Custom Search

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Saint Paul/ Fair housing lawsuits update. City wants fair housing laws trashed!

In the
Supreme Court of the United States
STEVE MAGNER, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
THOMAS J. GALLAGHER, ET AL.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
LINK TO PETITION HERE

76 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

The city of Saint Paul is asking the Supreme Court to trash the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Like I said years ago, the city is at war with poor people and those who rent to them.

6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The City of St. Paul wants the US Supreme Court to put its stamp of approval on changing the way the country operates. The city wants a swastika on the Stars and Stripes.

10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, here is the main part of the case. The issue is that the one issue that was allowed to go through in this district would not be allowed in others. So if the Supreme's rule your way it would change the law so the rest of the country agrees with this district from the link:

"As it stands today, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Phoenix, San Francisco, and all other municipalities in
the Eighth and Ninth Circuits cannot enforce minimum maintenance standards on properties within
the municipality without inviting claim brought under the Fair Housing Act. All that the burden
shifting in those circuits requires, under the panel's
analysis, is a showing that there is a shortage of affordable housing, racial minorities make up a disproportionate number of low income individuals who rely on affordable housing, code enforcement increases costs to landlords who rent to low income
individuals, and because of the increased cost to those
landlords there will be a decrease in the amount of affordable housing available. Every municipality in the Eighth and Ninth Circuit with a racially diverse population falls into that category.
26
In contrast, the four part balancing test employed
by Fourth and Seventh Circuits may not allow for such a draconian disparate impact analysis. If you are a protected class individual in Chicago or Raleigh, or any
other municipality in those circuits, you can expect
that city's code enforcement will be allowed to function
and code enforcement will be applied to provide
minimally safe properties for all residents. The three
part balancing test in the Sixth and Tenth Circuits is
more likely to allow code enforcement that will ensure
that all properties, no matter the race of the resident,
meet minimum maintenance standards. That would
leave cities such as Denver and Columbus more likely
than Minneapolis to enforce minimum maintenance
standards without the threat of a Fair Housing Act claim.
The possibility of such divergent results is untenable. It makes absolutely no sense for cities with
similar demographics to have different standards in
enforcing housing codes. Some municipalities would
be in violation of the Fair Housing Act in their
enforcement while others, providing the same code
enforcement, would not run afoul of the Fair Housing
Act. Clearly, this issue must be resolved for the
benefi t of all American cities. Should landlords be
choosing a business location because the Fair Housing
Act in some cities will prevent code enforcement against their neglected properties?"

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The aggressive code enforcement that "Gallagher and Steinhauser"
challenge has a purposeful, positive impact on those
living in neglected rental homes; concentrating
services on those properties that are in most disrepair.
Respondents seek to use the Fair Housing Act to
thwart City enforcement of its housing code and
therefore to prevent the City from protecting those
residents who need it most. Respondents seek to avoid
fixing up their properties to meet the minimum
housing code because it will cut their profits and
prevent them from renting out dilapidated homes.
This defeats the goal of the Fair Housing Act.

11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city is protecting those that need it most? Talk about a sham argument. St. Paul is not interested in protecting anyone as they are using the housing codes to clean the city of the low income minority people who they think cause problems in the neighborhoods. It is not about deteriorating property. It is about behavior that St. Paul deems to be a nusiance.

12:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you stated "ensure
that all properties, no matter the race of the resident,
meet minimum maintenance standards." Do you call a complete code compliance which means bringing a rental property up to NEW HOME codes minimum maintenance standards? If so then why don't you bring your rental property up to those minimum maintenance standards instead of taking advantage of your tenants by leaving them live in unsafe conditions?

7:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here we go again, more phone calls on my properties....

Doesn't this ever get old?

First as to any state case, there is only one housing code that the City can enforce and that is the state housing code. They don't get any other options. The state says they don't get to have any other housing code. So, all cities enforce the state housing code. BUT THIS CASE ISN'T ABOUT THE STATE CODE OR HOW THE CITY ENFORCES IT.

This is a FEDERAL CASE. It was first brought as a RICO case suggesting that the City had a "racket" of squeezing private owners to benefit PHA. (And/or to benefit Steve Magner) All of those charges have been thrown out, never to be seen again. Done.

Then there was the obstruction of justice charges that the City hid evidence because not every email for the last fifteen years was kept by the City. All of those charges have been thrown out. Done.

What is left is a Federal Fair Housing Case. All of the charges that the City INTENTIONALLY did anything to target people of color or low income peoples by aggressive enforcement of the housing code have been thrown out. They are gone. Done.

The last remaining charge is the the City's action of enforcing the housing code while proven to have been only for the purpose of making sure people live in good housing MAY HAVE caused landlords to raise rates, making it harder for people of low income to find housing and since a large number of those low income people are of color, then the City needs to either do something to assist those people or stop enforcing the code. THAT IS THE LAST CHARGE.

What the City is saying in this, is that several Federal Districts have said that it is fine to do what Saint Paul does. And, now this case in this District is being allowed to go forward, when if it happened in another District, this last charge would have been thrown out.

