Custom Search

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Saint Paul Fair Housing Lawsuits/ No. 10-1032 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


On Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit

Click onto the COMMENTS for a simple explaination of the story.


Blogger Bob said...

This sums it up Chuck

II. Factual Background
The City of St. Paul, Minnesota (“the City”) is both subject to the FHA and, as a recipient of federal assistance, under a federal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. This case arises from the City’s adoption of a policy to nonetheless limit its stock of private low-income housing, including by forcing respondents to abandon or sell the housing they provided, in favor of owner-occupied housing. The City pursued that specific policy through the selective and often illegal application of its housing code in a manner designed to produce the closure or abandonment of private low-income rental properties either directly, through condemnation, or indirectly, by rendering the maintenance of the properties uneconomical. The City’s actions included targeting respondents’ properties for “code to the max” and “forced sale” treatment, falsely labeling those properties as “problem” and “distressed” housing, charging those properties with false code violations, failing to provide respondents with timely notice of claimed code violations, and condemning the properties without a sufficient basis. The City’s policy predictably had a disparate impact on the disproportionately minority population who lived in that housing. See, e.g., Pls.’ Ex. 145, Pt. 3, at 8 (expert report of state building official Don Hedquist); Pls.’ Ex. 79, Pt. 2, at 10-13 (deposition of tenant LaChaka Cousette); Pls.’ Ex. 80, at 6-7 (Cousette affidavit).

12:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob you are 100% correct on this!!

6:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who would have ever thought in their wildest dreams that this lawsuit would have ever proceeded as far as the Supreme Court? With St. Paul refusing to even obey the orders from the Minnesota Supreme Court I can't wait to see what happens with this latest twist.

7:29 AM  
Anonymous Sharon4Anderson said...

As usual Bob your "xxx" is pervase if you would have read the entire case you would know that the City's ie:Petitioners have (6) Amicus Briefs while LandLords ie Respondants have (9) hopefully before the 29th hearing more Amicus Briefs for the LandLords.

Why you delete Posts is Bizzare, with the new Google overridding Bloggers We're all in the Same Game,
except those who do not have Standing.

Affiant Sharon is "tying" to AARPS Amicus Brief.

PS the Winn Fam ily won the 6 Million Verdict vs. Aaron Foster who has become Judgment Proof,
re: Channel 9 and Tom Lyden

9:02 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Sharon, I haven't missed a thing. At this point I am not even discussing the Amicus briefs. I will make a separate topic of that subject after we have examined GALLAGHER'S brief.

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Like I said earlier, none of that is relevant to the case in front of the Supreme Court. This is window dressing from the lawyers to get their clients to keep shelling out money. All of these charges are "treatment" issues and that isn't in front of the court. (Claiming the City had a policy of limit the stock of low income homes... TREATMENT not IMPACT) This isn't getting extra information to the court, it is seen as wasting the courts time, arguing points that they have already lost in lower courts and is not in front of them now.

As you go on in their response they do finally get to the point when they discuss how the courts have addressed disparate impact in the past and which tests can be used. That boring stuff is what is actually in front of the court. The landlords argue that the court of appeals have determined that if everything were viewed in the landlords favor their may be enough their to take the impact issue to trial. That's it Bob.


Chuck Repke

10:30 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

You say none of this is relevent Chuck. You also told us more than hundred times over the last 6 years this case was of no concern.

Folk's read this carefully and you will see why the city is going to lose another round in the Supreme Court. Remember in these legal briefs a single word can have a whole lot of meaning.

1. Petitioners (the city)principally argue that the phrase “because of” limits the FHA to claims of purposeful discrimination, precluding disparate-impact liability. Pet. Br. 16, 20-22, 26. But of course, the identical language appears in the provisions of Title VII and the ADEA that this Court squarely held in Griggs and Smith recognize disparate-impact claims.

Petitioners’ argument essentially reprises the argument of the dissent in Smith, which a majority of the Court rejected. Petitioners’ citation of Smith for the proposition that the parallel language in the FHA and ADEA “does not address the effect of the conduct on the plaintiff, but instead focuses on the defendant’s motivation,” Pet. Br. 16, thus has it precisely backwards. (Petitioners’ discussion of Smith’s analysis of ADEA Section 4(a)(1), Br. 22, principally relies on Justice O’Connor’s opinion, which for all intents and purposes was a dissent.)

