Custom Search

Monday, April 16, 2012

Pioneer Press/ U.S. House committee seeking details over St. Paul's housing lawsuit appeal withdrawl

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting...

Very interesting....

The GOP seem pretty convinced that the landlords would have lost badly at the supreme court and want to know why the City didn't just kick their asses...

Like I have said before, the fact that any judge anywhere on the planet would even consider that the landlords insane reading of the FHA would hold water was just the case that the banks wanted in front of the court. They wanted to argue that if you go along with the landlords, then a case could be made that you can't turn down someone for a loan for not having a job since people of color have higher rates of unemployment. They would have hoped the court would have not only agreed with the city but scrapped much of the FHA as being to vague if courts could support anything like this crazy suit.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:48 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Chuck said;
The GOP seem pretty convinced that the landlords would have lost badly at the supreme court and want to know why the City didn't just kick their asses...

My response;
They said no such thing Chuck! Republicans said;
"the city believed it 'likely would have won."

Many citizens and legal experts believe the landlords would have prevailed at the Supreme Court.

And if this case had gone to the Supreme court, and the landlords won, it would have been political mayhem for the Democrat Party.

The headlines would read.
"Democrats gentrify neighborhoods, use code enforcement to increase property values to keep a class of people from housing."

Sure has the appearance the DFL leadership in Saint Paul are a bunch of bigoted hypocrites contrary to their partys platform.

But then again working homeless people are stripped of their belongings when caught sleeping under bridges or in the woods. Families have been condemned to the streets from their homes with no place to go.

What we are seeing now with this inquiry is a search for the truth.

11:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

You only have to look to where Chuck is coming from.

He was the STOP 35 group. He didn't want 35 built in his backyard.

Now that the Central Corridor is going through minority neighborhoods, Chuck doesn't care on bit. Chuck only cares about his white neighborhood that is DFL controlled.

12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kudos to the landlords suing the city. I know or am acquainted with most of them and they are not the people Chuck and others would have you believe they are through all the name calling . Some people call these guys outlaws and some call them rouges. Still others call them heroes for having the fortitude to fight back in a fight they had to know would be difficult when they started it, but at the end of the day they are willing to lose for what is right and that character quality puts them head and shoulders above Chuck and all these other government and political types that think it’s OK for the city to violate people’s rights as long as it’s for the right cause.

1:01 AM  
Anonymous Ari said...

Freedom of speech is just an illusion in Finland and other Nordic countries.

Finnish newspapers are dependent on Finnish political elite, neighbouring governments and even powerful banks. Citizens are unaware of many subjects in Finland:

The Swedes executed at least 460 Finns in the spring 1918.

In Espoo near Helsinki, the Swedes fenced off the school building with barbed wire, to ban children the access to a Finnish school.

Finnish TV channels, newspapers and magazines have to fit their news, stories and articles into political ideology of Nordic cooperation. Anything which does not fit this ideology, will be hidden from the people.

http://syys.weebly.com/puppets-of-sweden.html

5:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

Its the GOP that want to investigate the case because they wanted the City of Saint Paul to move forward and win.

They (and the banking industry) believed that the City's case was so strong and the insanity of the premiss of the landlords that...

Cities should not inspect houses for health and safety violations that poor people live in because they will have more people of color in them and therefore if the properties aren't safe to live in poor people of color might lose their housing.... so that would be discrimination...

Meaning the ultimate outcome is that cities can not make sure that poor people live in safe housing.... they can make sure that wealthy people live in safe housing but the poor and people of color must live in bad housing.... you can not protect them...

That insane arguement of the landlords sets up the banking industry to file "friends" briefs saying... if the landlords win, it won't be an hour and a half later where someone is going to file for a home loan and say that since we didn't give them the home loan because they had no income we had discriminated against them...

Since people of color are disproportionately poor and unemployed (just like those trapped in unsafe housing) therefore if you rule with the landlords, it would be a set up for the mortgage industry collapsing again, since we couldn't base a denial on income or employment status.

They were dying for this case Bob.

