DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT - AMENDED
City of St. Paul, et. al.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 78
2
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs will show the Court that summary judgment as requested by Defendants is improper as there are genuine issues of material fact present in every claim presented in the Complaint.
Prior the Court considering Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs request that the Court consider the facts and issues raised by Plaintiffs in their spoliation motions, and once again consider Plaintiffs’ renewed request that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to destruction of relevant evidence related to defenses raised by Defendants including immunities, and to Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs’ submit that there is now even more evidence before the Court of Defendants’ non-disclosures and/or destruction of evidence relevant to claims and defenses herein, including Defendants’ failures to disclose federally mandated “analysis of impediments” (AI) to affordable housing related to Defendants’ affirmative duty to further fair housing (AFFH). In over four years of discovery herein, Defendants have failed to produce, and Plaintiffs have been unable to discover, any evidence that Defendants ever conducted an AI for disclosure to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the public related to whether the “protected class” was adversely impacted by the City’s application of its “heightened code enforcement standard” and illegal policy of removing “grandfathering rights” under the Minnesota State Building Code through “Code Compliance” inspections and certifications applied to older inner-city housing stock disproportionate occupied by “protected class” members. This issue is not to be taken lightly, as falsification of AFFH certifications in return for hundreds of
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 2 of 78
3
millions of dollars in federal funding and spoliation of documents related thereto through destruction of internal documents, including e-data and e-mail communications, have serious implications. Defendants spoliation of written communications, including e-mails and other e-data for the years prior to 2005, has left Plaintiffs, HUD and the public without the key evidence HUD required the City to maintain related to the Defendants’ Fair Housing certifications and obligations. HUD regulations require the City to conduct a full and fair analysis of impediments to fair housing in the City, to identify those impediments, including those based on the City’s legislative code, rules, procedures and practices related to fair housing and “protected classes,” its illegal demands to the private market landlords in the City to meet expensive “code compliance” inspections and its creation of other barriers to fair housing. The City’s illegal “Code Compliance” requirements subverting grandfathering protections for older buildings in violation of the State Building Code, brings into question whether the City falsified its certifications to HUD through material non-disclosures.
INTRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS
Plaintiffs are or were landlords providing housing primarily to low-income, “protected class” tenants in the City and at various times housing under the Federal Section 8 funded program. Plaintiffs owned and managed older rental properties located in the inner-city neighborhoods where older housing stock was common, where poverty was persistent, and where people of color had a critical need for safe and decent affordable housing. See generally Affs. of Plaintiffs attached as Exs. 70-79 to 2nd Engel Aff., and Exs. 140-144 to 2nd ShoemakerAff.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 3 of 78
“We’ve reached that point where being nice, being civil and being polite in deteriorating inner city neighborhoods hasn’t got us anywhere.” State Senator Randy Kelly, Saint Paul, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 1-1-1995. “We have to take more drastic actions to stop deterioration of our neighborhoods and communities. We’ve reached the saturation point in low-income, rundown rental housing. We can’t take any more.” Id. “Saint Paul needs to do all that i[t] can to preserve and improve the existing privately owned rental stock that provides much of our affordable housing, where owners are now struggling with maintenance and management issues. If we lose that housing stock, we have lost a great housing resource in the city.” Saint Paul Planning Commission, Minutes 10-9-1998.
After taking over leadership of the City, Mayor Kelly stated, “If you’re to have a healthy city, you’ve got to have a high-quality, safe and attractive housing stock.” Pioneer Press, September 26, 2003.
And higher standards are exactly what Kelly and Dawkins put in place in 2002: “In essence the new rules shorten the time-lines for code compliance and increase the number of situations where we issue misdemeanor tags. The goal is to achieve aggressive, consistent, stepped-up enforcement throughout the city…if code enforcement has to come to your property twice, you’re going to be charged with a crime, and the Judge1 is going to treat it
1 Council President Bostrum reported to City Council that he and City Attorney met with Chief Judge Mott re Mayor Kelly’s “problem properties” priority - City Attorney was bringing Police and Code staff to meet Judge. Ex. 238 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff.,45341 (Council minutes,4-10-2002). Early 2002, Dawkins was questioning “How pull off”
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 4 of 78
5
seriously.” Ex.84,3rd Engel Aff., STP0037; Ex.108,3rd EngelAff., STP658 (“We heightened inspection standards”).
Kelly and Dawkins were finally able to implement their 1995 “Change of Ownership” strategy in the inner city of Saint Paul by adopting the “heightened standard,” applying “code to max” (Ex. 298, 3rd Shoemaker Aff.,50147-50158) and bringing “heavy enforcement” (Ex. 84 ,3rd Engel Aff) down on inner city property owners, primarily low-income landlords with so called, “problem properties,” a definition that varied from neighborhood to neighborhood. Pat Fish, p.243.
Bill Cullen, former president of St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords (SPARL) testified that Dawkins suggested to landlords that maybe the solution for the city was to try and increase the quality of properties to the point that the lower tier of less qualified tenants would not have places to rent – how would the landlords like it of they didn’t have to deal with tenants at the bottom of the market – “if all those tenants that are at the bottom...were no longer in St. Paul” Cullen,202-03, 113. Cullen remembers being “shocked”
“crackdown” (Ex.82,3rd Engel Aff.) – City needed District Court “buy-in” to ensure victory. Ex.217, 3rd Shoemaker Aff.,40072; Ex.157, 3rd Engel Aff. (“Prep city atty and judges”); Dawkins-City Attorneys held further private meetings with Chief Judge (Ex.83 ,3rd Engel Aff; Ex.111, 3rd Engel Aff; Ex.112,3rd Engel Aff; Ex.113,3rd Engel Aff); City Attorney Dolan private meeting with housing Referee Yanish who later presided over City initiated-promoted Tenant Remedy Cases by Dolan against Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Harrilal and others. After the civil litigation proceeded to the point that Dawkins and the City were “9 for 9” in court before Referee Yanish, Dawkins returned to Judge Mott in private for a “Thanks” and to run further City-Kelly-Dawkins plans for property owner crackdown by Mott for approval. Ex. 114,3rd Engel Aff., and Dawkins., p.311-364. The City assured itself of additional allies in its war (“Build small army,” Ex. 157,3rd Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 5 of 78
6
by Dawkins’ comments. Id.203
Sara Anderson, a housing advocate from Project Hope recalls City Official Dawkins telling her that City officials and employees “don't want low-income people renting in the City”. Anderson,76-77,128.
