Custom Search

Friday, February 10, 2012

After being abandoned by the liberal left the City of Saint Paul seeks to withdraw from United States Supreme Court case Magner vs. Gallagher

In my opinion the city's response is absurd! Read the press release here.

95 Comments:

Anonymous City of Saint Paul said...

City of Saint Paul seeks to dismiss Unites States Supreme Court case Magner vs. Gallagher

Scope of court’s decision could have adverse effects on housing, civil rights

Today, the City of Saint Paul requested that the United States Supreme Court dismiss the city’s petition to hear the pending case of Magner v. Gallagher. The case is a lawsuit brought by landlords who oppose the city's vigorous enforcement of the city’s housing code. The city's efforts were focused on eliminating conditions such as rodent infestation, missing dead bolt locks, inoperable smoke detectors, poor sanitation, and inadequate heat. While Saint Paul likely would have won in the United States Supreme Court, a victory could substantially undermine important civil rights enforcement throughout the nation. The city fully expects to win the case later at trial.
The City of Saint Paul, national civil rights organizations, and legal scholars believe that, if Saint Paul prevails in the U.S. Supreme Court, such a result could completely eliminate "disparate impact" civil rights enforcement, including under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. This would undercut important and necessary civil rights cases throughout the nation. The risk of such an unfortunate outcome is the primary reason the city has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition.
“As we saw recently with the United States Department of Justice’s settlement against Countrywide Mortgage, which provided $335 million of relief to homeowners who have been discriminated against, disparate impact analysis is an important tool in fighting predatory lending and economic injustice,” Mayor Chris Coleman said. “Yet we still remain firm in our resolve that, when our city protects tenants from substandard housing, such enforcement enhances – not undermines – civil rights and human dignity.”
“The Mayor’s and the City Council’s thoughtful decision should not be cause for these landlords to celebrate, but instead highlights the city’s belief that it will be successful in defending its code enforcement actions in any court,” said Saint Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing, whose office is defending the case. “The city is confident we will achieve the same result in trial that we would have through the completion of the appeal. We look forward to cross-examining these landlords in front of a jury and we will try the case to win – an outcome the city expects.”

3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who these poeple think they are kidding. If they expect the same result at trial why didn't they go to trial insteaed of the expense of going all the way to the Supremes? They are going to get their clock cleaned is what they are going to get.

3:03 PM

3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We should let the bullpooper Repke add to the spin of Coleman. I can't wait to see these council members being cross examined on why they would send code enforcement out because a large group of black men were gathering at a street corner. I can't wait to see these council members being asked about code to the max, force sale, false mailings, target teetering neighborhoods, use size and influence, bend the rules to acheive certain outcomes, false code Infractions, Etc. I can't wait to hear how putting a house on the vacant list and require the house be brought up today's code bypassing all grandfather provisions promotes affordable housing. Good luck St.Paul!! Let the facts set us free!

3:03 PM

3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you appeal but don't have the foresight to see what a victory at the supreme court would do? Looks like we can't trust your foresight here. Go landlords. You guys are the real deal. Give these fakes hell. And I'd celebrate! Chris Coleman you are weak and will be beaten.

Reggie

3:06 PM

3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That city Attorney Seeba gonna give them bad boys a good spanking.

3:08 PM

3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "Heros" march on. I do not care if you guys are bad boys or good boys, just finish this fight for the rest of us. Seeing you mop the floor with these city officals is the only vindication most of the rest of us will ever get.

3:20 PM

3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your right Bob. 8 years and we finally will have our day in court where the spin like Repke spews won't be worth the bad breathe it's riding on! Mr. Coleman you guys can run but you can't hide. We are on the defensive! We are the ones that stand for justice and equal treatment.

3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Way to go. A highly publicized trial that exposes the facts of the case. I guess the city would like a couple of black eyes to go with a good butt woopen. I don't understand why you appeal then say oh on second thought no we don't want to appeal. Who the heck is making the city's decisions. Looks like they're scrabbling. If anyone knows these landlords tell them good job and take this all the way like the city wants.

3:26 PM

3:33 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

I made an error when I posted the city press release so I edited it and re posted. THEN I re posted the comments that had been left in response to the press release. Sorry for any misunderstanding with the time stamps.

First of all the landlords can consider this a win! We get to go to a jury trial!

You would have to believe the city attorneys are "stupid" if you believe this press release. The city attorneys researched this case high and low before proceeding with the writ of certiorari.

The city knew damn well if they pushed onward with this case it had the possibilities of gutting civil liberties and they didn't give a damn.

What they didn't expect was for the NAACP, ACLU, AARP and all those other leftest organizations jumped ship on them and joined the landlords.

NOW, I get what I have prayed for a jury trial. And Chris you and your pals who have violated the rights of hundreds of citizens, your day is coming in court.

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not going to be pretty Bob. I know some of these folks and they are not the people to mess with. At least not the ones I know of.

3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where ya at Eric? Jump on in here chump and tell us why your city friends give up before they even start. Maybe they know they are on the wrong end of this?

3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuckie must be in the washer trying to get the spin.

3:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Undercutting of civil rights is important to St. Paul? LOL!!! This is just an attempt by the city to do damage control. They have been violating civil rights for many years and now they try to put themselves on the right side of the issue? Disgusting.

4:07 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

City attorney said;
The case is a lawsuit brought by landlords who oppose the city's vigorous enforcement of the city’s housing code.

My response;
If you were being honest you would have said "selective predatory illegal code enforcement"!

