Custom Search

Friday, January 20, 2012

Housing code enforcement case impacting minorities considered by U.S. Supreme Court

24 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. The city has broken the law by exceeding the state building code requirements.If the Supreme Court sides with the city, it would create racial turmoil across the country. It would create petty tyrannies of city governments and destroy freedom. I wonder if, by filing an amicus brief siding with the City of St Paul, the Pacific Legal Foundation is showing it has an anti black agenda.

8:30 PM  
Anonymous CatoAmicus vs.EricHolder said...

Thanks for posting Here is another Amicus Brief with Eric Holder Defendant. techinally challenging HealthCare "Madates" Commerce.

Great Read 10thAmend Soverienty follow the Wickard Farming Case for Commerce.
No one in the Magner Case USSC 10-1032 found at www.scotusblog.com and type in Magner.

Sick and Tired of City St.Paul representing Magner who lives in Stillwater. techinally a Burden on the Taxpayers.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/Seven-SkyVHolder-DCcirc-Final.pdf

3:21 PM  
Anonymous Disparate Impact NewJersey said...

Hey Repke What happens in Jersey may by Law force a Remand to US Dist. Crt before Judge Joan Ericksen for Jury Trial re: Disparate Impact
Sharon is using Google scholar for Tracking ie: Old Ways Shepherdizing.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16883637814766017233&q=torres+v.+franklin+township&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33

6:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quack, quack

7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two things.

First, 8:30 PM did you even read the link? The link discusses how BAD it would be for minorities if the City of Saint Paul LOST. The fear in the housing advocates is that if Saint Paul loses then all abilities to protect tenants in bad housing situations would be lost. The ability to inspect unsafe properties would end since cities would not be able to site housing that had minority residents in the units for violations for fear that the landlord would either rehab and raise the rent or not rehab and the unit go off of the market for being unsafe.

Try reading it again.

And then Sharon. This looks to be Disparate Treatment, not just impact. What is alleged and what the summary judgement motion was defeated on was that it appears the housing project was stopped by the council and that some of the unchallenged testimony was racist.

The disparate treatment claims in Saint Paul have all been dismissed. They were found to be bogus... there was no evidence. What is left in Saint Paul is the question of if you are inspecting housing to protect residents and if more minorities are in unsafe housing then does inspecting housing have a disparate impact on minorities and should cities stop trying to protect residents?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be bad for blacks if there was legitimate housing code inspection and the city lost. That is not the case. It is vicious inspection beyond all reason.

8:30

5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:30 - but that isn't what is the issue. The courts have already thrown out any idea that there was anything wrong with the inspections. That part of the case is gone. So, even if you or the landlords think that the inspections were unreasonable that isn't the issue in front of the supreme court.

The issue in front of the court is even if the inspection were only for the best of purposes and it was in a town where there were more poor minorities than whites and that meant that either the rents could go up or some units would close, then is there a disparate impact on minorities?

If the court says yes that can go forward then it means you can't inspect properties for health violations in any city that has a significant number of low income minority members (like most major cities) because the inspections would have a disparate impact on minority members.

The court would be condeming minorities to unsafe housing.

It isn't going to happen.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the court says yes that can go forward then it means you can't inspect properties for health violations in any city that has a significant number of low income minority members (like most major cities) because the inspections would have a disparate impact on minority members"

That's not what it mean Chuck. If it goes foreward it will mean that cities cannot go around making up violations that do not exist and demanding all kinds of code upgrades that the building code doesn't allow for so they can advance their agenda of having a policy to create forced sales of rental property. Most cities will go on enforcing thier codes as they have always done. St. Paul will have to start obeying the law.

10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:52 - you are dead wrong.

All of those accusations that there were false charges and inappropriate actions have already lost in court. Even if they were true, they aren't the issue that is in front of the court and will not be a part of any discussion or debate of the court.

The issue in front of the court is can you have an FHA violation for disparate impact? Meaning if you took some action for all of the right reasons and it meant that getting a house was harder on minority members, then are you in violation of the FHA because your "good" actions resulted in a disparate impact on minority members.

So, if "good" health inspections mean that the price of housing goes up and this impacts minorities if you can have that kind of a violation then, you can't have inspections.