“PROTECTED CLASS” MEMBERS
Saint Paul has acknowledged that “Fair housing laws provide protection from discrimination in housing for certain groups, generally referred to as “protected classes” and “[t]hese groups have been included in fair housing laws because individuals have been identified over time as having difficulties in obtaining housing due to their status as a member of one of these groups.” Ex. 267,3rd Shoemaker Aff., Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI), May 2001,4.
The Regional AI, partially funded by City, focused on “the incomes of protected class members, their relative low rates of home ownership, high rent burdens, tendency to live in larger households, and their disproportional representation among users of emergency shelter-transitional housing facilities. Id. 2001,AI,5,15. (Ex. 237,3rd Shoemaker Aff., 2000 ConPlan referred to AI. p.97; Ex.86,3rd Engel Aff., ConPlanUpdate2003, p.44).
“It is often people of color, people with disabilities, women, large families, and new immigrants who earn significantly less than the population as a whole and who experience the greatest housing cost burdens. Ex.267,3rd Shoemaker Aff., AI May 2001,8. Protected class
Engel Aff) against landlords by funding SMRLS). Ex. 92, 3rd Engel Aff, Ex.88,3rd Engel Aff. Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 6 of 78
7
members tend to have lower incomes, less expensive rental units/homes - more likely to be renters. Id.
A much higher percentage of people of color than Whites fall within HUD’a definition of “Very Low income”. Id, 9. “Among renters … disparities between Whites and people of color are particularly strong, with lower income Blacks in “unaffordable housing” at 67.2% versus Whites at 33.9%. Id.,14.
A disproportionate percentage of “protected class” persons live in the City’s inner core neighborhoods where there is a concentration of older, affordable low-income rental housing stock. Ex. 268,3rd Shoemaker Aff., ConPlan2005, pp.44,50,Map.
Poverty is persistent in those areas of the City. Id.,50-51. Many residents have poor credit, bad tenancy, and personal issues that prohibit access to affordable housing – they need support services. Id.,104.
CITY RECOGNIZED IN MAY 2001 “PROTECTED CLASS”
TENANTS WERE VULNERABLE TO BIAS AND RENT BURDENED
The City continues year after year to admit bias is present and affecting minorities, the disabled and families with minor children in their housing choices. Ex.103, 3rdEngel Aff., City’s Comprehensive Plan 1/9/2002,p.10;Ex.268,3rd Shoemaker Aff., 2005Con.Plan,87.
The City reported to HUD that “Housing discrimination can be a significant barrier for individuals and families seeking affordable housing” and “discrimination is often difficult to detect” and “can prevent access to safe and decent housing.” Id.,105.
In 2002, poverty continued to be persistent in the City; HUD estimating that 7,700
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 7 of 78
8
renter households in the City had incomes at or below 30 percent of the regional median ($16,988-family of four) who paid more than 50% of their incomes for rent. Ex.103,3rd Engel Aff., City’s Comprehensive Plan 1/9/2002, p.10.
The City has long acknowledged that “people of color” and other “protected class” persons have a disproportionate need for affordable housing in the City. In June 2005, the City reported to HUD that 37,000 households had unmet housing needs. Ex.268,3rd Shoemaker Aff.,2005Con.Plan,83.
HISTORICAL SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CITY
Historically, the City has had a critical shortage of low-income housing. Ex.237,3rd Shoemaker Aff., Con.Plan2000,16. A large number of “protected class” persons wait years for affordable housing in the City. Gutzmann,62.
The City has large numbers of immigrants and persons of color who are constantly seeking affordable housing and who are disproportionately burdened in housing. Ex.237,3rd Shoemaker Aff., Con.Plan2000,23-25.
Between 1989 and 2000, the City acknowledged that when including new units constructed, vacant units rehabilitated and units demolished, the overall change in housing went up merely 468 units. 2000 End-of-the-Year Housing Report,2-28-2001. In 2005, the City reported that owner occupied units had increased by 1,993 units since 1990 while occupied rental units decreased by 133 units. Ex. 268,3rd Shoemaker Aff., ConPlan2005,43.
The City’s Housing Action Plan 2002 stated “affordability of housing in St. Paul continues to be a critical issue” and “the need and demand for housing that is affordable to
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 8 of 78
9
lower income households(…below 30% of AMI) is severe.” The City’s Task Force noted “there are not adequate resources currently targeted to address this situation.” Ex.103,3rd Engel Aff.,p.2. The Task Force was concerned that City data showed over five years a total of 649 units have been demolished, of which 123 units (the PED/HRA projects) triggered the local policy. Id.3.
In April 2003, the City confirmed that, “the lack of affordable housing opportunities remains a major issue facing many Saint Paul lower income households [at or below 30% of the AMI], who are also protected class members.” Ex.86,3rd Engel Aff,40. “[T]he lack of affordable housing realistically limits housing choice for many protected class members.” Id. “27.6% of Saint Paul’s lower income residents cannot find adequate affordable housing in the City of Saint Paul.” Id.
In 2005, the City confirmed that “[t]he oldest housing stock in the City is located primarily in areas immediately adjacent to the central core where the greater amounts of low-moderate income populations reside. Id at 44. The availability of affordable, large units (3 bedrooms) is scarce because they are costly to maintain and construct and profit margins are minimum. Id.