4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is replacing all the plumbing during a code compliance making the house safer. Chuck how about since you believe this gobblee goo you and gap tooth have your plumbing updated for about 8k. Here's the catch you can't take city grants and we'll see how that grabs ya.

4:13 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

City Attorney Sara Grewing said;
“We look forward to cross-examining these landlords in front of a jury and we will try the case to win – an outcome the city expects.”

My response;
Sara, I can't wait to see the city's PET PREDATORS (code enforcement agents, city council members past and present) on the witness stand.

4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cowards or losers? Wait … those are not exclusive traits - they can be both.

After reading the amici briefs it was clear that St Paul could not be allowed to win at the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure someone smarter than their current legal staff sat them down and explained all of this to them.

St. Paul now boasts that "it will be successful in defending its code enforcement actions in any court" Hmm, if that is so then why did St Paul try so hard to avoid trial by taking a decision to let the case go forward first to the Court of Appeals and then to the US Supreme Court?

I predict a settlement is imminent.

Hats off to Frank and the others for having the fortitude to stay the course for all these years.

4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are the names of these hero's?
It's always been said you can't fight city hall. Well these landlords did and I am proud of them all. I'm sure there was a lot of blood, sweat, and treasure. You deserve the best. Don't settle, keep pushing ahead. A victory in the eyes of our peers are worth far more then the city will ever pay.

4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Questioning landlords in front of a jury? Questioning them about what? False violations? Renting to people who bring the "Black Plague?" False criminal citations? The city's policy of "Forced Sales?" Or are you just wanting to question them about how you met with the court and rigged it in your favor prior to charging cases against property owners? Will there be enough time in the questioning to talk about sending code inspectors out to a house because large nubers of black males congregate outside?

4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Landlords are part of the 99% and I hope they stick it to the establishment.

5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love your head line Bob.

Both you and I have been commenting on who is taking who's side in the issue and what has been the arguments of those doing amicus briefs.

As I have said in another post, the clear fear of the left was the potential of the City winning and what that would mean in mortgage and credit cases.

I am dying to see the stats that the owners come up with on who was displaced due to code enforcement issues and then how PP2000 if enforcing the same code would bring a different result?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is GREAT news. I imagine that soon lifesize bronze statues of the landlords will be placed in Rice Park. Job well done.

Bob G.

5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck 2 weeks ago you said the right or left wouldn't side with us

Ralph

5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:23 Bob G.stated:
This is GREAT news. I imagine that soon lifesize bronze statues of the landlords will be placed in Rice Park. Job well done.

HOW BOUT ON THE STATE CAPITAL BUILDING BY THE HORSES INSTEAD OF RICE PARK!

6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Careful what you say now Repke. The landlords are taking out the tar and feathers to give your political buddies a good lesson in civil rights.

6:17 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Thanks Chuck, I knew you'd like the headline. :) I hope you join us at the jury trial. You do a good job of presenting the city's side of the story. Although I don't agree with you I appreciate your efforts.

Imagine the political fallout for Democrats if this had gone forward and the city won. Surely the right would have used this issue for political advantage.

I am still pondering Dave Lillehaugs advice to the city at the closed council meeting.

6:24 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

I email this to the city council and mayor on Wednesday Night.
enforcement case impacting minorities considered by U.S. Supreme Court



POSTED: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 08:59 AM PT
BY: Edward Sullivan and Carrie Richter




Edward Sullivan, Carrie Richter

Many urban governments in Oregon have adopted housing codes to regulate substandard housing. These local codes ensure that dwellings remain healthy and safe for habitation, and authorize government planning or development managers to pursue enforcement remedies where there is insufficient fire protection, lack of heating, unsanitary conditions, overcrowding or other nuisance conditions.

Enforcement activities include property inspections, mandatory abatement and improvements, and sometimes evacuation or demolition of structures. Although often solely complaint driven and significantly hampered by budgetary constraints, these codes authorize local governments to pursue nuisance abatement programs as they deem appropriate.

The intensity under which local governments may force the abatement of housing code violations is the subject of a housing discrimination case, Magner v. Gallagher, for which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari. The court’s decision will not only affect local governments’ ability to plan and require safe and sanitary housing; it could also significantly restrict housing advocates’ efforts to encourage the provision of affordable housing across the nation.

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful “to refuse to sell or rent … or otherwise make available or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” In addition to providing relief in cases where there is actual proof that the activity was driven by a discriminatory purpose or motive, the FHA has also been interpreted to allow for recovery in cases where a facially neutral practice or policy caused a disparate impact on a protected class.

In Magner, a number of owners of rental properties persuaded the Eighth District Court of Appeals that the city of Saint Paul’s “aggressive enforcement” of its housing codes had a disparate impact on minorities because a disproportionate number of renters are African-American, and requiring that landlords meet the housing code will increase their costs and decrease the number of units they will make available to rent to minority tenants.

The two questions that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider are whether disparate impact claims – those where there is no evidence of intent to discriminate – are recognized under the FHA, and if so, what test should govern this review.

6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am so happy to see that this issue on housing and civil rights will finally go to trial, congratulations to all of you!

I understand completely that inspections are required on properties for the safety of society/tenants...but I also know first hand that "SOME" city official went beyond what would be determined writing up honest safety issues to insure they would reach their desired results which was remove the city of whom they determined undesirable, and that is inhumane in my opinion.

Nancy O.

6:28 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K, Lucht said...

Second half.


Or should the inquiry also include a balancing of the nondiscriminatory policy objective sought through the action and an evaluation of whether another viable alternative means of achieving the objective is available?