Petitioners next attempt to distinguish Smith on the ground that Title VII and the ADEA do not use the exact same language as the FHA. But that is the inevitable consequence of the fact that the former statutes relate to employment, while the latter addresses housing. It would make no sense for the employment-related provisions of Title VII and the ADEA to make unlawful actions that “otherwise make unavailable” the plaintiff’s housing. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). So too, it would have been illogical for Congress in the FHA to make actionable housing-related policies that have an “adverse[] affect” on the plaintiff’s “status as an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(2).

1:37 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

Petitioners also err in the contrast they would draw between the statutes. They incorrectly describe Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA and Section 703(a)(2) of Title VII as generically referring to action that “otherwise adversely affects” an employee. Pet. Br. 27-28. In fact, those provisions of Title VII and the ADEA more narrowly make unlawful policies that “deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of” a protected characteristic. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(2) & 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2) (emphasis added). Section 804(a) of the FHA is indistinguishable, except that its language is addressed to effects on housing: the statute renders unlawful a policy that “make[s] unavailable or den[ies], a dwelling to any person because of” a protected characteristic. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). The statutory structure – a clause introduced by “otherwise” that references such an effect in relatively general terms – is identical in all three provisions. In each, the clause “shifts the focus from the defendant’s actions to the effect that those actions have” on members of the protected class. Pet. Br. 28.
Petitioners equally err in their reliance, Br. 22, on Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2350 (2009). Petitioners fail to recognize that Gross recites Smith’s holding that the ADEA parallels “Title VII with respect to disparate-impact
claims”; it certainly never calls Smith into question. Id. at 2351 n.5.
Gross instead read the phrase “because of” to require “but for” causation in a disparate-treatment case. Gross thus interpreted that phrase not to require motivation, but rather to require a certain form of causation. Petitioners’ attempt to recharacterize Gross as reading “because of” to require proof of discriminatory motivation in the context of disparate-impact claims is, once again, precisely the argument that the dissent unsuccessfully made in Smith.
Petitioners also fail to recognize that the Court closed the door on the dispute over whether “because of” always requires proof of intentional discrimination in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Co., 554 U.S. 84 (2008). There, this Court concluded – over the dissent of only Justice Thomas – that, in the wake of Smith, “in the typical disparate-impact case, the employer’s practice is ‘without respect to age’ and its adverse impact (though ‘because of age’) is ‘attributable to a nonage factor.’” Id. at 96. As in Smith, Justice Scalia again concurred in the judgment, deferring to the agency’s position, which paralleled the Court’s reasoning. Id. at 102-03.
But in any event, even assuming that petitioners’ textual arguments have some force, they are not strong enough to forbid the agency charged by Congress with administering the FHA from concluding that the statute recognizes disparate-impact claims. At the very least, given the multiple provisions of the 1988 FHA Amendments premised on the existence of disparate-impact liability, the statute on the whole is ambiguous. HUD was entitled to resolve that ambiguity as it has.

1:39 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

2. Petitioners’ remaining arguments require only brief discussion. They note that a quarter-century ago, the Solicitor General filed one brief expressing the view that the FHA does not recognize disparate-impact liability. See Pet. Br. 33-34 (citing U.S. Br., No. 87-1961, Town of Huntington v. Huntington Branch, NAACP 13-18). But HUD did not sign that brief, and the Department of Justice does not have the delegated authority to interpret the statute. After the Solicitor General’s brief, Congress in 1988 amended the FHA both to add exemptions that necessarily presume the availability of disparate-impact claims and to give HUD interpretive authority under the statute. HUD’s position has been unwavering. See supra at 52-53.
In any event, to the extent the Department of Justice’s views matter, like any agency it is entitled to change its position, see FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1810-11 (2009), and petitioners fail to recognize that it has consistently endorsed HUD’s interpretation for the past twenty years. See U.S. Br. 22-23. For example, in a case remarkably similar to this one, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of a disparate-impact claim against code enforcement activities of the
District of Columbia, arguing that selective exercise of municipal housing code enforcement authority can violate the FHA. Br. of U.S. as Amicus Curiae in 2922 Sherman Ave. Tenants’ Ass’n v. District of Columbia (D.D.C. 2004) (No. 1:00cv00862), available at