PUBLIC HOUSING AND SECTION 8 WAITING LISTS
In 2005, PHA reported to the City (for inclusion in City’s ConsolidatedPlan2005) that 6,219 people were on PHA’s waiting lists with a 2-4 year wait; a disproportionate number of minority residents were on PHA’ lists – 61 percent were African-Americans; 2,747 Section 8 applicants, and list was closed. Ex.268.3rd Shoemaker Aff., ConPlan2005,47.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 9 of 78
10
PHA Management Reports provide data on comparisons of waiting lists with actual occupancy in both PHA and Section housing. PHA’s waiting lists show PHA and Section 8 list racial percentages. PHA’s December 2002 Management Report showed the composition of the waiting list as follow: Blacks 63%, Whites 22%; Asians 13%.
PHA scattered sites home occupancy revealed: Asians at 60.6%; Blacks 28.7%; Whites 9.7%. Ex.181, 3rd Shoemaker Aff. By December 2005, PHA’s waiting list showed Blacks at 57%, Whites at 25% and Asians at 16%, with occupancy at PHA overall at Blacks 34.6%, Whites 38.4% and Asians at 13.3%. Ex.182,3rd Shoemaker Aff.
PHA attempts to maximize the number of affordable units available to the PHA within its current resources by minimizing the number of units off-line; reduce turnover time for vacated public housing units; reduce time to renovate public housing units.
CITY’S AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
UNDER HUD REGULATIONS DUE TO CITY’S RECEIPT OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF FEDERAL GRANTS
HUD annually provides St. Paul with a variety of program funding and support services primarily for persons of low and moderate income and homeless persons. These HUD funded programs are called, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program, and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) program. Ex.86,3rdEngelAff.“Forward, i”.
The City voluntarily accepts the “affirmative duty” to further federal fair housing (AFFH) policies required by the HUD as a condition for receipt of federal grants primarily for the benefit of low and moderate income housing. Ex.86,3rdEngelAff. The CDBG program Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 10 of 78
11
objective is “the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.” Id.
In 2000, the Mayor and City Council adopted the City’s HUD Five Year Consolidated Plan for 2000 through 2004 (“ConPlan2000”) Id. ( Ex. 237,3rd ShoemakerAff.). The City identified the lack of affordable housing as an unmet need in the 2000 Consolidated Plan and in 2003 stated that a total of 9 HUD funded activities would assist with the preservation or creation of affordable housing. Id.,38.
The City acknowledged that the CDBG program’s “primary objective is “providing decent housing” principally for persons of low and moderate income.” Ex.237,3rd Shoemaker Aff, ConPlan2000,vii. St. Paul has about 30% lower median family income than the metropolitan median income due to the high poverty in the City. Id.,60.
Following the City’s reference to Chapter 34, Minimum Property Maintenance Standards, and “Substandard Condition but Suitable for Rehabilitation,” the City stated, “While the City does not collect data related to the race or ethnicity of those households with identified housing needs, it would not be surprising if those data revealed a disproportionate impact on persons of color.” Id. 23. “The number of new immigrants … coupled with historic settlement patterns that find racial and ethnic communities more heavily concentrated in central cities and the reality of racial and ethnic bias in the housing market all contribute to such a differential impact.” Id.
The City included a map indicating the geographic concentrations of households of
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 11 of 78
12
color and showing the 37 planning districts where more than 50% of public school students were children of color. (Id.,23A) The high number of immigrants who continue to arrive in the City “would suggest that the differential impact between minority-headed renter households and all renter households will continue to grow over the next five years.” Id.23-4.
In 2000, the City acknowledged that African-Americans were disproportionately represented in emergency shelters (A-A 52%; Hispanics 16%, Whites 33%) and transitional housing indicating that they were most likely to be without any housing at all. Id.,24,31. Homelessness in the City “disproportionately affects persons of color.” Id.,28. The City concluded by admitting that “racial and ethnic minorities have a greater housing need than the population as a whole.” Id.,25.
The City acknowledged that migration to the area, demolition of housing, and a low level of construction have resulted in serious affordability issues for the working poor. Id.,27. The City acknowledged that “the number of new units added to the stock over the decade just barely exceeds the number that were … demolished.” Id.,60.
The City acknowledged that common barriers that prevent homeless persons or families from obtaining permanent housing include criminal background checks, credit checks, past unlawful detainers, and problems associated with bias. Id.,28. In 2000, the City admitted that bias continues to affect the City’s racial and ethnic minorities, the disabled and families with minor children. Id.,77.
The City recognized the “need to change attitudes and public opinion toward rental housing.” Id.,88.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 12 of 78
13
The majority of the City’s housing stock of smaller, single family, duplex and apartment units are aging, more than 50 years old, but generally in sound condition; the portion that had not been repaired or updated now required a substantial investment in order to remain viable. Id.,47.
In 2000, the City acknowledged that its regulatory policies, including what some may consider “above standard” development requirements, can pose a barrier to affordable housing – the City cited its own building code as one such barrier. Id.,59. The Metropolitan Council had determined that Cities regulations, ordinances and fees as well as administrative practices may exceed reasonable protection of public health and safety and contribute to housing costs. Id. Saint Paul promised that it “will continue examine its enforcement of the building code.” Id.,87.
The City’s 2000 Consolidated Plan, and all other updates since then, fail to state whether the application of the City’s heightened code standards (more strict 82% of time when compared to HQS and its private market “Code Compliance” requirement – see Ex.171,3rd Shoemaker Aff.) have had an adverse affect on affordable housing and whether those policies and practices have disproportionately impacted “protected classes” in the City. Id. 87-88.
The oldest housing stock in the City is located primarily in the areas immediately adjacent to the central core. Id.,62. The most recent data for the 2000 Consolidated Plan indicated that these same areas coincide with the city’s lower income census tracts. Available information to the City in 2000, suggested that “large minority populations also reside in
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 13 of 78
14
these neighborhoods.” Id.