They are asking to court to treat Saint Paul the same as other cities are treated and allow inspections of all properties.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you failed to answer the question instead you twisted it and implied that someone was threatening to call inspectors on you! That is not what I asked you, this is:

You stated "ensure
that all properties, no matter the race of the resident,
meet minimum maintenance standards." Do you call a complete code compliance which means bringing a rental property up to NEW HOME codes minimum maintenance standards?

10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck if you feel that minimum maintenance standards includes a complete code compliance meaning NEW HOME codes than I simply stated that your rental property must already meet those NEW HOME codes or minimum maintenance standards...correct? My guess would be no it does not because NEW HOME codes and minimum maintenance standards leaves a wide gap between them. I do not think anyone on here would be complaining if minimum maintenance standards actually meant MINIMUM instead of code to the MAX.

10:32 AM  
Anonymous justalandlord.com said...

Thanks for Posting also at Racially Based Code Enforcement Case reaches US Supreme Court

Posted: 22 Feb 2011 03:50 AM PST

It is a sad reality that many communities use code enforcement to promote an illegal racially motivated agenda. The ACLU outlines their view of the problem in an article, Renting While Black.

We see it here in Milwaukee where at least one Alderman appears to use Aldermanic Service Requests in a way that only the ku klux klan would be proud of.

Even if so called community leaders are not actively involved in the racially motivated inspections, a complaint based code enforcement that permits anonymous exterior complaints opens the door for neighbors to promote their biases through code enforcement

There have been a number of federal lawsuits over the years alleging racially motivated code enforcement. A list of some of those cases can be found here.

Typically if a case gets to the point that the property owners may win the municipality quickly and quietly settles. Usually not for the full compensation for the harm caused by the racially motivated enforcement. But lets face it, it takes a lot of financial and mental tenacity for a small landlord to slug it out against cities with seemingly endless resources to defend their bad behavior.

However there is one such case that the landlords have held on for something like eight years now. After the Federal Eighth CIrcuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion favorable to the landlords, the city of St Paul has petitioned the US Supreme Court for review (link to petition for review). You can read the amended original complaint that started this case here.

If the Supreme Court hears this case it will have a huge impact on all landlords who follow fair housing practices, i.e. don’t reject tenants tenants simply because they are a different color, nationality, religion, etc than their neighbors. One must really respect these property owners for the amount of sacrifice they have made to get this far.

The case alleges that St Paul housing inspection programs were used in a racially motivated manner to force racial minorities out of St Paul and that such actions violated the Fair Housing rights of the occupants. A very interesting point is a number of city employees including inspectors are on the hook personally in this suit. From a legal perspective they must defend themselves as they and their employer have disparate interest; for the city to win if the allegations are proven true they must claim rogue employees acting outside of the law. For the inspectors to win they must argue that they were following instructions that they believed were legal. The inspectors may have a hard time claiming ignorance however as the owners had provided the inspectors with documentation that the inspectors’ acts were contrary to Fair Housing, yet the inspectors continued with their agenda. At some point the inspectors will have to name their union as third party defendants as the union failed to stop management from allowing/forcing them to violate the rights of the tenants and owners

From my conversations with two of the plaintiffs over the past six or seven years they seem to be just a handful of hard working landlords who independently found themselves on the losing end of government behaving badly. The current case is a consolidation of three or four cases that started independent of each other, but the claims were so similar that the federal court combined them.

Most of the cases claimed RICO (racketeering) on the part of the city employees. The RICO elements were dismissed due to procedural errors. I’m certain that some future case will go to trial on that issue, whether in St Paul or somewhere else.

12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First as to any state case, there is only one housing code that the City can enforce and that is the state housing code."

The state housing code does not allow for the fabricating of violations in order to throw people out to make it vacant so the city can demand a code compliance Chuck and you know it.

12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(And/or to benefit Steve Magner) All of those charges have been thrown out, never to be seen again. Done."

I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch Repke. Maybe a lot of those other thing were thrown out but when these guys go to trial I think they can amend charges to conform to what the evidence is so they may get a second bite at the apple on some of those other charges.

12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd pay $100 to see Magner crying over the final outcome of these suits.

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city code enforcement sure does have a purposeful and positive impact on people. It throws them into the street with no where to go and raises the rents at the same time so the supply of housing that they can afford is in decline. Way to go St. Paul but what would you really expect from government?

1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know one of the landlords in those lawsuits and he toldd me that they got rid of judge Erickson. Anyone know if it is true? How do you get rid of a judge?

7:43 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Judge Erickson recused herself.

Judge Micheal Davis is replacing her.

8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:27 and 10:32 the housing code inspections on occupied buildings are not to "new code" standard, except on those things that THE STATE OF MINNESOTA requires to be at that standard. But none of that is a part of this case.

And 12:08 clearly hasn't read anything in the case particularly has not read the ruling that went in the landlords favor.

All of the charges that are concerning the City doing anything deliberately to minority groups have been thrown out.

All that is left is did the City while trying to improve the lives of renters have the adverse affect of raising rents that hurt minority members. On a split vote that one point was the only thing in this case that was allowed to go forward.

