Custom Search

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Powerline/ How Tom Perez traded Treasury money to protect a pet race discrimination theory

LINK TO STORY HERE For 7 years here at the town hall we have followed these lawsuits. There isn't any place on the Internet that has covered the history of this story like we have here, in the archives of this town hall you can find the truth. We have had the privilege of hearing both sides of the story year after year. All of us know the truth, and it isn't pretty. If you are a sociopath the city's illegal code enforcement policy's won't bother you until a code enforcement officer is knocking at your door, that's right your door, the city has pushed around landlords with very expensive code compliance's, they have a big code enforcement machine now and it's private home owners and business's turn to fork out the cash to improve your property beyond federal and state building codes. Andy Dawkins former head of what is now known as the Department of Safety and Inspections once said he wanted to get into every home in Saint Paul for a building code inspection. You may think your vintage home is in great shape, do you have lead paint under the multi layers of paint? Do you have lead pipes? Do you have updated electrical? Do you have an old furnace with absestos insulation or pipes ? How bout your roof, do you think you have another 5 years left to the shingles life, maybe the city of Saint Paul will disagree. The city requires you put up a $5000 cash performance bond and hire contractors. If caught in a code compliance with the city you will have to pay other fees related to the city's code inspections policy's, you will have to pay a $1500 vacant building fee, a $450 code compliance inspection fee, the list goes on and on. I seen a property owner abated $450 for 2 trash bags sitting next to a full trash can, the trash man was coming that day. For years the city has held community meetings on housing, what these meetings have amounted to is a propaganda tool to rope citizens into hating on their neighbors so they could gain support to "code homes to the max". What does all of this accomplish for the city of Saint Paul, raises property values giving the city a justifiable reason to raise your property tax's, forces out "those that have from those that have not", class war fare! The good news, there is people among us that will hold the city and federal government accountable, after all the power is with the people, through dissent we will humble our progressive politicians or vote them out.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Stopp Judgships based on Case Fixing ie Lillehaug_Cleary said...

Thanks4Posting Please enlarge the David Lillehaug acting in concort with City Attorney Sara Grewing,
How can any Governor appoint Lillehaug to Judgship when this Lawyer has indulged in Case Fixing at the Highest Level of Government
STOP lILLEHAUG APPOINTMENT OF MN SUP JUDGE or Challenge Constitutionality of Governor "taking" our Elections.
Further info at Tax the Max

10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you forgot the forclosure part of it. If you are down on your luck and get behind on your payments or cannot afford to fix your condemned future code compliance then you cannot even sell it and get your equity out of it because the city demands the the code compliance be done BEFORE it is sold. No more sweat equity for anyone wanting an opportunity to move up in this city.

7:00 PM  
Anonymous Judicial Watch_LandLords_Minnesota said...

Please update LandLords Case via the Most Honest, Reputable Lawyer Tom Fitton www.judicialwatch.org
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/st-paul-squeeze/

7:44 AM  
Blogger Sharon Anderson said...



Hey Repke Where are you on this one? Is Thune a Candidate Again Ward 2 ?
St. Paul Squeeze

Last Updated: April 02, 2013

Synopsis

On April 4, Judicial Watch filed public records requests at the city and federal levels pursuant to an investigation into the Obama administration’s involvement in a housing discrimination suit arising out of St. Paul, Minnesota. Landlords of budget rentals had brought suit against the city – and won – alleging that excessive code enforcement against their properties would have the effect, if not the intent, of harming racial and ethnic minorities in greater proportion than St. Paul residents of other backgrounds. The legal theory, known as “disparate impact,” is more commonly used by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development to encourage out-of-court settlements against mortgage lenders.

According to a February 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Department of Justice pressured the city to withdraw its case from the U.S. Supreme Court, where the case had been slated for argument. Apparently, federal officials feared the city would lose again, setting unfavorable precedent for the Obama administration. According to the paper, if the landlords won, the “disparate impact” theory would no longer be a government tool for punishing instances of racism it perceived but could not prove. Rather, any over-regulation which resulted in less housing for ethnic or racial minorities would now be vulnerable to being struck down under the same theory.

What follows is a run-down of responses so far:

The U.S. Department of Justice on April 4 asked Judicial Watch to clarify which St. Paul case it was referring to and on June 11 asked whether it meant “and” at the place in the Freedom of Information Act request where Judicial Watch said “or”;

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on May 3 asked Judicial Watch to explain what it meant by “disparate impact,” even though the agency published a rule defining the term on November 16, 2011, 9 day after the U.S. Supreme Court granted the city’s petition for certiorari (agreed to hear the case);

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (the guardian of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s assets) told Judicial Watch on April 30 that it had found a 208-page document responsive to Judicial Watch’s request but that it was withholding it in full based on a trade secrets privilege. Judicial Watch administratively appealed that determination on May 25. A decision in that appeal is due on June 22.
.

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Jason Lewis Commentary said...

Apparantly Jason Lewis has weighed in on this http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/204935711.htmlColeman, however, had other issues — not the least of which were career attorneys at the federal Justice Department who were eager to recover up to $200 million in a pair of false-claims lawsuits. One, brought by businessman Fredrick Newell, charged that St. Paul “certified it was using federal funds to create jobs in low income areas for all races, when in fact it was only focused on employing minorities,” in the words of the committee.

Perez seized the opening and brokered the quid pro quo by contacting the city’s attorney, David Lillehaug (Gov. Mark Dayton’s second pick for the state Supreme Court). In early February 2012, the interested parties met in St. Paul and agreed, according to documents uncovered by the Wall Street Journal, that if “Justice would decline to intervene in Newell, the city would withdraw its Supreme Court case.”

4:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob! You still alive? The last post is 4 months it seems. Hope your new "job" is not too much. Let us former "regular" readers know. Maybe we could help.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Kevin Riley said...

Hi Bob, to your comment, "...I have seen a property owner abated $450 for 2 trash bags sitting next to a full trash can...". I have a property at 545 Minnehaha, tiny yard. I received a notice that there was some dog poop that needed to be cleaned up. I immediately sent my property manager to clean it up but it had already been cleaned up by the City of St. Paul and I was assessed $585.00!!!!!

FOR DOG POOP!

Thank you for your blog!!

Kevin Riley
Raven Financial
kriley592@gmail.com

9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home