciation of the property?


Who do you think gets to write off any monies that they spend repairing the property?

Not funded by the Government???

These are the biggest welfare queens on the Government tit!

There entire business is funded by the government!

Think some time.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

You still don't get it. But rather than your interpretations, its time we let the juries decide.

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Chuck at his
9:41 post.

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post at 9:41 Chuck but you forgot to mention the part about when the tenant doesn't want to pay the rent and they get the city to come out and first create a shooping list of violations that was 90% caused by the tenant and then they have to hire a lawyer to go to court and fight the legal aid lawyer the tenant gets for free so they can argue about how much money the tenant should get back from the landlord for the damage that the tenant caused (which they portray as manitenance the landlord will not do) and then the landlord can pay the eviction costs, moving costs with the sheriff, storage of tenants property for months at a time. They get to write all that off too Chuck and if there's not enough left for the landlord to eat or take care of his family or pay the mortgage it is just tough luck. The landlord isn't running some non profit TAX EXEMPT organization like you do. And unlike your government buddies down at city hall the landlord has to follow the law or he will have to pay fines up the ying yang. You try to make the landlords out to be some kind of trash (as usual) because they write off things like mortgage interest and that is not something that is some kind of favor to landlords. Everyone in the damn country writes off mortgage interest, repairs to business property, sales tax, child credits, etc. And while you are talking about the landlords being welfare queens, the tenants you and Eric seem to love so much get hefty refunds on the property tax the landlord paid and also earned income credits when good share of them don't work a day in their lives. The real welfare queens are your government buddies and non profits who just suck every dollar they can out of the economy and give nothing in return but grief and obstacles for people who want to contribute something to society. Why don't you just admit it Chuck.....you and your government parasite bussies don't like sucess and capitalism much do you? You would rather have dependance and despair so you can justify your existence helping people out.

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Landlords v. CitySt.Paul,Magner et al said...

http://www.justalandlord.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/order_denying_Petition_for_Rehearing_with_dissenting_opinion_11-15-2010_SHSJ_case.pdf

Bobby you may link the "Order" in pdf format to open

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:21 - look I don't have any problem with Capitalism or people making a buck....

I just get a laugh out of all of these people who get direct benefits from the government who are parading around claiming that they could live without the government and accusing those who are at the bottom end of the economic ladder of being the beneficiary of government welfare when in fact those at the top of the ladder see much more real cash benefits.

Anyone who has owned rental property understands the tax benefits that come with it and the goal is to have the property cash flow while never making a profit so that you never have to pay taxes. You always either refinance the property to use the cash to acquire more property or once a building may become profitable you sell and reinvest in something of higher value... again avoiding profit while increasing one's overall wealth and avoiding capitol gains taxes.

So, yes you can become a millionaire in investment real estate and never pay income tax... so you tell me if that is welfare or being a government parasite?

If the tax code wasn't designed to give you those benefits, you would have to pay taxes on that income, but because your "Government Buddies" have been protecting you, you get to increase your net-wealth without paying any taxes on the increase.

Sounds like millionaire welfare to me...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like there is an easy solution that will leave everyone happy. All St. Paul needs to do is sell Como Park to pay for these and the upcoming lawsuits, and the inspectors won't have to turn over important evidence about the inspections department to get off the hook.

8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Millonaire welfare my eye! These DFL goons at city hall use the taxpayers checkbook to boost their egos and then try and cover it up when they get caught. Disgusting.

9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

one group of welfare takers versus another group of welfare takers. Sounds like America.

9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Millonaire welfare my eye! These DFL goons at city hall use the taxpayers checkbook to boost their egos and then try and cover it up when they get caught. Disgusting.

9:52 PM

How so?

9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:21 - look I don't have any problem with Capitalism or people making a buck....

I just get a laugh out of all of these people who get direct benefits from the government who are parading around claiming that they could live without the government and accusing those who are at the bottom end of the economic ladder of being the beneficiary of government welfare when in fact those at the top of the ladder see much more real cash benefits.

Anyone who has owned rental property understands the tax benefits that come with it and the goal is to have the property cash flow while never making a profit so that you never have to pay taxes. You always either refinance the property to use the cash to acquire more property or once a building may become profitable you sell and reinvest in something of higher value... again avoiding profit while increasing one's overall wealth and avoiding capitol gains taxes.

So, yes you can become a millionaire in investment real estate and never pay income tax... so you tell me if that is welfare or being a government parasite?