What Pacific is concerned about is, then if judging someone based on the credit score means that more minorities can't get mortgages, does using a credit score to determine who gets a mortgage have a disparate impact on minorities?

Because if the City loses, you can see that case popping up in two seconds.

That is Pacific's issue.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:56 AM  
Blogger Sharon 4Anderson said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

The extreme code enforcement 'Code to the Max' is at issue. Since housing codes are endless, and every house is in violation of codes, the Supreme Court is determining whether Nazi goons in St Paul inspections will be accountable. The Pacific Legal Foundation tricked this blog with their emphasis on 'protecting freedom' and 'property rights' when their collusion with the left wing St Paul city hall shows their true colors.

7:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:24 - try reading the links that Bob has provided at other parts of the site. That isn't what the Supreme Court is looking at. The City has taken the one issue that the court of appeals left standing (didn't already rule in the City's favor) to the Supreme Court. That one issue is disparate impact... all of the goon stuff and Nazi stuff and code to the max stuff is gone... over... toast.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city's... goon stuff and Nazi stuff and code to the max stuff will be gone... over... toast...

5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even if it goes away in court Repke the city hall will still be full of goons and Nazis.

11:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, If the city wins it is not a victory. It would just be proof that justice can be perverted and cynicism can triumph.

6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If these people are such bad landlords why doesn't the city just go to court and prove it rather than spending so much tax payer money trying to avoid it. It does cost a lot of money to get to the Supreme Court doesn't it?

11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:39 - The City did win all of the bad landlord cases. Every case that has gone to district court with one of these guys the City has won.

So, the landlords came up with this scheme to waste a bunch of the City's money by claiming that there was a conspiracy to get them... and that there was a conspiracy to force out people of color. Those issues went to federal court and the district court threw out all of the charges and then the landlords appealed it to the court of appeals and this one last charge of disparate impact was allowed to go forward.

That ruling was then appealed to the supreme court by the City because of the insane impacts if it goes to trial.

So, there is no trial about if they were bad landlords (they lost all of those cases) and there will be no trial on any evil action of the City all of those charges have been thrown out. All that is left is will the supreme court allow a disparate impact claim in FHA?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:26 PM  
Anonymous USSC 10-1032 Merit Brief LandLords said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:15 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All & Sharon,

I deleted the links to the respondents latest brief. I am reading the brief now and after further study I will post it later this week.

I will say, what I have read so far looks real bad for the city.

4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Bob, its pretty laughable. They aren't even trying to argue the issue at hand, they are retrying the arguements that they have already lost to make their clients feel like they are doing something.

Its pretty sad and I'd say they don't have much of a chance.

Any clue when it actually goes to the court?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:02 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

I disagree Chuck. You are the guy that said it would never get to the Supreme court. I think it is interesting Seeba has changed her position to attempt to give the city an edge. It's not going to work. We will go through this brief one word at a time, soon! :)

Jeff have you read the brief? I hope you join us.

7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

somehow amidst the kissing sounds and fart smells in city hall, the leadership fails to realize the fat lady is getting ready to sing, and then it will be all over for them

7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, 8:30 PM did you even read the link? The link discusses how BAD it would be for minorities if the City of Saint Paul LOST. The fear in the housing advocates is that if Saint Paul loses then all abilities to protect tenants in bad housing situations would be lost. The ability to inspect unsafe properties would end since cities would not be able to site housing that had minority residents in the units for violations for fear that the landlord would either rehab and raise the rent or not rehab and the unit go off of the market for being unsafe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the court says yes that can go forward then it means you can't inspect properties for health violations in any city that has a significant number of low income minority members (like most major cities) because the inspections would have a disparate impact on minority members.

The court would be condeming minorities to unsafe housing.

It isn't going to happen.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, if "good" health inspections mean that the price of housing goes up and this impacts minorities if you can have that kind of a violation then, you can't have inspections.

What Pacific is concerned about is, then if judging someone based on the credit score means that more minorities can't get mortgages, does using a credit score to determine who gets a mortgage have a disparate impact on minorities?

Because if the City loses, you can see that case popping up in two seconds.

That is Pacific's issue.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That ruling was then appealed to the supreme court by the City because of the insane impacts if it goes to trial.

8:38 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home