What the City is saying to the supreme court is if that holds then you can't inspect properties at all. Because clearly the worse the property is the lower the rent is and since the percentage of minorities that are poor is higher than whites, then you will be affecting more renters of color.

So... the City says common sense would tell you that the Federal Fair Housing Act shouldn't be used to make sure that the poor are allowed to live in buildings with no working toilets, no smoke detectors, and rats... Because that is the impact if the landlords win. If you shut down buildings like that, it will force the landlords to either spend money to fix them or close the building... exactly what the landlords appear to have as a winning issue.

I think that if the Supremes take it the City wins.

...and 12:50 no second bite of the issue... it was summary judgement those issues are gone...dead.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All that is left is did the City while trying to improve the lives of renters have the adverse affect of raising rents that hurt minority members.

And speaking the truth what it menas is while the city was persuing an agenda of forcing landlords out of their property and with a illegal code enforcement strategy of fabricating violations and railroading people through a court system that the city rigged in its favor. The end result of the citys illegal and outrageous acts had a disparete impact on affordable housing in St. Paul and that is something they are going to pay for and pay dearly because when these guys go to trial (and they will) the flood gates are going to open and there will be many many landlords suing the city for the same thing the present lawsuits are about.

12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Davis?
Let's see, former civil rights commissioner in Minneapolis, long time Legal Rights attorney, defense attorney for Neighborhood Justice Services and former Hennepin County public defender.

So, tell us what about any of that background makes you think he's sympathetic to slumlords over tenants? Do you know what Neighborhood Justice Services does?

Ruling in favor of the landlords will make it OK for them to lease substandard apartments to the poor and minorities while taking government subsidies. No one disputes that they had those violations, only that they were unfairly targeted.

Ruling in favor of the city, means that poor and minority tenants do not have to live in filth just because they're poor.

With Davis' record going back to the early 70s as being an advocate for the poor an minorities, there is no way this is good news for the landlords. Wait until he read the detail of Frank Steinhauser's free use of derogatory language and degradation of his tenants- no way you can spin that as looking out for your tenants- and Kelly Brisson's treatment of the old man in the wheel chair.

The city will have to show that there is housing available that is up to code and affordable. Once they do that, this bs about a plan to run out the minorities will be thrown out.

I would say that its over but, it really never started for you guys. Don't worry, I'm sure your attorney will figure a way out to keep you writing those checks. He's got a new Harley to pay off.



Eric

8:36 AM  
Anonymous Buck Slaughter said...

slumlords over tenants?

Let me help you out, Eric; where you say "slumlord", what you really mean is "landlord" - a (sometimes) small property owner, in this case one who runs afoul of the city's bureaucracy. Sometimes deservedly so. Other times not.

Do you know what Neighborhood Justice Services does?

Whatever Cathy Lantry tells it to.

Ruling in favor of the landlords will make it OK for them to lease substandard apartments to the poor and minorities while taking government subsidies.

Jeez, Eric, do you at least make Lantry wear a condom when you're shining her knob?

Making our corrupt Code Enforcement thugs FOLLOW THE RULES benefits everyone.

Except the corrupt thugs.

That must be the problem for you, huh?

9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't spoken to Lantry in over a year. Not sure what that would have to do with anything.

In the last eight years you can find me testifying in favor of business owners several times over the recommendation of Code Enforcement. There are several businesses on East Side that as a District Council president and private citizen I have advocated against the recommendation of code enforcement. Dozens of times.

So save the lapdog for the city talk for someone else.

Point the thugs out, go after them, build your case against the specific individuals like I suggested back in 2006!! You're going to loose because you are going after the entire department and city as condoning discriminatory action. You'll continue to loose because every violation cited was warranted.

Now stop trying to debate this dead issue with me and write another check to your attorney.


Eric

9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" You'll continue to loose because every violation cited was warranted"

Does that include the FACT that the city lied about the serious violations too? Does that include the FACT that the city required code complaince certification when they had no authority under law to do so? You seem to dismiss those FACTS to try to bring attention to the few minor violations that these guys had. The same types of violations that almost every home owner in the city has. You also seem to ignore the FACT that these landlords were at their properties working on them repairing violations (probably caused by tenant damage) when the city showed up. You are just another liberal who thinks that the ends justify the means and the hell with anyones rights whether they are a landlord or not. By the way how do you account for the testimony of the tenants of these guys who said they were good landlords and they never had any problems with them? Or the same testimony where they said the inspectors were the problem and not the landlords? It makes me sick to read your retarded crap. Are you mentally ill or what? How can you possibly think the citys behavior is anything but evil and illegal?

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:33 THE FACT is that all of that stuff has been thrown out by the court. Every accusation that the city lied or fabricated reports all garbage all nothing but thin air that blew away once it was in the court room.

One charge left...

That everything that the city said was true, that every issue that was wrong with the property was wrong with the property, that the city was trying to do the right thing and look out for the tenents....BUT by doing the right thing, it may have cost landlords money and in doing so hurt low income minority residents.

So....you can all talk that BS that has already failed in court and will NEVER see a court room again, but the only issue is can the city's policy be forced to be changed because low income minority residents may loose access to affordable housing.

