Custom Search

Monday, November 07, 2011

Saint Paul/ Fair Housing Lawsuit Update case file #10-1032. "Onward to the Supreme Court in Washington D.C."!

The motion of International Municipal Lawyers Association
for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The
petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


Anonymous Legal briefs here said...

Link above

5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, how about that...

I thought you guys were sure that the Supreme Court would reject it and your side would get a trial.

I would guess that the City and Seeba win this thing hands down and the last remaining issue in this case goes away.

Disparate impact makes no sense for FHA cases since it would out law the city from enforcing the code where there were diverse communities.

Its just about over for you guys.


Chuck Repke

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Municipal Lawyers USSC10-1032_Magner said...

Bobby to get on Search Engine you should put the File no in Subject Matter, and MAGNER'S NAME
Go to type in Magner and the Case comes up.
Thanks for Posting: Sharon will use this in the Corrupt Practices Act in her Petition for Grand Jury vs. Thune et al and Seeba et al
This Case now must become predecant and uniformity in the Good ole USA
Lawyers are running the Country
"taking" without Compensation etc.
The Real Issue in this Case is that the Federal Judge Joan Ericksen who RULED a 3 million settlement for MetroGanStrikeForce and Ruled against the RICO Claims of the LandLords
Now the Fun begins Note to Chuck Repke Seeba age 40 also School Board Candidate really has not been duly qualified, Seeba should have settled the DSI Cases in 2004

8:05 AM  
Anonymous CittyStPaul vs. USA_HUD said...

Letters to waiting til after Election?
Editors have knowledge but refuse to notify the Public Everyone is I think City Lost this one

Thanks for posting Sharons Trying to work on Petition to Grand Jury before Tomorrow..........

Hospice with my Maddy comes First without a Car its a "Bitch" However for Public Policy to make St.Paul Accountable

8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, Your side was able to convince the Supreme Court that simply because there was a split among the Circuit Courts, that the Supreme Court should resolve it. From what I have read, I believe the Supreme Court will resolve the matter for the landlords. Better to be safe than sorry.

9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St.Paul and Minneapolis created all these diverse segregated communities by segregating them into their own parts of town. St.Paul's University avenue stacked with asians, east side stacked with blacks, west side stacked with latinos and illegals from Mexico. Riverside area of Minneapolis stacked with Somalians and Ethiopians, South Minneapolis stacked with Native American Indians. Whites and middle class folks into the suburbs and the very rich folks in places like Edina,North Oaks,Minnetonka etc.

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

low income rental properties created the segregated communities

10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


What is the difference between code enforcement targeting diverse communities and police targeting diverse communities?

I believe the law is clear police cannot do what code enforcement is doing...

Bill Cullen.

1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The uber-liberal St. Paul establishment is taking their circus to Washington. All they really care about is putting communist symbols on their houses. They'll get their fannies all red with the national focus. Maybe even the local press will start covering it.

Bob G.

7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The court has already ruled that the City did not "Target" minority residents. The issue that is remaining is that since the City targeted blighted properties did that impact minorities.

disparate impact is still in play, the court ruled that there was not disparate treatment.


Chuck Repke

12:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I haven't followed the case closely and maybe I don't get it, but from my viewpoint, there are two ways to look at disparate impact.

The first is what you said... Does a focus on certain housing quality standards and/or neighborhoods have a disparate impact on people of color. A good question, I think.

But the second one -- something you didn't mention -- is does the admitted fact that the city used "occupant behanvior" to influence which houses it inspected have a disparate impact on people of color?

I can't prove it, but I'd bet the cities problem properties (remember that is defined as the intersection of code problems and occupant behavior problems) are mostly occupied by african americans.

And St. Paul has never defined what "occupant behavior" is unacceptable.

I think this is a similar argument the police made... They look for behaviors that were often associated with crime and SHAZAAM, those behaviors were targeted... They happened to be behaviors that were common in diverse neighborhoods and the courts said you can't do that.

Bill Cullen.

11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


What you describe is called "disparate treatment" meaning to have a policy that by design will treat minorities differently. The Court already has thrown that charge out. The "facts" and "admissions" that the plaintiffs claimed were "facts" were determined to not be facts... just rumors and hearsay... puffs of smoke.. nothing.

