Custom Search

Friday, January 21, 2011

1644 Bush continued/ DSI officers reports.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

38 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

New here? To bring you up to speed on this story read this first Link here

Folk's, copied below are excerpt's from Attorney Shoemaker's letter to Council President Kathy Lantry.

There maybe copy errors.

JOHN R. SHOEMAKER, P.A.
PAUL F. SHOEMAKER, PA
www.shoemakerlaw.com

Kathy Lantry, Council President
Saint Paul City Council
320-C City Hall
15 Kellogg Blvd., West
Saint Paul, MN 55102
January 19,2011

Re: ALH 10-557 Appeal of Greg Ryan to a Code Compliance Report at
1644 BUSH AVENUE

PUBLIC HEARING: 1/19/2011, 5:30 p.m.

Shoemaker & Shoemaker, PLLC has been retained by Mr. Greg Ryan to represent him in his appeal before the City Council at the Public Hearing to be today, as referenced above.

Background on the rental property -3 bedroom single family home purchased by Mr.Ryan in 2007.
Most recently property has been in the Section 8 federal housing voucher program -
January 22,2009 - for a one year term. The tenant was in her second year of the lease coming up for a third year with renewal this month, January 2011. The second year HAP Secton 8 lease was scheduled to expire in December 2010.

The home had passed the Housing Quality Standards ("HQS") initial inspection on 1-22-
2009; the first year renewal Housing Quality Standards federal inspection was passed on
12-2-2009.
The Section 8 HAP lease provides that the tenant is responsible for payment of the water bills at the rental home. The tenant had difficulty paying the water bill on three occasions in 2010 and the water was turned off three times.

The rental home was occupied during 2009-2010 by an African American mother and 4
children.

PHA's Monthly Management Report for November 30, 2010, shows that 2and 3 bedroom rental homes continue to be in high demand in the City and African Americans
make up 76-81 % of those families on the Section 8 waiting list for 2and 3 bedroom homes in the City.

Since March 2010, there has been an increase in those families looking for 2 and 3 bedroom homes in the City.

There were 3,970 families on the Section 8 Waiting List on November 30,2010 -the Waiting List is closed.

The November 30,2010 Waiting List for Public Housing in the City includes 8,673 families - up from 7,086 families in March 2010 - 1,587 additional families.

It is critical to get this rental property back online in order to provide affordable housing
once again to the families that are looking for housing in the City.

Mr. Ryan is appealing the City'S actions directed at his Section 8 rental property as follows (also please see Mr. Ryan's Notice of Appeal):

(1) the designation by the City that the subject property is a "Vacant Building"
category II, requiring registration and payment of the "Vacant Building" fee of
$1,100;
(2) the City's requirement that the subject property as a "Registered Vacant
Building" undergo a "Code Compliance" inspection and certification process with
the associated fee of $550 and related costs which the City admits average $30,000 to complete - see City website;
(3) the City's continued condemnation of this property and refusal to allow reoccupancy
following restoration of water to the property on 9/21/2010;
(4) the City's failure to allow Mr. Ryan to return the subject Section 8 rental unit
to the available housing stock of the City during September 2010 through present even though the rental unit was certified by Section 8 for 2010 as "safe, decent, and sanitary" housing under federal regulations;
(5) the City's failure to allow Mr. Ryan to return the subject Section 8 rental unit
to the available housing stock of the City during September 2010 through present even though the rental unit had passed the City's Certificate of Occupancy
inspection program and received a C of 0 on June 30, 2010

10:02 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

(6) the deficiencies in the City's notices of September 2nd, 8th
, and 13th, 2010 sent
to Mr. Ryan regarding the property; nowhere in these letters does the City indicate that Mr. Ryan's property is going to be subject to the onerous and expensive Vacant Building and Code Compliance Certification process.

In fact the September 8, 2010 notice notifies Mr. Ryan that the renewal inspection will occur
in June 2011. The notices are, at best, vague, and at worst, deceptive in the statements to Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Don Hedquist has been retained by Mr. Ryan to conduct an inspection of the subject
property. Mr. Hedquist is a certified Minnesota Building Official. I have included his 10
page report wherein he has reviewed and analyzed the City's Code Compliance, "Team
Inspection" report of December 7, 2010 and conducted multiple on site inspections of the
property during the last two weeks.
Mr. Hedquist opines that based on the actual conditions at the property, there is no reason
that the home cannot be immediate re-occupied.