Perhaps more importantly, the Supreme Court will decide in the first instance whether the FHA contains a basis for allowing a disparate impact analysis so that recovery may be permitted where there is no evidence of intent to discriminate. Rather than finding roots in the express language of the FHA, the disparate impact test appears to rely solely on the “purpose” of the FHA in protecting tenant (or potentially owners of affordable housing) from activities that have a “discriminatory effect.”

Not surprisingly, the city of St. Paul argues that disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the FHA, which gives the Supreme Court majority’s textualist tendencies, the chance to abolish the disparate impact claim under the FHA altogether. This result would substantially limit housing advocates’ ability to challenge local policies that disproportionately deny housing to minorities.

Such a ruling may also allow landlords to use the FHA as a basis for not complying with generally applicable housing code regulations.

Using cost of compliance to property owners as a basis for finding disparate impact is certainly abhorrent to affordable housing advocates as well to as the American Planning Association. The latter may file amicus briefs arguing on the side of the landlords as well as tenants, to keep the disparate impact test in place. As for identifying the appropriate test, the arguments of the property owners and housing advocates are likely to deviate substantially.

Briefs responding to the city’s appeal are due next month, and a ruling by the Supreme Court is likely forthcoming sometime this summer. In the alternative, housing advocates are working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to adopt administrative rules expressly providing for a disparate impact test. It is unclear whether such rules will be promulgated in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling and what effect the court’s decision may have on that rulemaking.

6:28 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

The taxeprayer should real unhappy with the city council and mayor. With spending 2 millions on the U.S.Supeme Court case. And then drop it. And they did not release press release. Nothing in the local news about the city
dropping U.S.Supeme court case. Let keep it out of news. So, taxeprayer will not find out how are spending their money.

now the trial. It will take about six months before we find out who will win.

Hey chuck was that discuss in the closed meeting on wednsday ??

Maybe dave let you talked about it now. Oh i sorry that right. You was only there for what 3 mintues.

Maybe you take the stand for dave and Kathy.

good job, john and frank.

6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les Chuck wasn't at the meeting wednesday. The tribune posted a story.

Ralph

6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now the true facts will
Be made public before trial. Senty putting a house on the vacant list and displacing tenants because he noticed from the ground the second floor windows didn't have window treatments. Ha can't wait to see Senty on the stand to tell the jurors how he made them safe. St.Paul the landlords are coming and your spin days are over. Seeba is not competent and you will lose. Coleman good luck you had a chance to make this go away!

7:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am still pondering Dave Lillehaugs advice to the city at the closed council meeting."

Well - so glad you asked and I can answer that for you sir. He told them they're fucked and they should pay up and settle it quietly before the flood gates open. Now that the 8th circuit ruling is case law that paves the road for all the landords who have been victimized by these predators to come in on the tail end and clean house with them.

8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You go landlords. Purge those dirty Devils right out onto the street where they put so many others.

8:35 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

hey, chuck were is dave at? How come the city did not the news of their great move?? Chuck is their a close meeting next week ??

are the city council going to have press meeting next week??
chuck

10:08 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

so you spend eight years putting up every road block you can and try to make the plaintiffs spend an enormous amount of money just to back off at the courthouse door. Strange! If they ever thought they could win at trial they would have let it go there 8 years ago. The City is going to lose and they probably have not given any thought to the fact that the justice dept. will probably pick this up after they lose at trial and some of these corrupt officials and inspectors will go to jail where they belong. congrats Frank and all the other plaintiffs now and to those who will be stepping forward.

7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Henry - it has already gone to court, years ago and your side has lost on every issue but one. And the one issue that is left is disparate impact on people of color.

There is nothing left in the case that anyone here ever bitches about and except for Bob, I don't think anyone on this blog even understands what disparate impact means and what you would get if you win.

IF and a BIG IF the landlords were to win, they are not the victims that would get anything. They had bad houses, they had places that didn't meet the code, those things have been proven in court. If there were any victims it is the residents of color that were displaced and if the City didn't/doesn't have a way to assist those people when their house is condemned because a landlord refuses to keep it up to code, you may see a court wanting the city to develop/improve those responses.

But no court in this country is going to award damages to someone who was renting an already proven substandard house or raised their rent because the City forced them to repair their substandard house.

The landlords as a group aren't the issue of the suit... it is the people they rent to.

Which is why I have always said, I don't care how this part of the suit comes out because its win-win for the people who live in the houses.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But no court in this country is going to award damages to someone who was renting an already proven substandard house or raised their rent because the City forced them to repair their substandard house."

But Chcuk do you think they may get some money because the city made up code violations that didn't exist? What about requiring those expensive code compliances that are in direct violation of the grandfathering rights in the state building code?

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

It seems to me that you think that the city is the winner. its the codes. You have state code and city codes that are different.
the city codes require you bring your house up the current code. the state code states the your house has grandfather rights.

the purpose of the city codes to get money for the city. force landlords to pay more money then the homeowner. and force low income out of the city because they used services that cost money for the city.

I forgot that you all ready know that. because of you working for dave t.. You need the money to keep you employ. no extra money from the city. no non-profits. which you run. you and keep spinning the stroy. The city should have ride. Keep it in the U.S. Supeme court. That right no one but banks support the city side in the U,S, supeme court.

Let screw the taxeprayer out more money. increase the taxes so, we can try to screw the landlords out of money. and keepthe only poeple that we want in the city.