Many of the City structures that provide rental housing affordable to lower income households are smaller (1-4 unit) buildings owned by landlords who own relatively few buildings and “[t]hey are the kinds of structures that are at highest risk of becoming “problem properties” or vacant buildings – yet “maintaining them in good condition represents the most cost effective way of providing affordable housing.” Id.,68. The City’s 2000 Plan noted that with stepped up code enforcement there should be matched additional resources for repair and rehabilitation. Id.,69. “Additional resources must be identified and used in partnership with code enforcement to assist property owners in making the necessary repairs and improvements. Id. The City admitted that the current rental rehab programs were generally under subscribed by property owners and suggested an assessment for the reason. Id.
Census block groups with at least 51 percent low to moderate income residents are CDBG eligible. Id.,137-C (Census Tracts Map).
In January 2002, the City claimed that one half of the City’s housing was built before 1940, the condition of its housing stock was stable, the level of reinvestment remained constant, there were few indicators of disinvestment, and that the City had a low number of “vacant buildings”. Comprehensive Plan,1/9/02,STP00523,35. The City did admit that “Among the most vulnerable residential structures in the city’s housing stock are its rental properties”. Ex.103,3rd Engel Aff. (CompPlan1/9/02).
The City’s 2003 Consolidated Plan Update states that the CDBG funds City “code
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 14 of 78
15
enforcement” efforts, City activities related to “rental rehabilitation,” “vacant buildings,” “demolition” of housing, and other fair housing related activities. Ex.86,3rd EngelAff. pp.11-33. In 2003, the City received $12,452,666 of CDBG, HOME and ESG funds from HUD.
As a recipient of CDBG funds, the City must continually certified to HUD that the City will “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH) as well as identify impediments to fair housing choices within its jurisdiction. “Local Government Certifications” attachment to Ex.86,3rdEngelAff.. The City admits that under HUD’s interpretation of AFFH, the City must: (1) analyze and eliminate housing discrimination in the jurisdiction; (2) promote fair housing choice for all persons; (3) provide opportunities for inclusive patterns of housing occupancy regardless of race, color, disability, national origin, etc.; (4) foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions. Id.,38-9. PHA provides a similar certification of AFFH to HUD. Ex.171,3rd Shoemaker Aff.
“City’s obligation to [AFFH] applies to all housing activities in its jurisdiction whether publicly or privately funded.” Id. The City has loudly proclaimed that it has adopted “even more stringent ordinances than federal and state laws in order to mitigate housing discrimination, while setting City policy directions to ensure the rights of all Saint Paul residents.” Id.,39.
As part of the HUD required “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI), the City claims that it “continually evaluates its housing policy and housing practices to determine whether the City has deliberately or inadvertently prevented people from living where they choose. Id.,40.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 15 of 78
16
The CDBG funds are designated by the City for code enforcement activities, owner and rental rehabilitation, and demolition in CDBG low-income and moderate income areas of the City. Ex.237,3rd ShoemakerAff.,110-112, 115,119, 121-122, 129,133-34. Ex.86,3rdEngelAff., pp11-13,20,24,25,29,30,33. CDBG funds also are provide to Block Clubs, District Councils, and Neighborhood Development Corporations. Id.,10,14,16,18,20,24,30,31. The 2003 Update contains many pages listing numerous sub-grantees and mentions the City’s partnership with PHA and housing problems in City. Ex.86,3rd EngelAff.
In 2002, the City stated that its share of the region’s lower cost housing that is located in the central cities had been growing and should be reversed, because according to the City, that was providing few choices for lower income households and fewer workers for suburban businesses. Ex.103,3rdEngelAff.,CompPlan2002,21.
The plan recommended that Saint Paul aggressively work to capture the its share of an emerging market of smaller households and older empty-nest households, many of whom have moderate or higher incomes, want to live in an urban environment and are currently unable to find suitable options in Saint Paul. Id.,7.
The City claimed that it would support measures to lower construction costs associated with local requirements, a reassessment of the State Building Code, and rental housing resources for replacement housing and rehabilitation. Id.,22.
PRESERVING OLDER HOUSING STOCK IS CRITICAL TO PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING YET COSTLY AND RESOURCES NEEDED
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 16 of 78
17
The City has consistently acknowledged that preserving the existing, older housing stock is critical to preserving affordable housing and yet the preservation of the older rental housing is costly and financial resources must be made available to owners of low-income housing who are particularly vulnerable. Ex.237,3rd ShoemakerAff.
“Many of the structures that provide rental housing affordable to lower income households in Saint Paul are smaller (1-4 unit) buildings owned by landlords who own relatively few buildings. They are the kinds of structures that are at highest risk of becoming “problem properties” or vacant buildings and, yet, maintaining them in good condition represents the most cost effective way of providing affordable housing.” Ex.103,3rd EngelAff.,CompPlan2002,28-29.
The City admitted that it must coordinate code enforcement with measures for repair and improvement and that additional resources must be identified to assist property owners in making the necessary repairs. Ex.268,3rdShoemakerAff.,ConPlan2005,86.
The City is a “built city” with little available vacant land for development of new affordable housing. Removal of older housing stock is seen as a way to make way for new development and a higher tax base due to reductions in federal and state funding to the City. ConPlan2005,105.
DEFENDANTS MAYOR KELLY AND DAWKINS KNOWLEDGE OF CONCENTRATION OF “PROTECTED CLASS” IN AREAS OF INNER CITY
Prior to becoming mayor of St. Paul, Defendant Kelly was in the Minnesota Legislature for 22 years as representative and senator representing the City’s East side where
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 17 of 78
18
a high percentage of “protected class” reside. Ex.243-245,3rdShoemakerAff., 45415-45428.