us_sherman.php; see also, e.g., Br. of U.S. as Amicus Curiae at 1, 14, Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens In Action Inc. v. Twp. of Mt. Holly, No. 11-1159, 2011 WL 2322224 (3d Cir. 2011) (explaining that a prima facie case of disparate impact can be shown under the FHA “where the plaintiff establishes that there is a shortage of housing accessible to a protected group, and that shortage is causally linked to the challenged policy”). The Solicitor General has also filed a brief in this case (signed by HUD) endorsing HUD’s views, whereas in Smith the Solicitor General did not participate in the case notwithstanding the agency’s settled position.
Petitioners also note that President Reagan’s statement upon signing the 1988 FHA amendments expressed the view that disparate-impact liability was not available. Pet. Br. 34 (citing Remarks on Signing the Fair Hous. Amendments Act of 1988, 24 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1140, 1141 (Sept. 13, 1988)). Assuming the reasonableness of that position, the straightforward answer is that the Executive Branch has subsequently changed its views, as expressed in the consistent position of the expert, cabinet-level agency charged by Congress with administering the statute.
Finally, petitioners contrast the FHA with other statutes such as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Pet. Br. 25, which recognizes disparate-impact liability by prohibiting voting requirements that “result[] in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973. This is nothing more than an argument that Griggs and Smith are wrongly decided, given that neither Title VII nor the ADEA uses that formulation. The

1:40 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

argument is also misguided, because it is common for Congress to achieve the same end with different words in unrelated statutes.
III. If The Court Decides To Reach The Second Question Presented By The Petition For Certiorari, It Should Adopt The Burden-Shifting Framework Endorsed By The Parties And The United States.
If the Court reaches the second question presented, it should adopt a burden-shifting framework for resolving disparate-impact claims. As discussed, all the parties and amici are now in agreement on this score. Respondents agree with petitioners’ statement in their merits brief (albeit contradicting their position in the petition for certiorari) that the balancing “approach finds no support in either the text of the FHA or in the Court’s decisions.” Pet. Br. 43. With respect to the narrow sub-issue of which party has the burden of persuasion at step two of the burden-shifting inquiry, respondents take no position because that issue makes no difference in this case. See supra at 29-31.10
10 At the very end of their brief, petitioners toss in the passing constitutional claim that recognizing disparate-impact liability under the FHA would “raise[] significant equal protection concerns.” Pet. Br. 55. Petitioners did not preserve that argument in the lower courts or raise it in the petition for certiorari. In any event, it is a bad argument. A municipality deciding whether to “condemn[] [a] building,” id. 55, obviously can decline to do so on the ground that it would harm racial and ethnic minorities. There is no parallel between that decision

1:40 PM  
Anonymous conclusion said...

and an employer’s choice whether to fire an employee of one race in order to retain an employee of another. Contra id. 54. Race consciousness does not equate to race discrimination.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ of certiorari should be dismissed or alternatively the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.

1:44 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Folk's if the city wins this thing the legal standing would have the potential to be used as a road map to gentrify low income minorities from communities across the nation.

1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the city wants would create massive amounts of racial unrest. I'm impressed by the landlords' case, which is based on solid fact and justice. The city's case is smoke and mirrors. The city is going to have to find a different racket.

Bob G.

9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, Bob it wouldn't have any impact on low income communities other than that you could continue to do legal housing inspections. Nothing changes concerning disparate treatment and disparate treatment is any action of the government that it knows will have an effect on people of color.

This most recent stuff that you copied is the main arguement for the landlords and that is that since the language in the employment law is reasonably similar to the language in the housing law and since the employment law has been interpretted to allow for disparate impact it should follow that the court should allow disparate impact in housing cases.

That is the arguement.

Like I said the other stuff was BS.


Chuck Repke

10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What your missing Chuck is that when the case goes to trial on the disparate impact, the landlords cannot just go walzing into court and just pronounce there was disparate impact. They will have to prove it and show how it happened and that is where all the dirty little facts that you think are dead and gone are going to resurface. At that point it will not make any difference if it is in or out, the jury will have heard it and realize how scummy and dirty corrupt your political buddies downtown are and they will more than make it right I am sure.

1:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:59, that is where you guys are totally wrong. Those other issues are dead, over done with. What would be left if the Supremes agree with the landlords and allow the disparate impact issue to go to trial is simply for a district court to try a case based on if the City's efforts to protect residents and to insure that they were living in healthy housing could have been done just as successfully in a less impactful manor.

That is why the landlords bring up PP2000. Their claim is that continuing with it would have been just as successful and less impactful. That is what the case would be about.

And, again if the City were to go to trial on that issue and if it were to be found that somehow less people of color would have been impacted by PP2000 and that as many houses would have be brought up to code (and I have no idea how the lawyers would prove that... but if they did) then the court would have to determine what people of color were impacted and how to make those people whole... and pay the lawyers.