9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck once again you are shit, have been shit and will always be shit. Shut your mouth because you are a moron! The case never went to court you monkey! It was summary judgement which is different then a trial you borderline ass. Call that gap tooth smile Thune and get some facts. The city better be ready to do damage control because these landlords are on their final leg of their journey and are going to take it to your buddies. You let them know the fight has just started and they may spin but we will destroy all what they have to say. Pretty funny how this case has no merit but is going to trial. The landlords have won at making case law and now are going for money. Tell Dave to take the bus change from his front teeth because we are coming. Chuck I know more then you trust me!

10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's file an appeal to the Supreme Court, see what the plaintiffs would say to the District Court in the event of an actual trial and then withdraw the appeal.

Problem is for the city and tax payers is that these defendants are costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars dicking around with the courts.

If you lose this Coleman, it should cost you your job !

See who's greasing the courts now.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. That's the only way the city will win.




Jeff Matiatos

11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the city thinks they will win at trial huh? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A trial later this year will great. Lets see, that will right in the middle of the presidential elections with the Republicans getting the voters all stired up with the abuses and skirting the constitution by the Obamma administration. Lots of luck finding a jury that doesn't hate government.

11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Warriors co e out to play e yah! The city may have tried to win with their judges but now the people of st.paul will hear the facts and make the decision. Good luck city, you will need it.

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It all started with a lie.

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. - Winston Churchill.

Bob G.

11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your ranting is just pathetic Chuck. You have the idea landlords live off the tax code or taxpayers just because the get some deductions.....the same deductions every other business gets. If you and your socialist friends in government do not like the deduction part of the tax code then why don't you wipe them out and see how long any business stay open. How about that non profit sham you run? What if you have to pay tax on every penny that came in the door before you did any developing? How long do you think you would be able to keep fleecing the productive people of the world where your grants come from. You are just as much of a freeloader as everyone is with their hand held out. Why don't you get a job like the rest of us?

3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck

Why do you sit here and lie? You and Dave are joined at the hip and you want us to believe that the city was just promoting safe housing through the code. Well how long have they been applying the code? Then pop, all of a sudden they get sued? Why did it take so long? Did the city change the way of code enforcement or did landlords get smarter? I saw a article this week about how over zealous and inconsistent the city is with enforcement. Why is it time and time again as of late people are bitching.

Chuck the city wants the suburbs to take their fair share of bottom of the barrel which consist of s lot of minorities. Come on quit giving us the bull. You and the city use the code to limit rentals and affordable housing to ship these so called bottom feeders to the suburbs. And if not why is there such a shortage of affordable housing in st. Paul? St. Paul takes millions from HUD to preserve it. Why can't they keep up? Because they limit it to keep down police calls, constituents calls, code complaints, ect. We see through all you bull so quit!

4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its amazing how stupid some people are and I don't know why I bother to try to spell things out to you but what the heck...

9:42 Sorry, the landlords already lost on the charge that the City made up violations that didn't exist. That charge is gone, over done with... the landlords will never get a dime for that false charge.

Les, the City doesn't make any money out of code compliance. They are not allowed to charge more than it costs to run the department and I am sure the charges don't add up to what the department costs.

10:52 where did you think the summary judgement occured? on the moon. It came in court. The landlord's case went to court and every charge was laughed out of court except for the potential of disparate impact... the charge that maybe the landlords' tenants were damaged by the city when the City tried to make their life better.

3:19 clearly you don't understand anything about tax law... first some clown was whining about who gets hand outs from the government and claimed to be a landlord. I haven't found a landlord yet who could exist in the business if the tax code didn't make almost all of his cost totally tax deductible. In fact most landlords I know show no proffit or almost no proffit for their business totally. And second not for profit corporations like the one I run pay all sorts of taxes just like for profit corporations. The only difference between the two is that there are no stock holders that receive any profits and there are no taxes on any charitible work... but every development pays the same taxes.

4:05 I haven't worked for Dave since 12/31/1997. I have no idea why people won't give that a rest. If I was working for Thune, he would have had me stop posting here years ago.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your rolling in the dough Repke but that's a story for another day. When you pay all these taxes you get to write them off right? Along with other various costs that you put into whatever scam you have going right? Well how would you like to pay tax on all the money without being able to write it off? No you darn right you wouldn't like it but yet you complain about landlords living off the tax code and what you are complaining about is the same thing you are doing isn't it? You're a frquent flyer at the public troff Repke.....always looking for whatever grant the council can squeeze out of whatever ponzi fund they have going at the time.

1:05 AM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

You are wrong . The city makes money of the inspection and work orders. When they tell you to pull permits. the fees for permits Been increase 350% since 2007. And need appeals the work it $25.00. When you have 300 poeple file appeals at $25.00. That $7,500.00 for a ten minutes appeal hear. when an inspector make 4 to 5 inspection at the same place that is $400.00 to $500.00 for a 10 to 5 mintues inspection. Then the permits. fix and or put dryer vent. the fee for permit is $350.00 for an inspection for trade inspecton of a ten inspection. Or vent drain from the sink is fee of $750.00 . for an ten inspection from plumber inspection. And you say that the city does not make money. You are full of shit. No contractor is will to work in st.Paul of the cost the inspection and requirement to work in st.paul. Wait you can only hire someone that the city tell who to use. And those contractor maybe give some type of kickback to the city.

well you said that you do work foe dave no more. so , how do you get in to closed meeting. Then wait that right you special person.

7:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:05 - I didn't complain about the tax law, I simply said that idiots that post on here about how I live off of the government tit are snuggled right next to me sucking away on the next government tit when they fill out their tax forms. There is no damn difference other than I admit that I do private/public partnerships and landlords don't admit that they wouldn't be in business if the Fed's didn't let them deduct all of their expences from their income before paying taxes. Its just the way it is.

And, Les, read what I wrote. It was more than 15 years ago when I worked for Thune that I was in a closed door meeting for one minute and it was noted on the minutes. I was only commenting on how the minutes say almost nothing except who is in a meeting. I was not in the closed door meetin last week or you would have seen me in the minutes...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:17 AM  
Anonymous leslie k lucht said...

Chuck whatever. I still belive that were there longer. You have no reason to be there. If you drop a note to dave. You could call him. Beside dont you run a nonprofit. So, my big question to you. Why go to meeting that you could stay

9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Les - Have you ever considered that maybe Thune is taking orders from Repke? In my opinion that is sure the way it is starting to look. When you have people ducking in and out and you are standing right at the front door and do not see them tells me there is a secret way into these meeting rooms. Trap doors in the floor or who knows.....maybe they come in and out through the ventilation system. Very disturbing if this is true. I'd like to know just who is in charge here? Thune or is Repke running a secret government from the east side?

9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:54, have you seen those black helicopters flying over your house?

10:22 AM  
Anonymous leslie K. Lucht said...

no post this on e dem yet. Hey chuck telleveryone how the city is going to kick the landlords ass. I did see strange cars parked outside my house . You can not see who they are widows dark black. black ford edge. no plates.

Hey chuck did you send these guys to watch me???

12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck the difference between you and I, is that you take money from the government and don't pay taxes for being a non profit. I earn my money and give the government money.(taxes) so let's see.........without the government taking and redistributing money I would be in business and you would be working at McDonalds. See Chuck it's not the hard to understand. Oh and another thing.......how's that condo project going? Still looks vacant. See in the real world when something fails you lose. But since you were non profit you didn't lose a dime. Wow isn't that special!



Landlord

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Landlord you hit the nail on the head.

7:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading really is an issue here isn't it...???

Les, I wasn't in the closed door session last week and haven't been in one for more than 15 years!!!

On the "non-profit vs for-profit" non-profits pay property taxes on every housing or commercial development 100% exactly the same as for profits do. There is no difference, none. I work several jobs... not that it is any of your business and I pay plenty of taxes.

As to the condo's on Maryland NENDC is a partner in the development but not an operating partner. The operating partners are a for profit group and are losing money the same as everybody else that built condos in 2007 or 2008. They are wonderful condo's and there are still nine of twenty-seven for sale. The partnership has not discounted the price so they are moving slowly.

Bill D... get your med's checked.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting, not one word on the Liberal DFL blog, the St. Paul Issues Forum. I wonder why?

9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Supreme Court granted review earlier in Magner v. Gallagher, which presents the question whether a “disparate impact” cause of action can be brought under the Fair Housing Act. Such lawsuits would allow plaintiffs to challenge housing-related practices that lead to disproportionate racial or ethnic results, whether or not they have anything to do with actual discrimination. For example, a preference for tenants without criminal records could be attacked if this or that racial or ethnic group was more likely to have such a record. Many lower courts have recognized disparate-impact lawsuits, alas, but the Supreme Court has never resolved the issue.

12:19 AM  
Anonymous Chuck Steak said...

Chuck,

All of your denials are convenient smokescreens for the fact that this city is a fucking tyranny, a one-party state where the people in power - that includes you - have gotten used to the idea that since the law allows them to seize power, they will seize and use power.

As well-meaning as you are, you are part of the cancer that has destroyed this beautiful city I used to love. You - singular and plural - are the apparatchiks that prospered while the rest of the city drowned in the cesspool you created.

The bitch of it is, the city deserves what's happened to it. It keeps returning the socialist DFL to office. We are a cold California, a boring Greece, we're Portugal without the night life.

7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ironic thing is that these landlords hung the city with the noose they tied and hung many by the last 40 years. Mondale you are a joke and it's great to see no matter how old you are Walter you stay in line with the dfl that say they are for the little guy. Yeah righ!

8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:54 - I would love to here what in the hell you mean by all of that right wing BS.

The plight of cities has been pretty much the same all around the country. They are in a constant struggle with suburban sprawl and the tax advantages that State governments allow for businesses to disinvest in cities and move to the burbs.

Try this.... when a new freeway is built to make it easier for people to live in the burbs, who pays for it? All of us right? And when new roads are put in to reach that housing development? That would be all of us in the county. And, then the new sewers and water that they need? That would be all of us in the Metro service district. And, its not just that... when Xcel has to string out new power lines and facilities... its all of the customers that pay, even the guy that's renting his small unit gets the electric bill increased.

And when all of that is done, and that well subsidized house is built in the burbs who moves there? Someone who wants to flee all of those taxes we are paying in the cities.

Its amazing.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting that you complain about all the taxes paid by city people and the subsidy to the suburbanites but you reality of the situation is that the city caused the problem they are in. Rather than trying to work with landlords and have an effective program to get some of the properties fixed up the city has been tearing the rental houses down like there's no tomorrow! A 3rd grader would know that if you are going to destroy your tax base then the people left are going to have to pay a lot more and they are paying a lot more. Cry us a river Repke but at the end of the day the city gets just what they deserve.

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL!!!
All of you are so busy jerking each off that you haven't stopped to think how easy it is to manipulate a jury. Engel has to explain the law and convince them of a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo.

The city only has to show a couple of the worst properties and complaints (Frankie- you there?) and ask the jury would they want that on their block and if the landlords get away with this, how long before one of them buy property on your block?