We suggest that the Council direct that James Seeger ofDSI agree to meet Mr. Hedquist at the property in the next few business days to discuss the Code Compliance Report and Mr. Hedquist's written opinions with an eye toward reaching consensus on what exactly
needs to be completed in order to have this rental unit back on line for tenants including Section 8 tenants.

Mr. Ryan has been informed by PHA that they have families now looking for 2 and 3
rental homes.

Mr. Ryan also requests that the City refund him the $1,100 Vacant Building Fee and the $550 Code Compliance inspection fee. Once the Council has had time to review Mr. Hedquist's written report, we believe the Council will see the that these fees were and are
inappropriate for this property and owner.

We want to remind the Council of the City's certifications under the Community Development Block Grant program to affirmative further fair housing in the City and to conduct an analysis of impediments ("AI") to fair housing choice, including the City's
requirements of property owners such as the vacant building and code compliance programs.

We have been unable to locate the City's AI records regarding the programs at issue in this appeal and believe the City should immediately discuss the "impediment to fair
housing" that Mr. Ryan has now identified to the City

John R. Shoemaker, Esq. letter, January 19,2011, page 4
Greg Ryan, property owner
1644 BUSH AV

JRS/hs
EncIs.
cc: Council Member Dan Bostrum
Council Member Dave Thune
Council Member Lee Helgen
Council Member Pat Harris
Council Member Melvin Carter
Council Member Russ Stark
Shari Moore, City Clerk
Sara Grewing, City Attorney
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer

10:06 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

DON HEDQUIST
Building Inspection Service
7035 Donlea Lane, Eden Praire, MN 55346
Phone 952-941-2773 FAX 952-944- 7395

CERTIFIED MINNESOTA BUILDING OFFICIAL

January 18, 2011

Mr. John Shoemaker, Attomey
Suite 200 International Plaza
7900 International Drive
Bloomington, MN 55425

Dear Mr. Showmaker:

I made an inspection of the property at 1644 Bush Avenue East, St. Paul, MN. I have been at the
property three times since January 4,2011 conducting My inspections and interview with the
owner, Greg Ryan.

My inspections were done to evaluate the items that were listed on the Code
Compliance Report dated December 07,2010 and these are my findings.

*Building Inspector Jim Seeger report.

*Insure basement cellar floor is even cleanable and all holes are filled.

There is a change in floor elevation where the ceramic tile is located in the north half of the
basement and where the floor drain is located in the south half of the basememt it would take less
than one small bag of pre-mixed concrete to correct this problem and therefore is a minor
problem.

*Install handrails (34 inches- 38 inches above each nosing) and guardrail (36 inch minimum) at
all stairways, and return handrail ends into a newe1 Post or wall per attachment.


There is a handrail installed above the stairs to the basement;
the handrail doesn't have a return at the top or bottom of the handrail going into a newel post
or wall.

Based on when the handrail
was instal1ed would determine if returns are required; the handrail returns are requirements of the
newer Building Codes.
The handrail to the basement is less than 34" above the stairs which means it was installed under the older code which didn't require returns.
There is a guardrail
installed which would meet the older Codes and the present Building Codes; therefore these
orders shouldn't have been on the report. If handrail returns were required, matterial cost would
be less than $1.00 and it would take less than one hour to make the change.

* Provide complete storms and screens, in good repair for all door and window openings.

All but one window sash have thermopane glass and therefore don't require storm windows. In
December it is unreasonable to request screens. The door off the kitchen is an insulated door
with a thermopane light and therefore dosen't require a storm door. I couldn't determine if the
front door is an insulated door but there is a front storm door in good repair. The one window
that isn't a thermopane window requires a piece of glass at a price of less than $25.0O.

10:40 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

*Exit doors shall be capable of being opened from the inside. easily and without the use of a
key. Remove all surface bolts.

The front and kitchen exterior doors have deadbolt locks that don't require a key to unlock, the
doors can be unlocked with a turn of the deadbolt lever and there are no surfhce bolts on the
exterior doors. There isn't a problem with either egress door and therefore these orders shouldn't been on the report.

* Repair or replace damaged doors and frames as nessary, including storm doors.

The front and kitchen strom doors are in good repair and the kitchen storm door isn't required
because the kitchen door is an insulated door. These orders shoudn't have been on the report.

*Weather sea1 exterior doors, threshold and weather-stripping.