Prior to becoming Director of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NHPI) of St. Paul, Defendant Dawkins was in the Minnesota House for 16 years representing the City’s Frog Town area where a high percentage of “protected class” reside. Ex.239-242,3rd Shoemaker Aff.,45402-45414.
Dawkins recognized that people of color were being disproportionately impacted by the higher code enforcement standard: “Perhaps a disproportionate number of folks getting EC [City fines for “excessive consumption” of code enforcement services] are people of color; but if this is so, then maybe it’s because a disproportionate number of families living in poverty are people of color.” Ex.299,4thShoemakerAff . “The new way to bill-out for excessive consumption … Everything counts …I estimate the new ordinance will bring in half a million dollars or more, and the Mayor has basically said it’s ours to spend.” Ex.300,4th ShoemakerAff.(Dawkins to Code Enforcement Staff,11-13-03).
CITY’S HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PROTECTED CLASSES
Community Stabilization Project (CSP) Director Catie Royce testified concerning Kelly and Dawkins’ efforts to assist the City in de-concentrating poverty in St. Paul’s inner city neighborhoods and how those efforts assisted the City’s demolition of affordable housing disproportionately occupied by “people of color”:
“…the randy andy show were responsible for deconcentration of poverty policy when they were up at the capitol. … Randy was the first legislator in this state to begin to institutionalize the racist language of “deconcentration of poverty” which he used to get approximately $100,000 appropriated to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to demolish low income rental housing because ‘it was responsible for crime and blight.”
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 18 of 78
19
I’m pretty sure those were the exact words of the bill. That was the first time that I saw Andy carry polluted water for randy, he authored the companion bill in the house. That money was used about five years later to demolish the Lakewood Apartments, 138 units of very affordable, structurally sound rental housing located on the banks of the now gentrified Lake Phalen. Lakewood was in poor condition and there were many code violations because the city and the district council had conspired to ignore the property for years. Lakewood was home to a diverse community of low income families, there was ONE WHITE family in Lakewood, ONE!!!
Ex.128,1stShoemakerAff.,RoyceDepo.,Ex. 3.
Ms. Royce testified that under Mayor Norm Coleman, the City was “doing a lot of demolition, using a lot of city funds to demolish affordable housing” and was “particularly interested in tracking Community Development Block Grant funds in the hopes that we could require replacement of those units through that period conducted.” Id.,17-18. The City “started to use a significant amount of public subsidy to go after large complexes. They wanted to demolish Concord Square, known as Bluff Park Homes now. We intervened strongly there, Community Stabilization Project, and they jumped across the city to the East Side and went after a complex called the Lakewood Apartments. They successfully demolished that.” Id.
Royce continued, “vacating and demolitions of units throughout the city have been a part of trying to get rid of rental housing. Now, then you can make the leap, without having a whole bunch of brain synapse occurring, that that is also going after people or color.” Royce, 88. “The rather recent (five years) strategy of requiring the highest level of rehab, I think they call it code compliance, on a vacant building, even if its only been vacant for a short amount of time is not a policy conducive to preserving our existing stock of housing. It is
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 19 of 78
20
policy that should be analyzed as people look over this issue in general. Not many of our homes, including mine, could withstand the level of scrutiny created by this code compliance inspection.” Id. Royce recall talking to Dawkins about this issue and that Dawkins understood that “Code Compliance” was a higher level of rehabilitation to an older home. Id.,189-190.
CITY MINIMUM PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE FOUND
TO BE 82% MORE STRINGENT WHEN COMPARED
TO FEDERAL SECTION 8 STANDARDS
In 1994, the City proposed to PHA, it long term partner, that the City’s Property Maintenance Code (City Code) be substituted for the federally mandated Housing Quality Standards (HQS) applicable to federally subsidized, Section 8 “low income” housing in the City. During this process, the City and PHA discovered that the City’s code was actually “more stringent” 82% of the time when compared to the federal code. Ex.171,3rd ShoemakerAff,PHA011488-494;Ex.180,3rdShoemakerAff.,PHA012087;Ex.115, 3rdEngelAff.,STP6689-90.
Representative Dawkins’ Legislative Aid attended the City’s Community and Economic Development Committee meeting on October 26, 1994, where PHA informed the City that HUD tightly controls the variations in HQS by local jurisdictions due to the adverse effect a higher local housing code can have on the availability of affordable housing. Ex.1783rdShoemakerAff.,PHA011881;Ex.174,3rdShoemakerAff.,PHA011799; Ex.177;3rdShoemakerAff., PHA 011877-011890.
In 1994, PHA informed City leaders that “local HUD staff feared more stringent
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 20 of 78
21
standards would reduce the supply of affordable housing for Sec 8 holders.” Ex.172,3rd ShoemakerAff.,PHA011789. PHA Staff informed the City that HQS was a national minimum standard for unit habitability and that HUD tightly limited local variations because HUD did not want Cities to unduly restrict the supply of dwelling units available to Section 8 participants by setting standards higher than HQS. Ex.177,3rdShoemakerAff.,PHA11879-11881(Items incorrectly identified as Housing Quality Violations: minor drip in wash basin or tub; one burner out on stove; condition of appliances; types of locks; heat shut off from certain rooms; crack window pane (which are not a safety problem or cause drafts); location of outlets and light fixtures; peeling paint; worn carpeting or other floor covering; stained wall paper; lack of screens; no air conditioning; occasional roaches or mice).
RISK OF WHOLESALE ABANDONMENT IN INNER CITY
In 1997, two years after the Minnesota State Building Code was amended to allow one and two unit dwellings to be covered by Certificates of Occupancy (CofO), Council members Dan Bostrum and Roberta Megard promoted a new ordinance that would require City inspection for all rental single family and duplexes. Ex.210,3rd ShoemakerAff.,p.32; Ex.167 3rd Shoemaker Aff.,PHA011340.