If the tax code wasn't designed to give you those benefits, you would have to pay taxes on that income, but because your "Government Buddies" have been protecting you, you get to increase your net-wealth without paying any taxes on the increase.

Sounds like millionaire welfare to me...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:47 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like there is an easy solution that will leave everyone happy. All St. Paul needs to do is sell Como Park to pay for these and the upcoming lawsuits, and the inspectors won't have to turn over important evidence about the inspections department to get off the hook.

8:54 PM


More welfare? the only thing that can happen is that the city change the rules. There will be no money flow to the landlords.

9:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The boys are back in town Repke and I am not thinking they are going to be as docile as they once were. Better kiss off your grants from the city..........the landlords will be taking that money.

9:55 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Link to similar cases

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like I have been saying, here is the kinds of things that are ordered if the City loses (from Bob's link):

"Under the settlement, which the parties finalized today but
must still be approved by the court, the $1.4 million will pay to
help build affordable housing, carry out relocation programs,
build parks, and compensate families displaced by the urban
renewal plan. The Hispanic population in Addison, which has
32,000 residents, more than doubled between 1980 and 1990."
-snip-

And...

"After two years of renewed settlement negotiations
with HUD, the Justice Department, and HOPE, the newly
signed agreement will require the city to:
* Create a $200,000 victims fund to compensate
Latino residents who believe they have been
discriminated against in housing code enforcement;
* Enter into a four-year, $300,000 contract with
HOPE to provide fair housing education, testing,
counseling and other services;
* Revise inspection and warrant procedures,
including requirements to have city attorneys
review inspection warrants and restrict inspections
that are based solely on anonymous complaints;
* Require inspectors to do the inspections during
regular business hours;
* Require Spanish training for code enforcement
officers and translation of some documents into
Spanish; and
* Establish a formal grievance system for complaints
about code enforcement."

-snip-

With me boys?

If there are victims in a "disparate impact" case, the victims are the minority class members who lost housing opportunities, not the people who's houses weren't up to code.

There is no dispute over if the housing was up to code or not. The City has won that issue. The only issue is did the City's enforcement disparately impact minority members and if so, what should be done to remedy that?

So, like I said win - win for my side...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, what you don't understand about what you read on Bobs link was that the Department of Justice
DOJ, brought those suits against the city , therefore the DOJ ( who are not landlords ) have no losses other than representing the latinos at tax payor expence.

These landlords were victimized by the fallout of the citys aggressive code enforcement and the panel has already confirmed that and the en banc court has refused to hear the defendant city with regard to why the city feels this case not ought to be tried.

So Chuck, in addition to everything you said in your 9:42 post, the landlords will still be awarded costs, attorneys fees and relevant specified damages.





Jeff Matiatos

10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and also, after reading one of the cases in Bobs post, take note of what the Federal Court said in the case of Georgetown property owners VS. Town of Georgetown
( Federal District CourtDeleware ) from page 4 :


" Plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant's conduct is different in kind as directed to plaintiffs for improper purposes. Under these circumstances, and taking the allegations as true,the court finds dismissal inappropriate at this time "

So Chuck, this is almost exactly what the panel has said as to why this case is being permitted to go to trial and I am sorry to report to you but the plaintiffs allegations of fact are supported by the record which includes affidavits, depositions, documentary evidence and witness testimony. All this evidence only has to be properly admitted into court under the rules of evidence and foundation established for certain documentary evidence.

Any competent attorney can do that.




Jeff Matiatos

11:04 AM  
Anonymous REporter ChrisHavens Landlord 2 days said...

City St.Paul has new Agenda Site WITHOUT vIDEO'S at the present time Last Nite 520 Rice Condemnation with 12 Family living there with kids.
Lantry is responsible to displace these people in (2) days The City MUST PAY RELOCATION COSTS.
Thank God Steninhauser et al must continue this Fight

Landlord gets 2 days to fix St. Paul building | StarTribune.com
Nov 17, 2010 ... The St. Paul City Council issued the ultimatum to landlord Jeffrey ... The three-story building at 520 Rice St. was built in 1889 and sits ...
www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/108845214.html?elr=KArks...V...

11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff....

What the panel said in not dismissing the suit is that there may have been disparate impact on minority members more than if the City was still using PP2000.

That is the only issue.

What is the impact on minority members compared to PP2000?