The City's position is that to say we can't inspect properties that are in the worst shape because the landlord would have to pay to repair the building is insane. If you go with that then the only properties cities could inspect is the high priced units... it won't stand.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would Erickson recuse herself?

6:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your argument is the thing that does not stand Chuck. The city was not doing the right thing or even trying to. They had an agenda that wanted to force owners out of business and they did that by making up violations that did not exost and then using that as a springboard to get to the illegal code compliance. It is amazing the things you are willing to overlook and by the way, everything the city was not true and city inspectors said so in depositions. The things that failed in court to support the other claims will be back to support the Fair Housing claim. It's relevant to what the city was doing and the laws they broke in doing it. The only one wishing on a star for a judgement in favor of St. Paul is you and that other idiot whatever his name is.

10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:58 - read the links Bob has here on the case, the court has already ruled that there was no intent on the City's part to displace anyone. That is done. Those charges are gone over... all in your head... nothingness...

There is only one thing left and the City is asking the Supreme Court to make all of the courts in the land consistent on this issue.... Can cities inspect the worst properties in their cities or does the Federal Fair Housing Act insure that landlords never have to repair their properties if they are renting to low income people of color?

Because if this case is allowed to move forward, and if there is a ruling in the landlords favor, then what the courts are saying is that the Federal Fair Housing Act protects landlords from ever having to repair their properties if the rent to minority members.

Because there was no evidence of RICO, no evidence of intent to discriminate only the potential that low income people of color may have less access to affordable housing if the City forces the landlords to fix the toilet or turn on the heat or kill the rats.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enforcing codes to make property owners repair the property does not cause a disparate impact Chuck. Enforcing the code in a way that shrinks the affordable housing base does cause that impact. What's so hard for you to understand about that?

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

Does this mean you want all the cities to force their way into people's private residences without a search warrant under threat like they did to me?
Do you want gestapos to threaten people's relatives, like they threatened my mother here on Ademocracy? Do you want them to write code compliance reports that are so vaguely written that contractors can't bid on them, as they did to me?

We are dealing with extreme sleaze here. The 'end justifies the means' philosophy is morally bankrupt, especially in the hands of the city's misfits.

Bob G.

10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

Why didn't you sue over those things? They are wrong.

This suit doesn't address those things because you chose to go with the RICO people. So, now that all of the main points have been thrown out, you have nothing to make your situation right.

You would have been much better going as an individual and bringing your evidence for your violations instead of relying on the lawyers to prove a city wide conspiracy.


Eric

10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

Individuals are mistreated the same as landlords, even though you and Chuck keep trying to frame it as landlords against the city. The city people are protected by government immunity.

I certainly do not have the resources to bring big federal lawsuits to meet the extra burden of proof. Because of their legal protection. I see a staff and leadership that just want to push people around.

I've talked this over with very knowledgeable people, with top level experience in housing codes and enforcement, and top people invarious parts of construction. These people were aghast and thought things were out of control.

My wife was also intimidated and brought to tears with false information.

I've made some valuable contributions to St. Paul over many years of advocacy for the inner-city, which was once a model for the nation. No more - I'd be helping to create a monster. I have found very few people in the city who have the backbone to stand up to it, and expect most who would do so are gone.

I don't have any vested interest in supporting the landlords, but do so because I think they are right. I hope they can stop this arrogant and out-of-control situation before the city is completely destroyed.

Bob G.

11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love that expression "Government Immunity," because it is just another total piece of bullshit...

It is the world according to Glen Beck all garbage all of the time!!

No one has immunity from illegal acts. IF...IF any of the RICO conspiracy charges that were alleged against the people in the City of Saint Paul were true I would be the first one to want to see their ass in jail... but the facts are they aren't true.

It is true that the government can not be sued unless it allows it. That is a fact of life anywhere on the planet. But in the United States the government long ago declared that you can sue the government!!! Its a law you can look it up. The Federal Torts Claim Act... look it up!!!1 There are limits in each state as to the amount that you can sue the government for its actions, but you can sue because the government "we the people" you and I decided long ago that it was OK.

What we have is a lot of paranoid, narcissists that think that since they were the ones caught doing something wrong that there had to have been a conspiracy to get them. The FACT that it didn't happen to everyone PROVES that the City was out to get them personally.... What that fact actually proves is they are crazy.

Bob if someone forced there way into your house without a warrent you can sue.

But, if it was like what happened in one of my units where the inspector said to the teenager at home while her parent was out; "its ok to let me in, I'm from the City..." Well that's just life in the big City.

No conspiracy, nothing against the law... just tricky... and I am not so special as to think it only happens to me.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The supreme court gets 7,000 requests a year to be heard. Only 150 are heard. It is a long shot and I don't think it will be heard. On another note I stopped posting here because Chuck looked up my name and posted on here all the properties I own and disparaged me. It was posted on this site and was as far as I am concerned threatening.
More than that, I all of a sudden was having problems with the thugs at the city. He does make trouble for those who do not agree with him. Thank God he will not ever be elected to anything. He is a city stooge.