... and to the guy who obsesses about my having been a part of RIP35E thrity years ago... do you really think that it is my job to fight everyone's battle everywhere on the planet? Who the F do you think I am? I have never been elected to anything...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob...

If they thought the City had no case, there would be nothing to investigate...

The City is saying we didn't need to take it to the supreme court, we can win the case at the local level.

The GOP is seeing that it would be easier to fight the insanity of the issue at the supreme court rather than to accept the insanity as being chargable and allow the other side the potential of proving that more people of color lost housing via inspections.

What the City is saying now is that the landlords can't prove that more people of color lost housing via inspections, and therefore the City will win based on the landlords not being able to prove an disparate impact on people of color.

That is not the same as fighting the entire idea of disparate impact in housing cases.

Is it disparate impact to require someone to have a working furnace in a rental unit? Because it is much more likely that a poor person of color will be the person renting the unit that is in that condition.

Is it disparate impact to require a functioning toilet in a building? Because it is more likely to be a poor person in the unit without a working toilet and it is proportionately more likely that poor person will be of color.

And, if the landlords are correct and that is disparate impact, then you have to believe that refusing to give someone a mortgage because they were unemployed would also be disparate impact since people who are unemployed are poor and people of color are disportionately poor.

The Supreme Court case was a slam dunk... The local case is harder. That is why the GOP is hot about the City backing out.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is disparate impact to fabricate false violations that do not exist so you can raise the cost of the housing to the point where it is not affordable any longer. Disparate impact was the result of the city's illegal actions and the court will see it that way once the facts are presented.

12:35 PM  
Anonymous USSC 10-1032 LandLords vs. Magner said...

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/magner-v-gallagher/

Its a
bout time the City St. Paul is held accountable.
Briefs are still online to copy.
LandLords go get em with Humble Thanks www.sharon4anderson.org

5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:35 no if there were false reports of false statements or false violation that would be DISPARATE TREATMENT. Every potential charge against the City based on a diliberate action of the City has been thrown out. Those are gone dust... over.

Impact is when you are trying to do what you think is a good thing and you hurt someone by doing it.

An impact one in employment is when a city decides it wants strong fireman and requires that they be able to lift 200 pounds over their heads... it might be a good thing that they can do it but never in their job do they have to lift 200 pounds over their head, so that requirement might have a disparate impact on women.... Get it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city is running a illegal code enforcement program Repke and the result of that program was a disparate impact on the low income minority population that rented those properties.

6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said, "Who the F do you think I am? I have never been elected to anything..."

How true that statement is and you never will.

10:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Time for you to concede Chuck. Your rants and arguments are wrong, old and out of touch with the free world.

11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"12:35 no if there were false reports of false statements or false violation that would be DISPARATE TREATMENT. Every potential charge against the City based on a diliberate action of the City has been thrown out. Those are gone dust... over"

It could be treatment Repke but in the case at hand the city has a long running pattern of illegal code enforcement. The result of that illegal enforcement created a disparate impact and is still crating a disparate impact today.

11:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once the federal appeals court reinstated disparate impact, the city was doomed. The city went to absolute extreme measures to reconstruct its case to get to the Supreme Court.

Thank you landlords for your courage and committment.

Bob G.

1:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:27 and 11:16 - the court has already determined that there was nothing against the law in any action (action as in treatment or behavior) of the City in code enforcement.

The charge that is left is exactly what I said it is... the City is accused of by conducting legal code enforcements unknowingly created a situation where more people of color lost their housing.

It is going to be up to the landlords to PROVE that more people of color lost their housing and that there is no way to remedy that other than to stop performing code enforcement... or at least code enforcement that requires that if repairs aren't made units are deemed unfit to live in.

So, they will need to prove that it cost a disparate number of people of color their homes. (Meaning it happened to some higher number of people of color than whites.) They will need actual facts... some numbers to prove it.

The City will argue that code enforcement is to protect the tennents from the landlords failure to repair their property and that it orders repairs and only reluctantly removes people from housing units. It also will show what ever efforts the City takes to find these people other housing units as a defense.

That is the case kiddies...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck you are full of shit, I mean spin. You Mad Hatter you!

I see Big Top has a sale going. Enjoy!

2:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home