The City acquired notice during the debate on the proposed ordinance that, “Most rental property owners are small-business people who are struggling to make ends meet,” that “Most rental properties in the Twin Cities have very slim profit margins and have incomes that barely allow for repair of tenant-caused damage and basic maintenance, let alone improvements and aesthetics” and the “financial burden of costly repairs cannot be met by
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 21 of 78
22
many rental property owners and would likely result in an increase in the number of abandoned properties” and the “increased cost due to inspections and code compliances will result in higher rents, which will decrease the number of affordable housing units for moderate to low-income tenants.” Ex.169,3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA011390.
Councilmember Jerry Blakey stated during the debate that “We need to make sure there’s financial resources in place or the costs will be passed on to the tenants.” Ex. 166 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA011339.
Councilmember Mike Harris stated the proposed ordinance “would impose overly strict standards for aging properties that may be adequate, if not up to code.” Ex. 168 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA011363.
The City received further notice during this debate when Catie Royce, director of the Community Stabilization Project (Royce - CSP) suggested that grants or low-interest loans should be provided for repairs or many landlords will simply abandon their properties with followed demolition and reduction of the city’s already limited supply of low-rent housing and increase in homelessness. Dawkins acknowledged the need for resources. Ex. 299 to 4th Shoemaker Aff .
In November 1997, the City’s Planning and Economic Development (PED) noted that it “needed to study which city housing programs could release parts of their budgets for the inspections [CofO], as well as possible impact on increased rents, displacement of tenants and reduction of low-cost housing.” Ex. 179 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA012054 (emphasis added).
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 22 of 78
23
In 1999, another City Council proposal related to the C of O inspection program was promoted and the City claimed that under that program, “Class C building will still meet City Codes …, but will have frequent citations for code violations.” Ex. 164 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA011285. The question for PHA and HUD was whether the additional City regulation would unduly restrict the supply of affordable housing available. Id.
In 1999, during the public debate over the City’s proposed Housing Plan, the City received further notice that increased regulation of the low-income rental housing market could backfire as “too much code enforcement could lead to more housing being condemned and boarded up, pushing even more low-income people into shelters or looking for replacement housing when the vacancy rate was less than 2 percent.
In 1999, City enacted a rental registration program adding further regulations to the private rental market. Ex. 171 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP211856-211860.
In 2000, the City acknowledged that attitudes and public opinion as a barrier to affordable housing, including division in neighborhood communities which pits renters against owners and single family residents perception that a rental building is a “problem property”, rather than recognize problems which may be associated with tenants. Id at 61.
In 1999, the City and Ramsey County recommended that given the critical need for low income housing in the City and County, “all efforts should be taken to preserve existing stock” and that the City and County should develop a set of strategies to carry out this policy, including assurances that resource are adequate. Id at 56.
In September 2000, John Lensch, a legislative aide to Councilmember Chris Coleman
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 23 of 78
24
was informed by PHA that in fact the City’s Code had been found to be more stringent than Section 8 HQS. Ex. 170 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA011439.
In January 2004, Lensch, by then a State Representative for the City, would comment before the City Council that he felt that a property before the Council on a proposed resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the home within 15 days “will end up as another rental property in a zip code that already has twice the number of Section certificates of any other zip code in St. Paul.” Ex. 266 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., 45764.
2000 US CENSUS DATA
The City acknowledged in its 2003 Consolidated Plan Update (Ex. 86 to 3rd Engel Aff) that the 2000 Census showed that the City had gained nearly 15,000 residents since 1990 the racial communities had increased in population and there had been an increased number of children and persons of color living in poverty. Id at 40.
HUD’s 2000 Census “CHAS” data for St. Paul showed that among renters in the City, 37.1 % of White renters had housing problems (cost burdens of greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities) while 53.9% of Blacks had such problems, and Hispanics had 57.5% Black family households had 59.3% and Hispanics families had 64.9%. Ex. 262 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., 45701-45707.
INSPECTORS HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT AREAS WHERE PLAINTIFFS’
HAD RENTAL PROPERTIES HAD A HIGH CONCENTRATION
OF “PROTECTED CLASS” TENANTS
Defendant Lippert stated, “We know that we are very effective. As I drive around town I rarely drive down a block where I haven’t solved a problem. On some blocks I have
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 24 of 78
25
been to every house on the block. This is of course true of every inspector.” Ex. 100 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP0409-0410.
Ms. Royce testified that based upon her considerable time and experience in the inner city of St. Paul assisting protected class, that the concentrations of minorities in the City were located on the East side, Railroad Island, along Payne Avenue and in those neighborhoods, Summit-University, Frogtown, and West Side for the Latino population. Royce, p. 30-31. This was true, she said, both before and after Randy Kelly was Mayor. Id.
Nevertheless, Dawkins in November 2003, he boasted, “We got our new excessive consumption ordinance and our new rental registration ordinance … yesterday….Everything counts …I estimate the new ordinance will bring in half a million dollars of more, and the Mayor has basically said it’s ours to spend.” Ex. 300 to 4th Shoemaker Aff. Dawkins reminded inspectors the Mayor wanted every property written up, which would slow down the inspection department but “it is the way to build our base so we do bring-in a million on re-inspects.” Id.
LONG TERM PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE SAINT PAUL
PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY AND CITY OF SAINT PAUL
The Saint Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA) owns and manages federally subsidized low-income, primarily to low and moderately low income “protected class” tenants in the City and manages the Section 8, Housing Choice Voucher program. Gutzmann, p. 14.
The City acknowledges that it “works closely with” PHA and that this “close relationship is based upon mutual goals, staff cooperation, joint planning and program Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 25 of 78
26
development” Ex. 237 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., City Consolidated Plan 2000, p. 7. PHA enjoys the “good cooperation and coordination between the City’s Code Enforcement Staff and PHA Staff.” Ex. 165 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA011323. PHA has a working relationship with the City’s code inspection department. Hester (1st), 132.