2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the end of this the landlords will be down at city hall with armoured cars loading up the city treasures and Chuck and Eric will still be singing the no facts-no evidence song. What a couple of losers.

3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:32 - there is only one charge left and only one possible victim, which would be the tenents, not the landlords. I don't even know what the landlords could win money on in this suit anymore. The charge is that low income minority residents weren't able to find housing because of the City's actions... why would that put money in any landlords pocket.

If the landlords were to win other than the cost of the lawyer there wouldn't be any financial cost to them the cost would have been born by the low income minority residents that had to pay higher rents.

So, you tell me why any landlord could make any money out of that?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,
Individuals are mistreated the same as landlords, even though you and Chuck keep trying to frame it as landlords against the city. The city people are protected by government immunity.


We didn't frame it that way, that's how its framed in your lawsuit.


I certainly do not have the resources to bring big federal lawsuits to meet the extra burden of proof. Because of their legal protection. I see a staff and leadership that just want to push people around.

There is no legal protection against criminal activity. It cost nothing to start the criminal process.

I've talked this over with very knowledgeable people, with top level experience in housing codes and enforcement, and top people invarious parts of construction. These people were aghast and thought things were out of control.

Who are these people? I call bs on this.

My wife was also intimidated and brought to tears with false information.

Maybe her husband should have stepped up and stood up to the false information instead of running and hiding and fretting that he can't do anything.

I've made some valuable contributions to St. Paul over many years of advocacy for the inner-city, which was once a model for the nation.

For what nation? With the I-94 decision and the neglect to minority areas, not to mention the nations worst gaps on health, education and economics it would be interesting to know what you think was a model for the nation to mold itself after? Tell us.

No more - I'd be helping to create a monster. I have found very few people in the city who have the backbone to stand up to it, and expect most who would do so are gone.

Really? Is that why in the last few years the city has had to change policies because of lawsuits? Someone who is still here seems to be fighting and winning. This has happened at the police department, fire department, public works and even the overall procurement and contracting process.

Some of those people that brought that change forth are friends of mine who live right here in the capitol city.

I don't have any vested interest in supporting the landlords, but do so because I think they are right. I hope they can stop this arrogant and out-of-control situation before the city is completely destroyed.
Bob G.


'Thinking' they are right and them actually being right has proven to be two different things so far.

What's arrogant is you dinosaurs from the past who think you're some kind of hero to a community. No one knows you, and the only thing you've left behind is blight that's just now being addressed. Your self imposed exile from St Paul's politics and policy is one of the best things to happen to the city and will be elevated only when others like you follow.

All the best,
Eric

2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

Thank you for all the attention. I take it as a compliment.

Bob G.

8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What policies has the city changed because of any lawsuits Eric? They still lie about violations. They still go after innocent 3rd parties for the behavior of others. They still require illegal code compliances, etc. Code enforcement is still micro managed by a certain council person. The only thing that has changed is the potential pool of people who now have claims against the city.

11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:07 PM

You hit the nail right on the head with your post.

The pattern and culture down at DSI hasn't changed, as it is business as usual. Magner, Essling are still right in business being the thugs they are, as they override fellow DSI staff and follow their own agenda, not the city's agenda.

6:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks, nothing has changed because the City has been winning in court.

The court has shown that the City was not involved in a conspiracy, didn't make up violations, didn't target landlords and didn't target minority groups.

They have won on all of those charges. What would make you think that anything would have changed because of a loosing law suit?

I think if anything has changed it is that the City has become better at documenting, since they know that they are going to be sued on these issues on a regular basis.

What I think is the saddest part of this is that owners of properties are getting conned into believing that by spending a lot of money on lawyers they can avoid spending money repairing their property and they are just wrong.

Despite that the last bit of this case that is holding on is a Fair housing case and I think it has no chance of winning and if it did it would not profit the landlords, the real issue of these cases is what are property rights?

The "landlords" and their lawyers would take a position that property owners have the right to do just about anything they want with their property and that the government has a limited power to control them. Their basis for these positions is the movement of this country in the last thirty years towards giving more and more power to the powerful and limiting the power of the people to control the country.

The City's position is based on the basic positions of what a country is and what are the rights of property that the government gives you when it grants you title to property.

People forget that all of the land in the country is first and foremost a part of the United States of America the government (We the People) are sovereign. Every piece of sand was either bought by the government or won on the battle field by the US government.

When you acquire title to property you only acquire those rights to title that the government gives you. The government does not transfer sovereignty to you, you are not King of the land that you bought. The country maintains sovereignty. Because of that the government maintains eminent domain; the ability to take the land back (with just compensation) because it is the King's Land (his eminence dominion).

The government also maintains "police" powers. The powers to regulate the uses of the land. The right to determine zoning and land uses. They don't give up those rights over the land when they transfer title to you.

It is that power to declare that the structure (that pile of sticks) you have on your land that you have title to is a nuisance that is the crux of these fights. The government's police power to regulate what it will allow to sit on your land that is the issue. The City and the court continue to maintain that at anytime after you have been given notice that the pile of sticks offends, does not meet minimum standards, the City can remove the pile of sticks and clean your land for you and bill you for the work.