And, as I have always said, that is fine by me. Because there is no money going to the landlords regardless of what happens. If it is shown that there were people of color victimized then they should be taken care of.... but I don't see anywhere in the case where it was ever shown that pp2000 if expanded to as many houses wouldn't have ended up with the same number of houses either being fixed and raising their rents or being closed down and that is the charge... that affordable housing units were lost to low income minority members that wouldn't have been if some other code enforcement technique was used.


Chuck Repke

9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if the tenants get money out of a lawsuit someone else spends years litigating that's fine with you but you think the landlords should get nothing for being the just as much victims of the city's illegal code enforcement scheme Chuck? You are an odd kind of guy in my opinion.

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dawkins handiwork is all over this case, including his 'Code to the Max.' Your other stuff is BS. It wouldnt be in court if the city did legal and responsible inspections.This case proves disparate impact is a potent weapon against a city that has chosen a dirty and vicious approach in clearing everyone else out except for the 'beautiful people' such as city inspectors. What we are going to see is this case will kill objections by extremists to disparate impact forever. When the city taxpayers start to pay all the lawsuits generated by the city's approach, the city will go down, and you and your friends will be discredited forever.

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two great comments that show you guys still don't understand anything that has happened in court.

There is NOTHING left of what you all call the illegal inspections. The city has won on all of those issues. They are gone dust, over.

The only charge left and that is what is in front of the supreme court and it is disparate impact. What that means is... IF you did everything correctly and you had the best of motives and your policies resulted in you having a disparate amount of people of color being impacted by your actions, then potentially those who were adversely affected can sue.

That's it. There is nothing else left. You can wish for something else you can dream of something else but there isn't anything else left.


Chuck Repke

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city of St Paul is a lot like the Bismarck. The federal appeals court ruling is like hitting the Bismarck in the rudder with a torpedo. It has been going in endless circles (kind of like Chuck's mouth). Now the Allies are assembling the heavy artillery to sink it once and for all.

SINK THE BISMARCK ~ sung by Johnny Horton - YouTube

9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing left Repke? All that stuff is gone? If I remember correctly, didn't the Appeals Court say the landlrods could amend their complaint? The fat lady hasn't sung yet Repke.

1:07 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
And, again if the City were to go to trial on that issue and if it were to be found that somehow less people of color would have been impacted by PP2000 and that as many houses would have be brought up to code (and I have no idea how the lawyers would prove that... but if they did) then the court would have to determine what people of color were impacted and how to make those people whole... and pay the lawyers.

My response;
Chuck, in regards to your statement. This is an issue that disturbs me greatly and I have been giving a great deal of thought to this for many weeks.

Maybe the courts will order the city to set up funding to restore affordable rental housing. Non profit housing organizations that already exist in Saint Paul would apply for funding, and given past performance I don't think any of us can trust the funding would be used for it's intended purpose.

I am working on setting up a non profit myself just in case there is some kind of judgement demanding reparations. I trust only in myself and my resources to establish affordable housing for the poor in Saint Paul.

That being said;

I think you are off base on this issue. I believe the landlords will be compensated for their loss.

1:41 AM  
Anonymous Where is MNAG Lory Swanson? said...

Chuck Where is the DFL MN Attorney General re: Disparate Impact?

Its happening all over the Country, Numerous Housing Forclosure etc.

9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

City's tactics..........
-change ownership
-force sale
-target teetering neighborhoods(Dawkins explained a teetering neighborhood as one having more rentals then home owner occupied)
-heavy handed code enforcement
-bending the rules to have certain outcomes
-code to the max
-use size and influence to gain access
-sending mike urmann out to a house for code enforcement because neighbors complain large groups of black males loiter on the street corner.
These are facts!
These are just a few tactics the city used as tools to code enforcement that Repke endorses. Chuck how in the hell can you sit back and think it is alright for the to do this? Ihow in the hell can you think that this doesn't have an impact on affordable housing.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawkins also told bill Cullen that the city is trying to rid the city of bottom of the barrel tenants. Chuck what are bottom of the Harrell tenants?

1:40 PM  
Anonymous USSC10-1032_Google said...