For the plaintiffs to win they have to show that more minority members lost affordable housing because ot the Kelly enforcement than if the City would have continued PP2000. And that it is a significant number and that it was a disparate impact compared to PP2000.

I will grant you that if the City loses the court could order attorneys fees.

There are no behavior issues left. There are no damages to the landlords left. They are gone thrown out in summary judgement. Read what the panel said on Disparate Treatment... it agreed with the lower court that there was no evidence of disparate treatment of minority members.

Done. Over.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If what you say Chuck as to the court saying their might have been disparate impact towards only minioritys, then why are the plaintiff landlords being able to progress with this suit ? Impact is just what it means, impact on all who were affected.

My understanding of the law is that unless this current lawsuit was a class action suit with the landlords attorneys representing the miniority tenants ( which is not the case ) then the only reason this case is progressing is to decide the damages of the landlords and the outcome will surely and as a matter of course, alter the code and the way it's enforced.

Again, read the Georgetown decision.




Jeff Matiatos

1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Jeff - it is a Federal Fair Housing case and the one charge standing is "Disparate Impact."

Disparate impact is a legal phrase used to describe when a facially neutral practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.

That is what it means.

You can't just pretend it means something else.

As far as the court is concerned, these plaintiffs are a group of civil libertarians wanting to make sure that the City does right by minority members. There doesn't need to be a class action suit. Everyone in the country has standing to enforce the FFHA.

Read pages 15-21 it tells you everything that is left to take the case forward.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you have a disparate impact that affects the minorities Chuck then you have a dispoarate impact that affects the people who did business with them (the landlords) who had their business destroyed. Case over - landlords win - city loses.

4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the tax code wasn't designed to give you those benefits, you would have to pay taxes on that income, but because your "Government Buddies" have been protecting you, you get to increase your net-wealth without paying any taxes on the increase.

But it was designed to give us those benifets Chuck. Designed by your DFL mobsters you praise so much. The tax breaks were put in place to encourage people to make those investments because the government wants private sector to provide housing. DFL wanted housing and private sector provide it johnny on the spot. Don't be going around bad mouthing us for fulfilling our civic duty and be good Americans just because we get some write offs that the government used to entice us to get into this business.

4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am sorry to report to you but the plaintiffs allegations of fact are supported by the record which includes affidavits, depositions, documentary evidence and witness testimony."

Might I just add that the above is the city's own papers and testimony of city officials. Won't be no coming along saying please believe us or give us the benifet of the doubt. Your side blew it Chuck. They should have settled it 10 years ago but no you guys like to fight don't ya? Well you picked a fight with people who are gonna clean your clocks when it gets to trial.

4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:14 - check a dictionary of what "disparate impact" means. Please learn what the charge is.

4:33 go to the link to the court order and read it. Nothing that any employee ever did is in question any more in this case. Nothing that happened to any individual citizen is in issue anymore. It just isn't an issue any more. Any charge that could be based on the behavior of a City employee has been thrown out. There is one issue left... was a disparate amount of minorities affected by this policy? If the impact was the same on all races, or if the impact would have been the same under PP2000 the City wins. The plaintiffs have to prove that minorities were impacted more than whites and that would not have been the case under PP2000. That's it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

Just looking at disparate impact, the city's actions of lying, stealing, making threats, falsifying information, etc., etc., etc., may not appear to be discriminatory on their face, but rather it is discriminitory in their application or effect.

Also the fact the city delibaretely targetted the "lower tier" of people, and they continue to break the law (Morris v Sax) in their targetting, all leads to desperate impact, and all needs to be heard by a jury to determine the truth.

10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why bother Chuck?
You can't feed logic and fact to the ignorant who are ready and willing to stick conspiracy and innuendo. They just don't have the wiring to be objective and honest.

Free yourself man and ignore them.

8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One last time here are the charges and the courts response:

1 Disparate Treatment (targeting minorities)

"In sum, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably infer discriminatory intent.
Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment with regard to Appellants’ disparate treatment claim under the FHA."

2. Retaliation (picking on these landlords)

"Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Appellants’ claims that the City unlawfully retaliated against them,"

3. Discriminatory intent (evil housing inspectors)

"Because there is insufficient evidence to show a discriminatory intent, see supra Sec. II-A-(1), summary judgment was proper as to Appellants’ claims under
§§ 1981, 1982, and 1985."

4. Equal Protection (treating landlords different than PHA)

"We conclude, therefore, that summary judgment was appropriate on their equal-protection claim."