There is weather-stripping at the kitchen exterior door. There isn't weather-stripping for the
front exterior door; weather-stripping would cost less than $20.00 and take less than one half
hour to install. Weather-stripping is a minor problem and doesn't impact the livability of the
house.

* Prepare and paint interior and exterior as necessary. Observe necessary abatement procdure
(EPA, MPCA and St. Paul Legislative Code. Chapter 34 for additional information) if lead
base paint is present

There were no areas where painting is needed on the interior of the house; this shouldn't have
been on the list of orders. There is one storm window on the east side of the house that needs
paint and there is part of the trim and sash on the northwest window that needs painting. This
part of the order should have been listed as a repair item with "weather permitting".

*Air-seal and insulate attic/access door.

The attic/access door is tight fitting. An air-seal for this attic access door is a newer requirement of the energy code. To correct this problem would require less than $10.00 in material and less than one half hour of labor.

*Install Smoke detectors/Carbon Monoxide Detectors per MN Co Conservstion code and the
MN Dept. Of Labor and Industry.

If ll the detectors were replaced the total price for new detectors would be less thun $120.00.

* Provide major clean-up of premises.

The property is clean and in move in condition. This isn't a valid order and shouldn't have been
listed as an order.

* Repair siding, soffit, fascia, trim, etc. as necessary.

There were no areas of any the above items that needed repair. This shoudn"t have been listed
as an order.

11:02 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

* Provide proper drainage around house to direct water away from foundation of house.

I don't know how the Inspector was able to make this determination because of the amount of
snow on the ground as of December 07, 2010. I couldn't make a judgment about this item. This
could have been on the report as a comment but not as an order.


* Provide proper drainage around house to direct water away from foundation of garage.

I have the same reply to this as the above item. This could have been listed as a comment
but not as an order.

* Provide general rehabilitation of garage and storage sheds.

I don't know how these items, even if they were valid" would impact the livability of the house.
What is; "general rehabilatation?

* Review an applicable codes & policies when replacing windows including egress windows
sleeping rooms.

No windows were being replaced so this statement doesn't have bearing on this inspection.
Review all applicable codes & policies" should be on a list of orders for any property.

* Install roof covering on garage.

Except for about 6" of the roof eaves, the garage roof is snow covered; the Inspector didn't gain
access into the garage. Based on the part of the garage roof that is visible, I would expect that the garage shingle and some of the roof sheathing will have to be replaced. The condition of the
garage roof shouldn"t have any impact on the livability of the house.

11:18 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

More on this report tomorrow folks!

11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Three quick points.

1. The sec 8 lease may have had the tenant be required to pay the water bill... but that isn't a requirement of sec 8 leases. When I have had sec 8 tenants, I paid the water and electric. So that is still an EXTREMELY lame excuse for the bill not being paid. The landlord required it be paid and it became a part of the sec 8 lease... let's be honest... you remember Bob a "truth seeking mission."

2. So, far it doesn't sound like it would take much to fix the house... so why not fix it?

3. What has got him lawyered up. What is in the inspection that is going to cost that much that he is throwing away this much cash on a lawyer?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city dragged their feet too long Chuck and maybe this guy realizes they have their pants down and now he is gonna take a swing at them in court. There will be a lot of people like this in the very near future.

1:18 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

2. So, far it doesn't sound like it would take much to fix the house... so why not fix it?

3. What has got him lawyered up. What is in the inspection that is going to cost that much that he is throwing away this much cash on a lawyer?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

My response;

Maybe you are confused Chuck.
Seegars inspection statements are marked with --> * <--, and the statement that follows is Don Hedquist report of Seegars inspection.

Seegar wrote Ryan up for thousands of dollars in repairs. Much of which appears to be very questionable. This is exactly what many other property investors and home owners are saying too. It is alleged over and over there is a small number of inspectors who lie about violations and seem to have an ulterior motive. And right here before our very eyes we have a Minnesota certified building inspector casting doubt on DSI officer Seegars inspection of 1644 Bush.

I will now finish posting Don Hedquist report of Seegars inspection. Please folks do not comment until it is up.

11:34 AM  
Anonymous Building inspector Don Hedquist report said...

Seegar- Correct risers on front steps.

Hedquist- There are two steps leading to the front porch deck; the steps aren"t the same height and they
should be the same height. Re-buiding of the front steps would take about 2 hours.

Seegar- Move storage shed on east property line in 5 feet from propeny line or remove.