It can because those are the rules of property when you buy it. You don't get to just declare yourself sovereign and that you will not allow the government to regulate you. It doesn't work that way.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read the ruling again Repke. The court said the city did make up violations and 3even they had not said this I remember Bob posting deposition testimony from inspectors who said they cited things that were not true.

8:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your King is about to get de-throned Chcuk!

8:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:10 you are just wrong. Those charges are gone. Dead. Over. Done.

There is one charge left. That the city's justified actions of enforcing the code FAIRLY and the UNINTENDED concequence of impacting minority members. That is all that is left. Everything else is gone.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

I am voting for Bill Hosko, Ward 2 (Thune's ward).

11:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a good one because during the last campaign he complained that Thune was to easy on enforcement...

You guys should actually check sometime on how people vote before you make assumptions.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of the charged may be gone Repke but the evidence is not gone and it will be used to prove the Fair Housing component violation by the city.

12:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of the charged may be gone Repke but the evidence is not gone and it will be used to prove the Fair Housing component violation by the city.

I was going to label this poster another teabagger who knows nothing about the constitution but, its just the average poster from ADem. Talking and writing while demonstrating a slippery grasp of the English language and an even less secure grip on knowledge of the law.

Once a charge is thrown out, double jeopardy prevents it from being used again. Its gone. Chuck is correct that there is only one thing left. Meaning, landlords still have fix their property or risk losing it. They don't like it, there is plenty of property for sale in S. St Paul.


Eric

9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been following the comments here and I agree both Chuck and Eric have a lot of hate built up. Now if a Republican were to talk that way they would be called "Right Wing."

I know you are the party who kept the Africans Americans down for over a 100 years. The southern Democrats teamed up with the KKK to keep the African man down.

The Democrats advocate for abortion. Bottom line that is the killing of babies.

The Democrats also support union thugs to beat down people that they don't agree with.

Or how about Congressman Mike Capuano speech to 1000 union members at a rally on Beacon Hill, "I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

Here we have a Democrat congressman, Mike Capuano advocating for the union members to cause harm to non-union members.

Eric is just like any other Democrat who can't stand on his own two feet, but he has to resort to name calling (teabagger) to make himself feel bigger than the next guy ny name calling. We call this being a bully and hate speech.

This is what you call hate speech just like you and Chuck.

6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:31 - did you just discover that southern democrats from 1800 until 1968 were racists? You keep posting it so I assume it is news to you. You do know that all of those racists are now the republicans of the solid republican south? So, they haven't been with us for the last 52 years but they are your base in the US Senate.

And, let's not get into womens rights to control their own bodies. Yes, you are the guys and its mostly guys, who want to dictate what a woman can or can not do. You are the guys who bitch about the government but you want the government in the bedroom watching who has sex with who and making sure that sex must make babies.

I hate to tell you this but abortion has been with us since the dawn of time. You can make it against the law when you want to punish women for having sex, but you will never stop it from happening. If a woman feels compelled to end her pregnancy, she will and you and an army of sex police won't be able to stop her.

The difference is that when it is safe and legal less women die. That is why so many of the pro-choice movement wear a button that has a coat hanger with a slash through it. Because prior to Roe one method of performing an abortion on one self was to cram a coat hook up one's insides. It works, its painful, it can kill you but it worked.

So, ass hole... I don't hate jerks like you I pitty them and anyone who has to listen to them.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comrade Chuck,

The instructions will be coming soon. Our Great Leader has called upon you to lead the socialist movement in St. Paul. Please recruit other like-minded people who will bow down to our Great Leader.

7:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

You might recall that I initiated and carried much of the conversation with the Pacific Legal Foundation. They have won 5 out of 6 property rights cases in the US Supreme Court.

Bob G.

8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Knowledge of the law? Who are you to talk Eric? Double jepordy is a compnent of criminal law. These landlord lawsuits are civil law. Where do you come up with double jepordy?

10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:49pm:
You're right this is a civil trial and double jeopardy only applies in criminal findings. So replace double jeopardy with res judicata.

You cannot come back with the same charges by the same parties in a civil trial. It will be dismissed under a motion of res judicata.

Bob G.
So what?
-----
The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento, California-based legal organization that was established March 5, 1973 to support pro-business causes. In recent years, it has taken a lead in pursuing anti-affirmative action policies.

It is the key right-wing public interest litigation firm in a network of similar organizations funded initially by Scaife Foundations money across the USA to support capitalism and oppose environmental and health activism and government regulation.

The organization has been funded by a range of corporations and conservative foundations.
----
So it's a political front group funded by the rich for corporations and has been waging a battle against affirmative action?

Sounds like the perfect group to stand up for civil rights of the poor and minorities.

Let's look at the judge in this case, Mike Davis:
Former civil rights commissioner in Minneapolis, long time Legal Rights attorney, defense attorney for Neighborhood Justice Services and former Hennepin County public defender.

Now go and do some research on Neighborhood Services and the Pacific Legal Foundation and try to tell me this thing has a chance in hell.