25 days and counting google the case,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=3b6976d17058900d&biw=1008&bih=513

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's funny about this , is that these rich conservative landlords are for fair housing and support affordable housing. And this liberal St.Paul wants to gut the fair housing law with a win at the supreme court. Looks like these landlords should be cast in gold and replace the horses on the Capitol. They have stood up for the rights of us tenants. Shame on you St.Paul! We have lost more affordable housing then gained in St.Paul the last decade and have a shortage. It doesn't look like the City is doing a great job promoting even after taking millions from HUD. If all this code enforcing for health and safety was true why would the city close files on complaints that were city owed property? Thanks to these landlords!! Keep up the fight, you have more friends then you know.

3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll 2nd that. They stood up to fight when NO ONE else would. Not even other landlords. They were cowards and afraid of the city retaliation but not these people. They are heros to me.

3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. Regardless of the outcome the landords stood up to a major evil. They are heroes.

5:32 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I have said here many times the plaintiffs are hero's.

It has been a long tough costly fight for them. They have sacrificed a great deal pursuing justice.

I hope that they are awarded a staggering sum of money. This would send a message to institutional racist across America.

I hope at least some of the landlords use their judgements to expand their investments in affordable housing. Maybe the next application for their rental housing will have a "no whites" clause. :)

6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a wonderful human interest story. The city has made a wrong turn and has become cruel and reckless. People with integrity and courage stand up. Bob, you and the landlords are heroes. Our country is better for this fight.

Bob G.

8:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If things go well for your side at the supreme court, there is still only a slim chance that they would then win the disparate impact case.

They would have to prove the case that they are making that 1 people of color were impacted more than whites by the city's housing policy and 2 that using PP2000 would have had the same quality of housing stock and have reduced the impact on people of color. Your own attornies are arguing that it is going to be there job to prove that.

What I can't figure out is how they are going to prove that. Because if it is the cost of repairing housing that drives up rent and if PP2000 and "code to the max" both were going to get the same number of houses fixed and that the only difference is that in PP2000 the City asks nicely and would hold the landlords hand, how does that not result in the same rent increases or same number of houses that get shut down?

If the same houses are inspected and the same code is enforced and the results are the same as far is health and safety how are we going to get a different result?

Sounds like a loser to me.

So, I don't really care how the supreme rules... I don't see how the landlords win the case anyway.


Chuck Repke

11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if it's such a slam dunk why doesn't the city go to court and put these guys down instead of screwing around for years trying to avoid going to trial? Maybe your side is not as secure as you think Chuck.

1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fuck you Repke......if you were an Attorney the court would laugh you right out of the courtroom.

6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:03 they have gone to court and won on every charge.... all charges were dropped against the City. Then this one last charge was accepted by the court of appeals and the City appealed it to the supreme court.


Chuck Repke

9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The charges might have been dropped but that does bot mean the city was in the right. All it means was that they had a Jsuge who was too chickenshit to stand up to them.

10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you avoid the facts and what the city did. Do you believe in forced sales? We'll take it one fact at a time so you can't be slippery like the rest of the shit bags on the council.

8:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, I don't believe in forced sales. And, I haven't seen anywhere where there was a forced sale. We have seen here where some city staff people suggested that if someone couldn't get the repairs done that they would be better off to sell the house than to lose their C of O, but just because they were foolish enough to offer advice doesn't mean that they were trying to force someone to sell, or that they had the power to force someone to sell.

None of the landlords in the suit were forced to sell anything.


Chuck Repke

9:05 AM  
Anonymous USSC:10-1032 pdf links transposed said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check the City Council Agenda for 8Feb2012 City St.Paul has misled the publc with the venue of cases that are combined.

Look it up

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

Now the city council is having speacial close meeting this week to discus frank cease. At 8;30 A.m. . I would like to all landlord in the city of st.paul to show at the meeting to support for frank and the other landlords to is suing the city of st.Paul. And all of us (landlords) should go to washington DC for the hearing. to show support for those landlords that is fighting the city of st.paul. I planning to go to hear the caes. I will be at city hall at 8:15 am this wed. to shown my suport for frank

4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the city's 'leaders' are getting disparate. Just goes to show that cheaters never prosper.

Bob G.

5:24 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck, I don't have time right now to look, but we have a copy of an email in the archives with Council President Kathy Lantry's name on it suggesting the forced sale of a home on the east side.

5:30 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Thank you Les!

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

I have 20 somes landlord that will show with me on wed. at 8:15 A.M.. Johnny howard next to me.
The media is a bunch of losers.
The st.paul poineer in bed with city. we should stop reading it to.

7:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No ofrced sales Chuck? The city gave the landlords city documents that described the forced sales. What the hell shit are you taling?

8:08 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I will join you Les.