So, zip your pants back up, Les, put the booze back in the cabinet, and Bill, well, shut up. This is not the best route for your case. You think a jury is going to be shipped in from Oregon or somewhere? You think people on that jury won't be thinking of the worst property near their neighborhood? You think the term 'slumlord' won't come up?


Eric

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Eric I'm in the suit. What can you say about mine. So zip your lips bubb. You don't know a thing but to spew liberal Mumbo jumbo. I'd put my units against your shit hole, Repkes shit hole, Thunes shit hole and even Coleman's shit hole he raced to fix up when he became mayor. There's many pictures to prove this. So in the mean time watch the city get its clock cleaned. If you support forced sales, code to the max, target teetering minority neighborhoods and this vacant building agenda you are the one who have the problem. So shut up with all do respect! I'm ready for justice and a fight!

11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you're kidding right? Who wants to live in the city? It's one party rule. No oversight and no alternative thinking. Just cram it up people's asses whether republican or democrat. Businesses move because st.paul is not business friendly. People move because the suburbs cater to all.

Whose paying for the train?? We all are. You have no points, but maybe your buddy Eric the Champ can help you!

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St. Paul is just a nasty dirty cesspool full of people like Eric and Chuck who continually think it's OK to just bash the hell out of people and dismiss any civil rights they have or had violated with buzz words like slumlord or code violation or "do you want that living by you" crap. If the jury thinks it OK to address behavior issues that the city leaders are too cowardly too address in any other way but through selective code enforcement, false violations, and an unwillingness to follow the law themselves then the landlords will have to live with that decision and the people of St. Paul will have to live with the aftermath of the illegal behavior they have told the city is OK and they are willing to live under. I don't think that is going to happen but if it does I would suspect a lot more people are going to be moving out of the city and more not coming to the city. That should help out a lot with their already shrinking tax base. Be careful what you wish for Eric because you just may have to live on the wrong side of it some day.

12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The crooks at city hall were playing a game of chicken with the landlords ( AND 600k of your money!), and the city blinked! I think the city finally realized all its dirty laundry was going to be washed on a world stage, and how it was f____ing its hardest working citizens. When the case goes to trial you folks are going to be saddened and dismayed at the low, cheap, and underhanded tricks that they pulled to "create wins" in court agaist honest landlords only trying to eak out a living in the rental property game. We are now in the end game of this sad and disgusting chapter of the most recent episode of the "the most corrupt city west of Chicago".

1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The crooks at city hall were playing a game of chicken with the landlords ( AND 600k of your money!), and the city blinked!
I think the city finally realized all its dirty laundry was going to be washed on a world stage, and how it was f____ing its hardest working citizens. When the case goes to trial you folks are going to be saddened and dismayed at the low, cheap, and underhanded tricks that they pulled, to "create wins" in court, in YOUR name, against honest landlords only trying to eak out a living in the rental property game. It was a political ploy to use the "landlord" as some kind of evil person to pillory to make politacal hay to make ex-mayor Kelly and head of code enforcment Andy Dawkins as some hind of "hero" protecting the poor helpless tenents. Too bad that most tenents came, and will come, to court on their landlords side.
And were using the cops and code enforcement people as hitmen.
They picked the wrong scapegoats! We are now in the end game of this sad and disgusting chapter of the most recent episode of the "the most corrupt city west of Chicago".

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dark days are coming Chuck - but wait - I hear things are going to get a whole lot more interesting for the city of St. Paul.

1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right

6:33 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K.Lucht said...

eric,

you are full shit. one Thing i do not drink . I have a drink in seven year. I am under a doc care for last seven years because of the city and assholes like you. My meds would cause me to go bind for I drink. and heart attack. Yea drink water pop. but anything you want meet. are you sucking on tits of the city. you must miss everyone.

maybe you and chuck and dave can have closed meeting at city hall

6:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard the city offered the landlords a settlement. Is this true Chuck and would the city ever do that?

Just curious. I work downtown in the Permit office.

8:17 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

The city has more to lose than this lawsuit!

Great to hear from you Eric. Many of us missed you.

----------------------------------

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill

10:26 PM  
Anonymous Pioneer Press said...

Hey Fred Melo done a story on this

I linked it above

11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Landlord who posted at 11:26 AM

I agree with your statement 100%. What the public does not know is the total farce that DSI has been pulling on homeowners over the past few years. The out of control inspectors who abuse their authority is shocking. Joel Essling is at the top of the list. There needs to be a civilian review board like the police department has to review their actions. Now they are unchecked and out of control.

The current appeal process is very poor, as the hearing officer Marcia Moremond has no law experience and she is buddy buddy with the council members. Watching her kiss up to the city council is sickening. The hearing officer appeals position was created just for her because of her DFL ties. Miss Moermond is not a fair or rational person, but just a toad for Kathy Lantry and company. Bob knows, as he has covered several of these hearings.

12:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right Les, so you are totally dependent on the government and bitch that there are real government employees that have to work every day to get paid rather than getting their disability check... thought so.

And Bob, I agree with you on your statement about the truth. As we have seen in this case EVERY false charge brought by the landlords has been dismissed. Every last one of them. Now what is left is disparate impact... meaning like the Wall Street Journal said, that the City was protecting the poor from Slumlords and the slumlords are trying to use the FHA to protect them from having to maintain their property.

Bob, think about this... if the Obama administration was afraid that the City was going to lose, would they have asked the City to withdraw? The answer is NO. The Obama admistration was convinced that the City would win. That was what they were afraid of.