Bob G., didn't you tell us you did a work in the 'inner-city'? And, you look at the Pacific Legal Foundation as a worthy and reliable source for help? It explains a lot.


Eric

10:55 AM  
Anonymous Pacific Legal Foundation said...

Pacific Legal Foundation http://www.pacificlegal.org/

PS the Crooks were decent enough to mail Sharons Purse and Contents Back via US Mails without the $130.00 cash of course.

2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

I've never been a political operator. Just someone who think people deserve a fair shake.

The inner-city got far too politicized.

Bob G.

7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You cannot come back with the same charges by the same parties in a civil trial. It will be dismissed under a motion of res judicata."

But you most certainly can come back with the same evidence if supports the claims at hand.

11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

You need to get a life! Your views are not in line with reality. The reality is your side lost, and they are not going to get a Supreme Court hearing.

Bob G.

11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck and Eric know they lost. They are just herre doing spin control so any landlords reading this will think they do not have a csae against the city. That's not true. Any landlord who has had these kinds of troubles with St. Paul should contact the attorneys handling this because you do have a claim.

12:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People, go to the links that Bob J has on this site. Every charge but one has been ruled in favor of the City on summary judgement.

There is one charge left and that is that minority members were adversely impacted by the City's enforcement because it raised the price of housing. Impact without intent. That's it. That is the one charge left.

What the City is asking the Supreme's is to rule if that is even a part of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Their point is that in several districts where the plaintiffs would have had to have shown statistically the impact before it would have gone forward and other where they would have had to have identified those who it happened. Here there was nothing. So, what they are asking the Supremes for is clarification of what the act does or doesn't do with "unintended consequences."

So, if you are a minority member who had a hard time fining housing in 2004 you might have something to sue for but... a landlord, it doesn't look good.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:00 AM  
Anonymous CitySt.Paul_AaronFoster said...

Barbara Winn Well, Karen, unfortunately it looks as though Foster will never have to pay for his crime. However, we are going to do everything that we can to ensure that he has to live with his crime, by doing all that we can to convince the judge not ...to expunge his arrest and murder trial from his criminal history and the court records. In addition to trying to get his criminal history expunged, he has filed a Federal Civil lawsuit against the City of St. Paul, claiming "Racial discrimination" against the Citym because the Saint Paul Police Department refused to hire him back at the police department. He is telling people that the City offered him $300,000, but he turned it down. I am wondering, if during the negotiations with the City, if Foster told the City that he would drop his lawsuit if the City gave him his job back at the police department. I wonder about this, because there has been no activity in the Federal lawsuit, since about the same time that Foster filed his petition to have his criminal record expunged. Unfortunately, the public is not privy to the negotiations taking place between the City and Foster, as there is a gag order on the Federal case. But, Foster could not get his job back at SPPD, unless IF his record is expunged. This is what I think is going on..
Found on Barb Winn Face Book
If the City is giving Aaron Foster $300 HUNDRED THOUS TO SHUT HIM UP THEN WE THE TAXPAYERS MUST FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON.

9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,
You need to get a life! Your views are not in line with reality. The reality is your side lost, and they are not going to get a Supreme Court hearing.
Bob G.


And, you need to get a clue and look up the definition of reality. You said my side lost. I assume you mean the city of St Paul. Well, St Paul has won every step of the way so far and the last little bitty charge that's being reviewed has nothing to do with the landlords.

What reality are you living in that we've already lost? Is that what the Pacific Legal Foundation taught you to do. When in trouble, lie like its the truth?

Or, are you too stupid to see that this is over and never really had any legs. Its been entertaining reading over the years?


Eric

10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it has nothing to do with landlords then what the heck are they doing in court?

1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:49 what they are doing is wasting money to make the city waste money. That has always been the point of the lawsuit. It was meant to cost the city money, even if it cost them money.

There is nothing left for them to win. The best thing they could hope for is their attorneys fees.

The only charge left is one that claims only that minority residents of Saint Paul had to pay more for rent and if that is a winning issue then who would get money is minority residents who paid more rent... there won't be an award to the people who got the extra money.

So, spite is the reason we are in court...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck what you fail to deal with is the issue of inspectors enforcing their "own" code.

You got guys in the DSI office who think they are God. You could call him rouge DSI code enforcer. The city has not addressed this.

3:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

There is only one charge left. When dealing with nukes, all you need is one.

6:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric said:

What reality are you living in that we've already lost? Is that what the Pacific Legal Foundation taught you to do. When in trouble, lie like its the truth?

Or, are you too stupid to see that this is over and never really had any legs. Its been entertaining reading over the years?

My answer:

Life is more than the lies, political innuendos, and brown tainted kissing sounds that reverbrate around this city hall.

I look to the facts, the people, and their depth of character. I value critical thinking. Most people who read this blog do also.

Some time, you should try looking to the facts, not the farts. Once you see clearly, you will stop supporting a city that has been found in court to be abusing a segment of the population (African Americans).

Bob G.

9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for not answering any of the questions Bob G.

Now as far as supporting the city, I was there when the NAACP sued the city and settled over discrimination within the Fire and Police departments. I was supportive of the suit against the city that was settled on its former discriminatory contracting practices. I've been there and haven't ever heard of you, let alone seen you advocating for anything but this.