Hedquist- I don't have information as the set back requirement or if there was a variance granted for this structure. This item if valid doesn't affect the livability of the house.

Seegar- Remove hot tub roof and deck from east side of house.

Hedquist- Same response to this as noted above.

Seegar- Repair fence to code or remove.

Hedquist- No known Building Code requirement for the fence. If there is a fence problem, it would not impact the livability of the house.

Seegar- Install structural slab under front section of garage to code and properly connect to main
garage or remove.

Hedquist- The north addition to the orignal garage has settled and there is a wall separation where the connection was made between the original garage and garage addition. Because of the snow it is
unknown if there is a foundation under the garage walls; there isn't any code requirement for a
strucural slab in an existing garage. To make the repairs to the garage wall would require
$200.00 in material and four hours of labor. I don't know how the problems with the garage
would impact the livability of the house.

Seegar- A building permit is required to correct the above deticiencies.

Hedquist- Of all the items that were listed by the Inspectors, the only items that would require a permit would be the repair of the garage, the correction of the front step and any work needed on the deck. The shed is less than 120sq ft so no permit is required.
All valid building code violations should have a code nnmber.

11:59 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Next up building inspector Don Hedquist gives his report on the inspection of DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These people are just a bunch of damn thieves. I'm glad those landlords sued them. Too bad eeryone doesn't sue the crap out of them

12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People haven't sued them because they are abusing their protection under government immunity. It takes big federal suits to make them accountable.

1:20 PM  
Anonymous Report of DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan said...

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan-
* Ground the electrical service to the water service with a copper conductor within 5 feet of the
entrance point of the water service.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There is a ground wire coming out of the service box and is going up and under the gypsum board ceiling what appears to be the same wire coming just from under the gypsum board ceiling and is extending down to the water pipe at the front wall of the house.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Bond around water meter with a copper wire sized for the electrical service er article 250 of the NEC.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
The ground wire is secured with a grounding clamp on the street side of the water supply shut off
valve and to the water piping on the house side of the water meter completing the required
grounding of the electrical service.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Provide a complete circuit directory at service panel indicating location and use of all circuits.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
Not all the circuits have been labeled. Not having all the circuits labeled doesn't cause a major impact on the livability of the house.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * verify/install a separate 20 ampere laundry circuit and a separate 20 ampere kitchen appliance circuit.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There are listed, on the service panel, a 20 ampere laundry appliance circuit and a separate 20
ampere kitchen appliance circuit.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Install S type fuse adapters and proper S fuses.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There is no "S' type fuse service box; the service box has circuit breakers.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Verify that fuse amperage matches wire size

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There are no fuses.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- Close openings in service panel junction box with knock out seals, breaker blanks and or junction boxes.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There are no missing knock outs in the service box, all of the breaker spaces are filled with
circuit breakers.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Properly strap cables and conduits in basement/service conduit on the exterior of the house.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
As soon as the wires leave the service box, the wires go under the gypsum board ceiling. The
walls are finished and the wires aren't exposed.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Repair or replace all broken missing or loose light fixtures, switches and outlets, covers and plates.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There arc no broken, missing or loose light fixtures, there are no broken or missing switches or
outlets, and there are no broken or missing covers and/or plates.

10:22 AM  
Anonymous DSI Inspector Monvihan report continued said...

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * * Check all outlets for proper polarity and verify ground on 3-prong outlets.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
All outlets that were tested; they tested correct.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Install hard-wired battery backup smoke detectors per bulletin 80-1 and other smoke detectors as required by the IRC also install carbon monoxide detectors(s) within 10 feet of all
bedrooms

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
If all the detectors were replaced the total price for new detectors would be less than $120.00.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * replace all painted-over receptacles.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There was one older receptacle that had paint of the surface of the outlet which doesn't affect the working of the outlet.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Add a receptacle in the first floor middle bedroom (ARC fault).

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
The middle bedroom is less than 100square feet; there are two remotely located duplex outlets
and a ceiling light controlled by a wall switch. No additional outlets would be needed for this
bedroom.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- Properly wire and index a 4 breaker sub-panel next to the service panel.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There is no subpanel next to the service panel

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Repair doorbell transformer by water meter.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
There is no door bell transformer by the water meter.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * All added receptacles must be grounded tamper-resistant and be on an Arc Fault Circuit
interrupter-protected circuit.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
No additional receptacles are needed, so this doesn't apply.