It doesn't say much about the future of your case when the City has to be asked to back off and just beat your guys in district court rather than slam dunking them at the Supreme Court.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:52 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
Bob, think about this... if the Obama administration was afraid that the City was going to lose, would they have asked the City to withdraw? The answer is NO. The Obama administration was convinced that the City would win. That was what they were afraid of.

My response;
If the respondents lost the Obama administration would have lost a tool in the attempt to recover money from banks over the foreclosure fiasco. The Justice dept. investigation is politically charged. The miniscule chance the city would win wasn't worth the risk.

Chuck, I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove disparate impact. I believe after a jury trial there will be collateral damage, the city will have to answer to HUD. Anyone hear of the "Recovery Act"? The city will be vulnerable to further law suits from property owners who feel they have been victimized. There will be political fallout.

I believe the plaintiffs would have won at the Supreme court.I believe the city knew they didn't have much of a chance of winning.
Out of fear the city was grabbing for straws in hopes of a miniscule chance at winning or hoping the plaintiffs would settle out of court for a cup of grain to feed an elephant.

The city also felt pressure to proceed with the writ of certiorari because the 8Th circuit decision leaves the city vulnerable to further litigation from property owners across the city.

In my opinion the city has a long history of violating civil liberties so proceeding to the supreme court putting civil liberties at risk wasn't given 2 seconds of thought. What the city didn't expect was the high volume of political fallout.

As for the left abandoning the city, Democrats for the last 40 years have associated themselves as the voice of the country's less fortunate. Saint Paul's past and present leadership for the most part has been DFL pretending to be looking out for the less fortunate.

Our DFL city isn't looking out for the less fortunate. The city is driving the poor out of town and to achieve this goal the city is using code emforcement to rape the low income housing stock.

IF the city thought they could win a jury trial Chuck why didn't they give the plaintiffs their trial years ago? The city instead has wasted 10's of thousands of tax payer money attempting to keep the plaintiffs from a jury trial.

11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck and Eric,

It's time you offer a sincere apology to the people that have been victimized by the city's madness.

12:51 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

From the pioneer Press article;

Myron Orfield said:

"A lot of people thought that the Supreme Court was taking this case to take 'disparate impact' out, to say that it wasn't implied under the federal Fair Housing Act statute or to say that it was unconstitutional," said Myron
Orfield, Director of the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota Law School. "They've been hinting at this pretty clearly. It's an activist court that has been striking down Civil Rights protections and limiting their usefulness."

Orfield, for one, was impressed that St. Paul agreed not to argue the case before the Supreme Court and imagined the city still would prevail in federal court.

"I think St. Paul acted with great nobility to do what they did," he said.

My response;
Do any of you regulars remember this guy?

I done a story on him and his plan to "Deconcentrate Poverty" within the inner cities. History has shown his plan to deconcentrate poverty is failure!

On the HOME PAGE you can find a link to his plan to deconcentrate poverty.

12:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

The landlord's had their trial. They lost on every count as summary judgement. That means that the landlords charged that the city had committed a crime, they gave all of their evidence and then a judge ruled that taken in the most favorable light... giving every fucking break to the landlords, they had no case and those charges were dismissed. That Bob is the facts of what happened. The court is not a show room where you can just make up crap and get away with it. That was the trial. The Citizens of Saint Paul have rights to, you can't make up false charges like the landlords did and get a monkey trial... that is why the judge gets to determine if you had any evidence against the City and the landlords had none.

So, the landlords appeal ALL of those charge to the court of appeals, and again the LAW requires to court of appeals to view this in the light MOST Favorable to the landlords and again they DISMISSED every charge but one.

That last charge is disparate impact. Which is, admitting that the City did everything with good intention to protect the poor from the landlords and those actions may have resulted in some harm to the minority members was there anyway to still protect those tenants from the landlords without causing as much impact on the minority members.

Again, think about it Bob, why would the Obama administration squeeze the City to back off, other than they were sure that the City was going to win. Not only were they sure they were going to win, they were afraid that the court would say that the landlords case is nuts and that for the court of appeals to have not seen it as being nuts, we need to wipe out disparate impact because its the reason this nutty case is in front of us.

Any rational person can see that the landlords who have been proven to be renting substandard housing, shouldn't be able to sue in Federal Court to get the City to stop protecting their tenants from them. That is insane.

The Justice Department got how insane that is and was concerned where the court would take it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:16 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
Not only were they sure they were going to win, they were afraid that the court would say that the landlords case is nuts and that for the court of appeals to have not seen it as being nuts, we need to wipe out disparate impact because its the reason this nutty case is in front of us.

My response;
That is the story the city and the Justice dept. would like people to believe Chuck. But it isn't the truth. Like I said this issue is politically charged. Politics have been driving this lawsuit with the truth taking a back seat to hypocrisy.

Can you answer this?

IF the city thought they could win a jury trial Chuck why didn't they give the plaintiffs their trial years ago? The city instead has wasted 10's of thousands of tax payer money attempting to keep the plaintiffs from a jury trial.

And why are some landlords required to completely renovate their rental property to almost new home conditions? Where does it say in the state and federal code a renter has to have a new sink, toilet, kitchen cabinets and so on, when the old fixtures work perfectly well? Why brand new windows when the old ones are functional?

These questions will be part of the jury trial. This establishes a piece of the foundation that suggest there was an effort to raise the value of affordable rental housing stock. Private home owners surrounding rental properties aren't required to completely renovate their homes.