Even though PHA is no longer a city department, the City continues to have effective control over PHA as the Mayor appoints the members of the PHA Board of Commissioners and the City Council confirms those appointments. There are seven Commissioners, five of which are non-public housing residents. Ex. 268 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., 2005Consolidated Plan, 111.
HUD mandates the City review PHA Housing Plans for submission to HUD to determine if PHA plans are in conformance with the City Consolidated Plan. Id at 41. The City recognizes that PHA needs to continue rehabilitation and modernization of its properties. Id at 41.
In the 2000 Consolidated Plan, PHA is listed as having 455 scattered site homes, 1,296 family development units, 2,543 Hi-Rise units in 16 Hi-Rises, for a total of 4,286 rental units. Id at 49. The City has intimate knowledge of the physical condition of PHA rental properties from a number of partnership sources, including PHA’s Comprehensive Grant Plan, its five year improvement plan, and at times City or county officials serving on the PHA Board of Commissioners. Id at 50.
The City reviews detailed information concerning PHA’s rental operations, including PHA’s five year capital funding plans, annual plans, proposed sales of PHA properties. Ex.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 26 of 78
27
184 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA 17394; Ex. 268 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., Con Plan 2005, 111, Ex. 236 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., Con Plan 2001 Update, 41.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND PHA
The City and PHA were required by HUD to enter into and maintain a Cooperative Agreement. Ex. 154 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA00007-17. City and PHA are partners in provision of subsidized housing in the City.
The Cooperative Agreement also provides that the City will “Grant such deviations from the building code of the City as are reasonable and necessary to promote economy and efficiency in the improvement and administration of such Development, and at the same time safeguard health and safety;” “Cooperate with the PHA by such other lawful action or ways as the City and the PHA may find necessary in connection with the improvement and administration of such Development;” “Provide such services as are normally provided to other inhabitants or dwellings in the City for which PHA will pay the City a Service Charge.” The City and PHA are contract partners on a number of additional levels: the City provides supplemental police services to PHA under special contract (Contracts for Supplemental Police Services), and the City and PHA partner together in submissions to HUD. Ex. 237 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., Con. Plan 2000, Ex. 236 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., Con. Plan 2001 Update.
PHA CLAIMS IF ANY RENTAL LOST WOULD ADVERSELY
AFFECT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY
PHA has over 400 single family homes – if one is taken out of the subsidized role
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 27 of 78
28
through “conversion” to private market rents, that in that event, the conversion of any PHA home would “adversely affect the availability of affordable housing” in St. Paul. Ex. 270 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA Plan, FY 2005, Attachment N. Sixty-Seventy percent of PHA’s homes were built between WWI and WWII. Id. 37-38, but some were built in early 1900s. Id.
PHA’S HOUSING STOCK
PHA has been chronically underfunded for almost the entire existence of public housing. Gutzmann, 23. PHA admits that it has to prioritize the repairs - life safety and exterior envelope to keep out the moisture. Id at 47. Hester testified that every year for PHA staff have to ask how much money they have – have to prioritized the work – in a general sense there are a lot of needs that are being deferred because of insufficient funds. Hester (1st) 160. Had to sell homes to pay for other repairs. Hester (1st) 170.
PHA at times takes 6-7 weeks to get a rental unit ready for a new tenant after a tenant departure and the home is vacant during that time. Id at 40. HUD measures PHA on how fast PHA can turn around a vacant home to reoccupy. Id at 40.
PHA is inspected about every two years by HUD but only on a portion of its properties and HUD inspectors have not taken a rental unit off line no matter what condition it was in at the time of inspection. Petro 57-58. HUD does not focus on housekeeping as much as actual physical condition Id at 59.
Petro testified that the City would issue orders on trash, yard issues, vehicles, screens. Petro, 63-64. Petro says that tenant intentional caused damage is significant in amount with broken doors, damaged screens, holes in walls. Petro, 66-71. Damage to PHA properties is
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 28 of 78
29
fairly common across the scattered site portfolio. Id at 38-39. Tenants dictate whether there will be a rodent issue and frequently bring pests with them when they move in. Petro , 86-87. PHA does get complaints from its tenants that PHA is slow to make repairs. Petro, 106.
In fact, PHA has had serious health conditions in its properties from wet basements including mold filled homes. Hester, 140(2nd) (wet basements). PHA has rodent issues including mice and rats. Hester, 140-41(2nd).
In one case, PHA acknowledged that 125 showers in one of its High-Rises had to be gutted due to deadly mold conditions. Residents had complained and had to live in those conditions for a considerable period of time before PHA could address the needed repair. Ex. 196 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA21751-52.
PHA prepares a five year comprehensive plan for submission to the City and to HUD that details PHA capital funding needs, showing needed repairs and plans for deferred maintenance, repairs and improvements. Ex. 185 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA17505-17525.
PHA is subject to HUD review of its operations under the Public Housing Assessment System and while maintaining “high performer” status for overall operations, PHA scores on physical condition of its properties has ranged from 88% in 2002to 90% in 2005. Ex. 199, 200 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22191,22198-22200; Ex. 206, 207, 208 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22850,22855,22857.
The City acknowledges that PHA must acquire the necessary resources to modernize and maintain PHA’s stock of public housing. Ex. 268 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., Con Plan 2005, 86.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 29 of 78
30
Gutzmann testified that PHA has been in crisis mode due to federal funding cutbacks and PHA had to sell off on two recent occasions many of its homes, where 2006-2007 on average those homes needed $40,000 in repairs. Gutzman, 56. PHA conducted an internal analysis of the costs needed for each of almost 20 homes, with the estimates running from a low of $13,000 to a high of $199,000. Gutzmann said the average costs to repair was $40,000. Gutzmann., 56-57; Ex. 190 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA 18488-18523. Hester, (1st) 155. PHA needed to sell these properties to get the money out of them and to avoid making expensive repairs. Hester (1st, 26).