5. Due Process (property rights)

"For these reasons, summary judgment was proper on the Gallagher Appellants’
substantive due process claim."

6. Void for vagueness (code isn't clear - inspectors make up things)

"the Gallagher Appellants’
facial void-for-vagueness claim fails as a matter of law."

7. RICO (the city lied, conspired to get the landlords, made up stuff...)

"Appellants allege other predicate acts, including falsification of Housing Code violations, intentional delay and misdirection of notices, concealment of the strict nature of the Housing Code, condemnation of properties without justification, and violation of the state building code. These claims, however, lack adequate evidentiary support for a RICO claim. Accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate on all
of Appellants’ RICO claims."

8. conflict with state law

"they merely reiterate the theme of
their case—the “discriminatory environment and attitude in housing code enforcement.” These conclusory allegations are insufficient to defeat summary
judgment"

9. Conflict with the Minnesota State Building Code (Morris v Sax)

"We have reviewed the latest amended complaints in these
actions, which total 228 pages, and even the most liberal construction of the complaints does not indicate a preemption claim."

10. Destroying evidence

"However, where a court expressly finds, as here, that there is no evidence of intentional destruction of evidence to suppress the truth, then the district court also
acts within its discretionary limits by denying sanctions for spoliation of evidence."

11. Discovery of Magner’s Personal Records

"This issue does not warrant further discussion, as we agree with the magistrate judge’s sound reasoning and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion."

All ELEVEN of those issues that you guys still think some court will hear, will not go to trial. Because the Federal Court has determined that they have no grounds. There was no evidence only accusation. They are dead folks.

READ the documents that Bob posts here.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:29 said

"Why bother Chuck?
You can't feed logic and fact to the ignorant who are ready and willing to stick conspiracy and innuendo. They just don't have the wiring to be objective and honest.

Free yourself man and ignore them."

Isn't that exactly what the Fuehrer once said?

10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:29 is obviously Eric Mitchel.

He has been absent from any discussion the last month or so ever since the shit hit the fan with the city and the democraps got their asses whipped.

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I need some info from you folks who deal with DSI.

What do you all know about Joe Essling, supervisor in DSI?

Or if Bob or others here can point me to any information on Mr. Essling I would be interested in it.

6:21 AM  
Anonymous NixleNews said...

Just do a Google on Joel Essling Sharon's latest nixle news https://local.nixle.com/city/mn/saint-paul/

7:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a crime to harrass a public employee who is acting in their role as an employee. Its a major crime. That statement alone could cause the city to have this blog owner held liable and force him to register all participants or shut it down or give you up as the culprit.

Figure something else out before you fuck it up for everyone.

Jeff Mataiostaotistaos

8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:27 AM

I will answer your post.

City officials are responsible for their own behavior and can't hide under the color of authority due to the nature of their job. Holding these public officials accountable is very important, as people need to have trust in their city officials and currently they don't.

Harass? Who is harassing whom?

If a city official is not doing their job, then they need to be held accountable. Police officers just like city code enforcement officers need to be held to a high standard due to the nature of their job. When they are caught taking things, using their job to enrich themselves or using their job title to harass others, then I have a major problem. These city officials can't hide behind their job title, just like the Nazi's couldn't hide behind the argument, "I was just following orders."

When there is no accountability, then the door is open to corruption. That is the situation we have in St. Paul. Some in DSI are corrupt. Some in the DSI office are very good, but they are being micromanage by some at the top (Robert, Dick, Steve, Paula and Joe). With Bob Kessler retiring, new leadership may bring a change, but look at who appointed him, Mayor Coleman. Coleman has used his office to protect his political friends.

So accountability is never a bad thing. Holding these public employees to a high standard is never a bad thing. They should be doing the right thing in the first place, but they aren't, so they need policing. Their files and actions need to be open to the public for public review. Maybe what is needed is a civilian review board for complaints like the police department has. When you put on a badge and they carry a badge they need to be persons with high integrity and that is not the case for a few in very high leadership positions in DSI.

9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any info on Joe Essling anyone? Good or bad.

Thanks

9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry I intended to say Joel Essling. I need info ASAP.

9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:23

Leave my name and then you guys at DSI will come after me like you have my friend.

Do you guys in DSI have something to fear?

11:39 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

What do you all know about Joe Essling, supervisor in DSI?

My response;
Mr. Essling is a defendant in the federal fair housing lawsuits. In the left hand corner of the blog is a search box. Type his name in there.