Now back to this, your position is that if I don't support the landlords who are fighting for the right to have poor and minority tenants living in units that are subpar- or less than the minimum standards provided by the city code?

I think I'll stick with the landlords suit as being full of it and point to the rulings by the courts throwing out every charge so far. The last one left has nothing in it for them.


Eric

2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Landlords fighting to have renters living in sub par conditions? Some of the people here are beyond comprehension trying to figure out how people like Eric rationalize things. Maybe he is just predjudice against whites.

12:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:33am:
Prejudice against white people? Just a week ago I was accused of selling out black people for not supporting the landlords. Get the story straight.

You appear to be the same guy who brought this up before. To keep saying what you think, simply based on what you read here, you have to believe that all low income landlords are white- I know they are not, you also have to believe that all low income tenants are black- I know they are not.

Its a prejudiced viewpoint that you have about this whole case. Maybe the sheer stupidity of it all is why you stay anonymous.


Eric

9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I am assuming that these landlords are white and you seem to be slingin crap about them no matter what the facts and evidence are so the only thing I can think of of as to why you want to keep bashing these guys is that you are predjudice. What else is one to think? It could be because you are just stupid but I don't think that is the case either. Is it?

12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are assuming a lot, they are not all white.

What evidence are you talking about? Are you stupid? All of this 'evidence' never materialized and now that part of the suit is gone.

Thanks for playing, go back to your rock now.


Eric

12:53 AM  
Anonymous PoliceBrutality PayOut said...

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_17570170

Read the Files on Police Brutality with Lawyer Seeba et al
also found at www.sicko-citystpaul.blogspot.com Bobby you may want to hae another Thread on the PayOut of Polce Brutality reporter Fred Melo.
Dave Thune Author th Lawyers get Rich and Taxpayers get Sick re: Cosetta Morris v. City St.Paul 09cv10609

4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on Sharron, read what happened.

The cops get a domestic abuse call they come into the place and see this woman on top of another woman assaulting her. They pull her off. But, and its the big but in the story... but... the adrenalin is flowing with the officer and as he pulls her off she goes flying through a pair of French doors and injures her arm. Her response to this is to try to go back to continuing to assault her significant other and the cop has to pin her to the ground until back ups arrive.

So, yes she was injured by the actions of the officer, but she was the one that pleaded guilty to interfering with the police and there were no charges against the officer.

What happens in these cases is that the City determines that paying $250K is better than taking a chance in court on $1M. Can they win the case? Maybe. If there chances are no better than 3 to 1 then they should take the deal. If they were 50/50 taking it to court is a loser.

The City Council's job at that point is just like going to the casino. If the case is lock solid, go to court. But, if the offer to settle is at 1/4th of what you would pay if you lose then to take the case to court you better know that your lawyer can win that case 3 out of 4 times for you to break even.

Its about protecting your tax dollars at that point. If you take every case like that to court and refuse to settle you have to win almost all of them to do as well as you would to settle.

So, the City has to fight the one's they know they can win and settle on the one's that they can lose 1 out of 3 or 4....

That's why they are fighting this housing case to the end. The chances of losing are almost zero.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what now Chuck??? You think the city is only going to want to pay the landlords 25 cents on the dollar? I do not think they are going to be happy with this.

10:01 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

That's why they are fighting this housing case to the end. The chances of losing are almost zero.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

My response;

I'm sorry Chuck, you are misinformed.

Certainly many of you will remember this video at the town hall.--->

Back when Choi was city attorney he appeared before the city council begging for more funds to fight the fair housing lawsuits, at that time he said it was city policy to fight all lawsuits against the city to the highest level of the courts.

My opinion-
Most folks can't afford to duke it out in court for an extended period of time. Attorney fee's and related court cost add up, the city is counting on plaintiffs giving up! The city doesn't believe in justice they believe in winning at all cost. The only time the city pays out is if it is cost effective, even then they do not admit wrong doing.

There is also those who still have investments in the city and they fear retaliation so they do not pursue legal remedies.
By pursuing all legal avenues the city has the possibility of turning the tables in their favor in court.

With the fair housing lawsuits I suspect the city never expected to bump heads with so many people who are determined to see justice.
In my opinion the plaintiffs done their homework from day one long before they ever filed any complaints. Reading Seebas plea for mercy to the supreme court, I feel she finally sees she has been had!

Here is what happens next.

The likelihood of the Supremes hearing this is as likely as Chuck wearing drag at city hall.

There will be a jury trial.

The jury will bring back a favorable judgement on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The city will appeal the award amount.

Just my opinion but I don't think Judge Micheal Davis is the judge who should be presiding over this case.

10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just invent a DFL cause and put out the word for a professional spin machine and Repke will be popping up all over town in drag if that's what it took.

12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assistant St. Paul City Attorney Louise Seeba was just endorsed for the DFL St. Paul School Board.

Now I will add Ms. Seeba will add some needed looks to the school board, just remember what she did to our landlords who faught the city. Do you remember all the games she played with emails and discovery?

2:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home