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Any open walls or walls that are opened as part of the project must be wired to the standards of the 2008 NEC.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
No walls will be opened, so this doesn't apply

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * All buildings on the property must meet the St. Paul property Maintenance Code (bulletin
80-1),All electrical work must be done by a Minnesota-licensed electrical contractor under an electrical permit.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
r agree that all required electrical work must be done by a Minnesota Licensed electrical
contractor. All valid Electrical Code violations should have a code number.

Since the noted violations don't come close to matching the existing conditions in the house the inspector must have gotten in the wrong house.

10:24 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Next up building inspector Don Hedquist gives his report on the inspection of DSI Inspector Denny Waters

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing new here except for the fact they actually got caught at their BS but that won't make any difference. Eric and Chuck will be right in here and as long as the guy had one violation those 2 guys will think all the made up violations are just fine.

12:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The leaders in DSI now have certain parts of their anatomy caught in a rat trap and they can't get out.

Dawkins and Kelley started it. When Dawkins was appointed to head up neighborhood and property improvement, the newspapers wrote about his problems with the upkeep of his own property. I don't remember if he gave any assurances at the time, but it might be interesting to revisit those old articles to see how he answered the questions and if he misrepresented himself.

2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, the issue is, SO????

Nothing changes that the water was shut off and he did not fight the building being listed as vacant.

He paid the vacant building fee.

What there is now is a list of corrections... and how complicated or not complicated they appear to be.

Some of this report stuff is standard language that they are questioning. It looks like there is some work to do, but not much... so we will see what happens once the inspector is out there with the owner.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:11 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I am having a lot of difficulty with errors when I copy and paste.

I won't bother with Denny Waters inspection. It is more of the same kind of thing we have seen in these 2 previous inspections, orders written by DSI and disputed by Minnesota building inspector Don Hedquist.

6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Standard language is right Repke.....making up violation that do not exist so they city can rake in the $$ through all sorts of different fees and fines is standard too. What's also standard is how you and Eric always chime in with some BS spin that tries to make it seem acceptable to people who do not know what is going on.

8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's nothing that will happen with this Bob. If anything the city council is going to be outraged that Shoemaker had the audacity to come right into their little den and shit on the floor. They'll probably screw the guy all the more now. That's why they put it on for the early meeting because they do not let the public talk or take any input at that part of the meeting. The tracks are greased and Shoemakers client is going to get his hat handed to him right or wrong.

2:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Standard language means this:

St. Paul DSI Inspector Dan Movnihan- * Properly strap cables and conduits in basement/service conduit on the exterior of the house.

Minnesota Building Inspector Hedquist rebuttal-
As soon as the wires leave the service box, the wires go under the gypsum board ceiling. The
walls are finished and the wires aren't exposed.

-snip-

Done...

The standard language in the report is to put you on notice that wires need to be secured "strapped." The comment from the owners people is, "done."

So, it isn't an issue.

You conspiracy guys make it seem like its some kind of a "false charge" against the owner. Its not a false charge its just a note in the report that when you are doing the electric work all wires need to be strapped. Standard boiler plate language.

I guess I haven't been paranoid since the 60's and only then late at night on the floor but.... you guys don't even see how crazy it sounds when you list this as a false charge rather than just checking the box done?

Sorry.... I don't get it...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You conspiracy guys make it seem like its some kind of a "false charge" against the owner. Its not a false charge its just a note in the report that when you are doing the electric work all wires need to be strapped. Standard boiler plate language.

No Chucky it isn't standard boiler plate langauage. The report was used to make this building look like it needs a lot of work.

9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:55 - look to WHO like it needs a lot of work? For what reason???

This is what makes no sense.

1. The water is off.
2. He paid the vacant building fee.
3. He gets a code compliance check list.
4. He needs to complete the work on the list.

The number of words on list 3 makes no difference to the amount of work done in step 4.

Get it?

So, if the wires need to be "strapped" and they are, then it is done. Mission accomplished. The fact that it was on a list means nothing to the amount of work needed to be done.

Who is going to read this list and do what to it that you are afraid of? And if you have a delusional belief that someone is going to do something to you with this list then that is by definition paranoia.

"...a mental illness in which a delusional belief is the sole or most prominent feature."

They need to accomplish what is on the list. If it is already accomplished check it off.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:20 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

There is city employees working in DSI who believe their role is to generate revenue for the city.

Link to Ad Hoc committe report here

Since this report all fees related to DSI have increased.