Also, there is links to the fair housing lawsuits on the front page of the blog to the right of the screen under the Scales of Justice.

If you really want to get informed join our property rights group by contacting me at A_Democracy@yahoo.com. I can put you in touch with all the right people to give you advice and legal assistance.

12:13 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I deleted the comment at 11:23, no need to insult a fella trying to get assistance.

12:22 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

First of all I don't believe our Jeff left the comment I pasted below. Not that Jeff never
disagree with me he does, Jeff
speaks his mind but this statement is totally out of character and I couldn't figure why he would hatch his last name like that.

The comment;
It is a crime to harrass a public employee who is acting in their role as an employee. Its a major crime. That statement alone could cause the city to have this blog owner held liable and force him to register all participants or shut it down or give you up as the culprit.

Jeff Mataiostaotistaos
8:27 am

My response;
I am entitled to my opinion so is everyone else here. We are also entitled to post FACTS here. Like affidavits and other documentation supporting our opinions.

I have a disdain for government officials who violate civil rights. These people who abuse their authority are beneath street level dope dealers. They can KISS MY ASS!

12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still can't threaten them. His post could be read as do you know where he lives? Where does his kids go to school? Where does his wife work? None of that has to do with his job. And, if he is a defendant in a federal suit, then you really shouldn't be messing with him unless you want to have your whole case thrown out and someone arrested.

The public record is public, but searching for private stuff on him, right now, may land you in jail because the court has not come to a decision on him as Bob obviously has.

1:18 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Still can't threaten them. His post could be read as do you know where he lives? Where does his kids go to school? Where does his wife work? None of that has to do with his job.

My response;

NOBODY asked for any of this information! You are feeding shit into a conversation that doesn't exist. It's irrelevant!

I have never published an address or anything about a defendants personal life here. I haven't allowed others to do so either.

1:35 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I received an email from Jeff requesting I remove the comment at 8:27. He said it isn't him. See what lengths those that oppose will go to to try and stop us from telling the truth.

I'm sorry Jeff I can't delete this one, I'm sure you will understand.

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Bob, you will be getting an email from me.

Thanks for the job you do, the folks at DSI read your post daily according to my sources.

2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's simple. Why don't DSI Nazis act like responsible human beings?

2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is Jeff worried about? Only an idiot fool would think it was him.

If they really wanted to make it like Jeff, all they would have had to do is scroll up and copy the spelling. I think this guy is trying to bait Jeff.

2:54 PM  
Anonymous Bill Dahn said...

posted Nov 15, 2010
Anonymous said... 12:29 AM
Andy Dawkins and Mayor Kelly sure did a costly disservice to the city for starting this.
It will be great to see what role people like Moermond and Humphrey had, and also find out who is more responsible for the abuse: the inspectors, the inspector's leadershit, the city council, or the Mayor.
The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

All of the above are responsible.

Hi All, this city is so one sided that is why these lower income housing own by people that care about their tenants are being condemned and they are stricken by the end and that could just be torn down and the owner ending in bankruptcy.
Then some one comes alone and put some Union people to work building something to replace it or
>>>>> Put Up A Parking Lot <<<<<
Bill Dahn

PS My home should have been condemned before the housing owned by property owners that are suing St.Paul for the RICO Act pulled on the poorer peoples heroes like the property owned by Dadders Properties of St.Paul. Bill Dahn, 256 Morton St. RAP >>> http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/billdahn/houseberkley.html

I lived in one of Dadders building on VICTORIA AVE by Minnehaha Ave for 6 mo. and then move to
Stryker Ave so I could run for >>> St.Paul City Council against Dave Thune for ward 2. on 9-11-2007.

Those 6 mo's there was great No Bugs, No Mice, Quiet and when the oven in my stove stopped working Tom Gallagher came over his self and tested the oven and said the man would be out Monday to install a New one and it was Friday when I had Tom over. and it was NEW.
These people didn't know me and I didn't know them and was treated with respect while living there.
That was better then the crooked St.Paul's Politicians

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill
Part didn't come up, that was about sewer gas in your home and after reading the letter I think it should have been condemned.

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/billdahn/houseberkley.html

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are obviously a Democrat and probably think everything should be condemned unless it is new and union built. You elites can just keep your high strung egos but in the real world the landlords that are suing the city are the heros of the poor. Who else is trying to make things better for the poor? No one thats who.

11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:06,

Very well said.

There are some very good people that are being hit very hard by the city right now.