10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck it was a practice of the city of st.paul to force sale! Its in deposition after deposition. It was a tactic that was used and supported. You really don't even know the basics of the case or you are a spin doctor. This city has a mentality of Alinsky. The ends justify the means. Now that I know you don't support forced sales we will move to the next fact.

Chuck Repke do you support targeting teetering neighborhoods, with the definition of a teetering neighborhood being more rentals then owner occupied?

And while we put fact by fact on the table here can anyone find the evidence that supports forced sales for our friend Chuck?

6:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:10 - actually there is no record of anyone being forced to sell. There has been stuff written here where someone may have suggested that they would be better off selling the place than losing it if they didn't have the money to fix it and the owner deciding that was an attempt at a "forced sale." But, just because some staff member was stupid enough to offer advice doesn't make it a forced sale.

As far as targeting neighborhoods, the landlords were never even able to show that there was a pattern to enforcement. And, there clearly was no pattern to which properties decided not to do repairs. There is a much bigger pattern since this case started to which properties went vacant because cheep lazy house flippers who had no cash in the game let the houses go to back the bank when they couldn't flip them again.... now THAT was a pattern of abuse and destruction from the ownership class.

As to Saul Alinsky... do you even know anything about who Alinsky was? Alinsky's main organizing tool was to organize AGAINST the government. His constant theme in organizing was to identify an easily identifiable enemy that the public could relate to. More times then not the evil that he was rallying the community to be angry with was the government.

The GOP should love Alinsky and the Tea Party organizes using Alinsky tactics.



Chuck Repke

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck I hate to inform you but your logic is shit. You are shit and always will be. Your condo project was shit and still sits empty. You agree with what the landlords are clucking but then say no one was hurt. Well cock sucker, I was and was forced to sell! It was a tactic the city used and all you hide behind is, nah nah nah boo boo prove it! Well asshole you sit there in the shit house you maintain as rental along with your gap tooth smiled champ Thune. I'm so sick of your spin. Man up and fucking admit the city bent over landlords and bottom of the barrell tenants.

Fact 3 do you believe it should be policy to rid st.paul of bottom of the barrell tenants? What is a bottom of the barrell tenant?

By the way I know quite a bit about Alinsky. I was using his quote of ends justify the means.

Read up on the case because I know a lot more hen you and you are a mud slinger thinking you know something. Well you don't. Everything you do you need government to help. I'm self made and don't need to stick my nose in people's ass to get some where. When you want to stick to the facts I might take you serious but for now you're a chump!


7:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen brother. This is what I been saying for years, Don't know who this Chuck is but he sounds like a city type. Probably some career bureaucrat amking aliving feeding off the taxpayer.

10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well "landlord" I would love to see what kind of a "self made man" you are. Usually, the cowards that don't sign their names here don't sign their names because they are living off of the government tit but in their mind "they deserve it," not like those "other people" who are "welfare queens."

You can't be a landlord without getting all sorts of governmental tax advantages. You know it and I know it. If you had to pay taxes based on the income that you get from your property and didn't get all of the write offs for expenses and interests and taxes and depreciation associated with the property you wouldn't be in the business.

Your business (renting property) is TOTALLY a subsidy of the government. And, if you take PHA tenants then EVERY part of your business is dependent on the government.

Get it dolt?

If the government didn't let you deduct the interest you pay on your property and the taxes you pay and the repairs you pay and let you depreciate the value of the property... then you would be making money on the property and having to pay additional income taxes. There is no way you would be in the business.

So, buy a clue and take a good look in the mirror and you'll see someone who has been making is money compliments of the US government.


Chuck Repke

9:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you will find me out real soon. You spew rhetoric and as long as you hear noise coming out your mouth you believe it. I'm man made and give back to society. I don't need your crooked government that hide behind false claims. Just get the hell out of my way with as little regulation as possible. Then your government won't be so bloated that you have to gouge the tax payer. Make it fair then you won't have these politicians(republican and democrat) making loopholes for the select people that support them. Make all of us landlords pay more in taxes chuck, who will end up paying more in rent? Right the tenant! So don't stand behind wanting affordable housing and bitch that landlords don't pay enough.

I argue on facts so when you get a clue on how to I'll take your serious.

We're coming to the end and you will be hearing from me.


2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry dolt...

But I just spelled out the tax breaks that you get as a landlord (if you actually are one). I suspect that you aren't because you don't understand the basics of the tax code that landlords live off of.


Chuck Repke

5:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home