10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, Bob, BOB, BOB!!!!

So, that has nothing to do with the list this guy has. He PAID the vacant building fee. The number of items on the list doesn't increase the fee.

And, it doesn't matter what the employees "believe" the facts are that the fee collection is a small part of the overall budget. The fact that many employees know nothing about the budget is meaningless.

Fees have gone up because state aid has been cut meaning less tax dollars to spend on the service and more is expected to pay for the cost of the work.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I get it!

The city is removing blacks from neighborhoods, raising property values and property tax's, and making money doing it.

Good policy!

2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DSI and the "dfl" has been proving over the years that they only go after the landlords and not caring about the safety of us common folks that own their own homes or buying home, why is that happening Chuck.
Money talks and the landlords have money so they have to stand up to the plate if they care to make a honest buck in this town.
We seen over and over people making complaints about their homes and nothing is ever done.
I would like to see the dfl party have the next convention in st.paul so the Tea Party and the Republican Party can pay this slim town back for 2008.
What Goes Around, Comes Around.
Right Boys!

3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sorry.... I don't get it..."

Well let me help you get it Clarabell - the city comes out and does inspections and they fabricate violations to make the place look much worse than it really is so they can get a code compliance which not only generates a lot of fees for the city but also makes jobs for the DFL unions that give politiicans money for re-election. That's #1 - #2 is that a lot of property owners do not know whether they need things strapped down or not because they are not familiar with the codes so they go get a contractor who comes in and looks at this laundry list of BS and figures he can gouge the property owner because the list looks bad. The corruption machine is alive and well in St. Paul.

5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gentrification......back door style. The citys plan is a true work of art. Go in the back door and make the landlord do what the city cannot through the law. They short circuit every statutory protection and civil right the teannt has and get away with it 110% of the time.

5:29 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

You so wrong about the city not making money of the fire inspection.

I have 685 Van Buren Ave inspectrd by fire inspector. They add dates and it came to $560.00, For most a 15-20 minns inspection.Three of dates they did not shown up for it. I appeal it . It cost me loss of wages of $300.00 for day . And
I have to go to court on feb 3,20111. it will cost me another $300.00 of loss wages. Plus $500.00 in permits. So, who is ahead? the city of St.Paul.

I have been a long term dfler and delgate for 15 yrs. I planning on
for city council in the 5th ward.

I have not decide on which party to run under. The dfler party is a bunch of crooks. The city council and the mayor too.

I planning on flight this shit.

As Kid Rock Born Free.

8:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:03 - except that it isn't true.

3:13 - It was a vacant building it made no difference if it was owner occupied... it wasn't occupied.

5:25 - have you seen your shrink lately... there are no difference in fees based on the list. Read the story again. The water was turned off, the owner paid the vacant building bill and asked for the code compliance inspection. You need licensed contractors - not union contractors.

5:29 - have you seen the house? You aren't going to gentrify the neighborhood by requirering this little house to be fixed up.

Sorry Les, the inspections program is a money loser. I spelled this out before. The cost of inspection is more than the hourly rate of the employee during the time they do the inspection.

As for running for office... go for it. It may be a great learning experience for you.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"
5:25 - have you seen your shrink lately... there are no difference in fees based on the list. Read the story again. The water was turned off, the owner paid the vacant building bill and asked for the code compliance inspection. You need licensed contractors - not union contractors."

You should be ashamed of yourself referring to the owner asking for the code compliance and trying to use that statement to make the code compliance legitimate. That's another part of the city scam.....they put on the code complaince the statement that says the owner asked for it when in fact he had to ask for it to get his property back in shape. The city is full of fraud and deciet and so are you and your statements.

1:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like this one-

Since the noted violations don't come close to matching the existing conditions in the house the inspector must have gotten in the wrong house.

9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy should call 1-800-Shyster and get an attorney to sue the city.

11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have my vote Les

Ray

7:56 PM  
Anonymous RankVoting_Elections said...

Go the Sharon4council re: 1644 Bush as Shoemaker lost the Appeal, Now What, Sharon was Robbed Mon7thFeb2011 at the St.Paul Midway Rainbow Grocery Store by a Black Man and his White Petite Woman with reddish hair,

If the Police do not prosecute as this couple is on Camera then the Metro Gang Strike Force complaints against Cop-s have Standing www.sharon4council.blogspot.com
Hope all citizens run for Office now that the City has approved Rank File Voting.

7:35 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home