All that is left and what the Supreme Court is taking up is that if you enforce the code with the purpose of safe housing and if more people of color it is found live in unsafe housing, do you need to stop enforcing the code because more minorities will be impacted when you write up the unsafe property.

There is no issues any more about the behavior of the City staff, all of that is gone. The one thing left is that.


Chuck Repke

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Focusing code enforcement on an area or individual house because of occupant behavior is NOT disparate treatment. It IS disparate impact.

Disparate treatment is intentional – it is blatent... If the city said they don't want people of [name protected class here] living in the city, that is disparate treatment. That is intentional.

Disparate impact means a policy or procedure that is intended to be neutral has a disparate impact on a protected class. I am confident that would/should include an entity acting differently due to occupant behavior.

IMHO, St. Paul’s usage of occupant behavior to ramp up code enforcement has always been their Achilles heel in this case.

Bill Cullen.

3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So guess I am back to my original question... Will the Supreme Court consider both St. Paul's usage of Occupant Behavior AND more aggressive code enforcement in neighborhoods with a high concentration of minorities?

Or just the latter?

Bill Cullen.

3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, neither....

Both of those accusation have been thrown out by the court on the local level and reaffirmed by the 8th Circuit Court.

What is left is the charge that with no design to target minority neighborhoods, nor to target any kind of behavior of the residents and only to enforce the code on structures that had code issues it resulted in more minorities either losing their housing because the properties were boarded or the landlords raised the rents.

That is what is left of the case.

The actions that you speak of Bill would still be considered "treatment" issues. If there was any evidence that the City targeted areas because of the number of minority residents or low income residents or because of the crime rate all of those would be considered treatment issues because the City should know that it will have an impact on minority residents... they can't pretend ignorance.

Impact issues are where you have a policy that has nothing but good intent and it still impacts minority residents.

In employment issues, it is when I put an education requirement on a job that has no need for that education background to do the job. It might seem like a nice idea, to have a better educated work force but if it only accomplishes getting more whites hired, then it has disparate impact.

Example... I once worked at a place that had openings for an entry level job that required a 4 year degree, but in the ad they said a masters degree was preferred for the job. When they interviewed candidates that only had masters degrees, they saw only white applicants. By restricting the pool for this entry level job to only those with advanced degrees, they had wiped out anyone of color applying.

They had to change the policy and interview at the degree level that they needed for the job to be able to see a diverse applicant pool.

In this case what is left is that the City does not target areas or behaviors for enforsement, but has an aggressive clean up unsafe housing practice. That aggressive code enforcement means that some properties will fail inspection and be boarded. The impact of this will fall harder on minority residents, since they are more likely to be trapped living in bad housing.

Should the City be required to stop enforcing the code since enforcing the code will result in a higher percentage of minorities losing their housing?


Chuck Repke

8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I am disappointed the cities use of Occupant Behavior was thrown out. I still believe that is the core of St. Paul's problem. Behavior should have NOTHING to do with code enforcement and, I believe, rings of discrimination.

But this case is still very valuable to all of us. I mean what really is minimum code? It seems clear to me that many municipalities have far higher standards than should be minimum. I bet we could all list silly requirements that needlessly drive up the cost of housing and ultimately push lower income families into homelessness.

Bill Cullen.

9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The codes are totally open to interpretation. When the enforcement (St. Paul's) does not have common sense or human values, they can become weapons of viciousness.

The Supreme Court could do a service by defining what is fair and accurate.

Bob G.

4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a story in today's Pioneer Press about a Roseville guy who has trouble with his neighbors. I think the guy is being targeted by the neighbors. This guy should sue his neighbors for defamation. Maybe Matt Engle needs to talk to this guy.

8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 8:39....

St. Paul wouldn't have trouble with this neighbor long, they would send a code enforcement inspector past every day and implement "code to the max" until the resident went broke.

Bill Cullen.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Cullen, you are 100% correct, that is why I posted the article.

DSI and Fire are out of control in St. Paul with no over-site. Bob has been holding the city to task on this issue for years. He got kicked out of St. Paul Issues Forum because of his efforts to get the message out. Lee Helgen didn't like Bob putting his nose into things the city was doing. Now that Helgen is out of office, there may be some change, but we still have Kathy Lantry.

7:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you never seem to mention the FACT that the city made up violations in some cases in order to be able to condemn properties and obtain expensive code compliances. Why is that?

11:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home