This is as good a place as any to make an announcement.

Civil/property rights advocates from all over Saint Paul are uniting. The Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits have become a focal point. We are taking on issues with code enforcement. We will be working on creating media venues to spread the word. A letter has been sent out to over 800 landlords in Saint Paul. A good number of well respected powerful people are joining us. SO money will not be an object like it has been in the past.

SO, it looks like I will be in the news distribution business again. :)

12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you are completely lost! I'll make you a million dollar bet the city settles. Come on big talker you've been wrong every time.

And another thing, when the city prosecutes a criminal and charges them with 12 counts and only gets conviction on 1 does that mean the city lost? No! As long as it puts the slime ball in jail who cares. You're right about 1 charge remaining and it is a big one and the city got clobbered with their own club! Libs made the rules so live by them!

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

Dream all of the dreams you want, but like I said the City already went to trial and the City won. On any or all violation tags that these owners got, the owners had the right to take them to court and they either decided against it or took them to district court and lost.

It was after they lost in state court on their individual violations that they decided to take it to Federal Court as a RICO case. That the City had a conspiracy to have PHA own all of the low income housing... when that was laughed out of court, they have now hung their hat on the FHA disparate impact issue.

But, like I have said you can dream about all of the other issues you think you are going to try to bring in to court on disparate treatment, that you have already lost on, but all that will be left to you is a disparate impact case, and you need to prove it.

And you prove it by actually showing in the real world, not in the imaginary one, that a significant number of people lost their housing because of the inspection program (to this point your side hasn't even suggested a number its only an assumption that it must have happened). You are not going to be able to say that the foreclosures are a result of inspections, you have to show that the inspection created the owner to walk away. You have to actually prove it. Then when the City shows that the properties that went away because of inspections had real violations... Your side next has to prove that the same code could be successfully accomplished by another approach and that less minorities would be impacted.

That's all you have Bob.

The rest is good BS on this blog, but it isn't real.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:32 - I can't bet with you because you don't have enough balls to write your name.

Geeze... some people are almost as stupid as they are gutless.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you'd have to say these landlords did a good job of hanging there hat on the hook . It's been 8 years. Crap cases don't hang around for 8 years. The city should have made this go away 6 years ago or these landlords and attorneys are pretty good. Just saying.

Ps Bob I'm having a problem getting an account. Good site, found out about it from the pioneer press. I'll sign up later.

Ryan

5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ryan


I think Chuck agrees or he would have gotten back to you on that one.


Bradley

12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck does not agree on anything. He's probably waiting for marching orders from the DFL.

4:57 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

There is statistical data supporting disparate impact. So Chuck, when the plaintiffs win do you think the city will have to answer to HUD?

The city has accepted millions in the name of affordable housing and all of us close to this issue are wondering where this money has been applied because there sure isn't any affordable housing stock for low income people. Low income people are on a waiting list for section 8 for up to 2 years.
If the city hadn't forced all those landlords out of business these folks wouldn't be homeless or close to being homeless. And we would have far less vacant buildings blighting the city. The city has enhanced the blighting condition of the foreclosure crisis.

6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

That is what we will see....

How many units have been taken because of code enforcement.

We never saw a number from the plaintiffs during all of the prior court case. Just that it must have happened.

So, now we will see facts.

As to the City and HUD, the City has buildt thousand of affordable units. Remember Bob you use to argue that the RICO plan was the the city was building all of these units to house the people so that they wouldn't rent from your landlords.

So, like I said I am dying to see a number of housing units that the city condemned per year during that time.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck shoemaker and engel have it in the bag. The 8th circuit saw the evidence and sided with the landlords. How hard is that to read and find. Plus the city does have a duty to HUD when they accept that money to protect and preserve affordable housing. The city is put under a different light when receiving monies. Meaning any code enforcement or changes in how you apply the code must be researched and they must show it doesn't have an impact on affordable housing. So when going from pp2000 to Dawkins and Kelly's plan without research they in fact violated HUD's rules of receiving that money and leave the door open for lawsuits. Numerous city officials agreed pp2000 was a success and produced great outcomes. But the critters with bad behavior still existed which bothered constituents. So then they used the code to circumvent criminal law with police. A very complexed case that the city can afford to lose or even fight.


80% chance this settles.


Greg

8:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greg,

What the court of appeals said is that taken in a ligh most favorable to the landlords there might be enough to go to trial. That is all they said. They put the bar as low as possible to allow that since their are more people of color that are poor any loss of housing units may impact people of color. That is a pretty low bar.

But, what the landlords have to prove in court now is that the inspections had real impact on people of color in Saint Paul. It can't be just one or two people losing their housing. It has to have IMPACT which is a significant word.

And, yes, then if the landlords prove that there was impact and the court accepts that not having a health and safety code is worthwile (which the court will) then the plaintiffs will argue that pp2000 should have stayed on.

But, what the City will argue is that pp2000 was enforcing the same code that the Kelly administration enforced, it just did it slower and with less units and with less hand holding.

So, we shall see.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now St. Paul doesn't have credibility in anything else, and the costs of their mismanagement will be staggering. Maybe they can sell the city to Minneapolis.

6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, I don't know if you saw the article in the Pioneer Press (2-19-2012) about the movement to fix up homes in the Frog Town area.

http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_19991033

One comment stated an obvious observation, the home isn't being renovated by licensed contractors, but volunteers. By the pictures I see several "code" violations as defined by DSI and Fire Inspectors. My question is how can these guys get away with this and we the "average" homeowner can't?

8:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home