One has only to ask why are we in the situation we are in now (high vacant home rates).

Over the past 40+ years Democrats have run St. Paul. Except for Norm Coleman who was a Democrat turned Republican.

We have seen 3M close of the East Side, Whirlpool closed and numerous other businesses because of the Democrats and their poor policies.

Now the Bostrom law is pushing poor people over the edge. They don't have the money to maintain their homes and many homes are lost due to foreclosure. The Democrat policies with the Freddie and Fanny situation (bad loans) was also the result of failed Democrat policy in Washington.

So the policies of the Democrats have chased out most of the viable businesses and the repressive property code enforcement policies by the city is just the last nail in the coffin for St. Paul. St. Paul is DEAD, look at downtown, DEAD, but the mayor and city council’s only solution is to tax some more.

Oh did I mention the property tax rates have gone up over 47% since Mayor Chris Coleman took office? Homeowners are being hit from all sides due to the oppressive policies of the Democrat Party or should I saw the "Progressive Democrat Party of Minnesota."

5:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to add to 5:07 and 11:06

St. Paul just doesn't have an imagination. They used to care and take positive steps.

If you look at the 'accomplishments' of the city establishment from the recent past, it's a bunch of credit stealing thieves who don't put in the time for real issues. They drive out the people the city needs. The landlords who brought the suits are decent people who have been wronged by this freak show.

6:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have seen 3M close of the East Side, Whirlpool closed and numerous other businesses because of the Democrats and their poor policies.
*****

Reagan and Bush. Republican tax credits to businesses that need help setting up overseas so they can pay $3/hr as a top wage had made those companies leave. Hell it was a business decision to cut down on production costs and increase profits, but when Republican gave them tax breaks for "expanding" globally, that just killed our jobs.


[Now the Bostrom law is pushing poor people over the edge. They don't have the money to maintain their homes and many homes are lost due to foreclosure. The Democrat policies with the Freddie and Fanny situation (bad loans) was also the result of failed Democrat policy in Washington.}

Glasman-Steigal is a Republican bill that passed under the six years of a Republican President and Republican Congress. Trading derivatives was made legal too at that time. People were making up shit for other to get loans, then those loans were sold three times over, then bundled into funds that were then set for resale. This has nothing to do with poor people or Democrats. Greed by the banksters who talked Bush into signing some pretty bad legislation that the congress passed.

You've got the right to be pissed off but you need your facts son.

{So the policies of the Democrats have chased out most of the viable businesses and the repressive property code enforcement policies by the city is just the last nail in the coffin for St. Paul. St. Paul is DEAD, look at downtown, DEAD, but the mayor and city council’s only solution is to tax some more.}

Population and small business ownership is actually up in St Paul over the last six years. Have you been to Lowertown lately? No, you won't find a bunch of chain department stores and restaurants but you will find a lot more owner occupied condos and small businesses owned by local people. You want a Hooters? Go to Minneapolis. Every week I'm downtown I see something new coming in or streets being repaired. That's means someone is investing and other people are working.

2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[If you look at the 'accomplishments' of the city establishment from the recent past, it's a bunch of credit stealing thieves who don't put in the time for real issues. They drive out the people the city needs. The landlords who brought the suits are decent people who have been wronged by this freak show.

6:51 AM

Like bringing over Lawson software and giving away the bank on that? Most of the accomplishments have been providing a good atmosphere for small businesses. Exactly what government should be doing.

2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St. Paul DOES NOT provide a good atmosphere for small business. Are you crazy?

5:42 PM  
Anonymous Les lucht said...

I got a ticket from the city of St.Paul in Oct. of this year. I asked for a real judge. That was on Nov.02,2010. I still have not got a court date. I told the city lawyr that . I was going to flight it. And move out of ramsey county.

Still no date. They know that they will be screw. I told city lawyer that will use the morrison vs sax to show that they are wrong with fire inspection.


You all need to listner to kid rock sond born free.

7:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what was the ticket for please ?

8:17 PM  
Anonymous Les Lucht said...

fix my ceill title, fule report and fix my siding on garage.

4:29 AM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

I hope you aren't hiring Dawkins Les!

If anyone out there needs a good housing attorney call John Shoemaker or Matt Engel.

8:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les, I think that ticket the city gave you was to go and see Barney and friends.

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You might have a warrant for your arrest Les. Maybe the city mailed a court date to your renter.

That's how I got fucked!

11:59 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home