City TISH evaluators conducted city code review prior to PHA sale of those homes and found that many of PHA’s homes were in fact not compliant with City Codes and had serious mold issues throughout. Ex. 192 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA 18636-18661 (2004); Ex. 189 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA18431-18487 (2006-07).
PHA - CITY ADMIT PHA RENTAL PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO CITY CODE: PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PHA
PHA rental properties are subject to all the same City’s codes as Plaintiffs’ properties were. Gutzman, 78-79; Petro, 60; Hester (1st), 132; Ex. 304 to 4th Shoemaker Aff., Defendants’ Responses to Requests for Admission, No. 24. p.6. Yet, PHA admits that the City has not conducted interior inspection of PHA’s over 430 homes. Hester (1st), 137. Forty-one year veteran of PHA’s maintenance Henry Petro could not recall the City ever conducting an interior inspection on any of PHA’s scattered site homes. Petro, 62. Defendants could not produce any interior inspection records for PHA homes during Plaintiffs extensive discovery
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 30 of 78
31
for same.
The City and PHA admit that at no time has the City designated any PHA home as vacant, required a “Code Compliance” or condemned any of its homes. Ex. 304 to 4th Shoemaker Aff., Defendants’ Admissions, Nos. 31-35. Petro, 22-3; Hester (1st), 137-38, Hester (2nd 63-64 – no vacants or code compliances). There has never been a requirement by the City that PHA homes be substantially renovated. Hester (1st), 134-5. Petro does not recall the City ever mandating that PHA replace roofs on homes as that is an issue for the owner, can you get four-five more years out of it … by patching it. Petro, 74. Petro doesn’t recall the City’s LIEP office ever inspecting any PHA home for code compliance and he would know if it had happened. Id at 81-83.
The City has issued minimal code orders on PHA homes, mainly for garbage. Petro, 62-64. PHA has had units of it larger rental building condemned for excessive combustibles but as soon as they were cleared, the units are reoccupied. Petro, 23-27.
PHA is frequently called by City staff and given verbal orders or given friendly reminders when PHA is not compliant with City codes. Ex. 117 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP 20003-05; Ex. 151 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20555; Ex. 150 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20513-522; Ex. 122 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20070-72; Ex. 144 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20450; Ex. 142 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20401; Ex. 133 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20233; Ex. 123 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20098-99; Ex. 124 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20105; Ex. 126 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20108; Ex. 125 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20106, Ex. 127 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20116; Ex. 118 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20018-19; Ex. 131 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20208-09; Ex. 132 to 3rd Engel
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 31 of 78
32
Aff., STP20213-20216; Ex. 146 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20472. Ex. 138 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20369-70; Ex. 139 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP 20374-75; Ex. 121 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20052-56 (mold in mildew, Basement keeps flooding, water around foundation); Ex. 116 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP19980-82 “Don’t think this office can take action”.
PHA has a history of being subject to serious health and safety complaints on it properties. Ex. 121 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20055, STP 20052-56 (1375 Jessie Street, August 2000, mold and mildew, basement keeps flooding, water around foundation - refer complaint to PHA “City owned.” Also, 5-1-03 note, “Left message for PHA Will check in a week”; Ex. 119 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20036-37; Also 1653 Ford Parkway, Ex. 120 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP20050-51 (6/17/05 “Mold thru-out the house,” 5 ½ years of mold problems - “Public Housing has been working with the tenant for over 5 years for mold problem”. Other PHA homes also appear to be frequently subject to mold growth and wet basements. Ex. 204 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22803, Ex. 205 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22807-08.
PHA records of its Iowa Hi-Rise shows that 62-85 showers units showers and adjacent sheetrock walls in apartment closets and kitchens were found to have deadly mold growth – showers leaks had been reported over the years. Ex. 195 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA21735, Ex. 196 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA21751-752; Ex. 197 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA21778; Ex. 186 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA17714; Ex. 187 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA17716-17. PHA homes also appear to be frequently subject to mold growth and wet basements. Ex. 204 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22803; Ex. 205 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22806-08. PHA has a variety of other problems with proper maintenance of its public rental units. Ex. 188 to 3rd
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 32 of 78
33
Shoemaker Aff., PHA17827-36. The City could not produce any enforcement documentation showing that these serious health and safety problems were of a concern to the City.
PHA “PROBLEM PROPERTIES”
PHA and the City have long recognized that PHA, while maintaining “high performer” status under HUD regulations, owns and manages significant numbers of “problem properties” due to criminal behavior of residents, guests and third parties on PHA properties. Ex. 202 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22440; Ex. 203 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22475-476. Since 1991, the City and PHA have had a special partnership called “ACOP” whereby a platoon of City police are devoted solely to policing PHA family developments. Ex. 161 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA656-660. The City police services under ACOP are above and beyond the “baseline” police services PHA is provided with like any other resident or business in the City. Ex. 160 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA0591(2003 ACOP contract). At times, there are arrests of PHA residents and gang activity. Hester (1st), 146-48. The City has received over $8 million from PHA for supplemental police services since 1991. Ex. 159 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA585.
PHA and the City submitted grant applications for ACOP through the 1990s and funding continued through 2001. Ex. 162 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA3194-3390 (1999 DEP application). PHA’s PHDEP application for 1999 for funding for two years through 2001 shows that PHA and City knew criminal activity was so extensive at PHA rentals that City and PHA needed federal funds to combat the crime in PHA properties. Id.
PHA has “problem properties” and police officers live in PHA Hi-Rises. Ex. 162 to
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 33 of 78
34
3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA3248. Thereafter, PHA used capital funds to help fund this special policing arrangement. PHA and the City see the ACOP program as being very necessary for a number of reasons including to keep the lid on significant criminal gang activity in and around PHA properties. Ex. 162 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA3313-14 – Chief Finney letter 5-27-99, re - problems and strategy).
The City and PHA detail the significant criminal activity at PHA properties that supports their conclusion that PHA owns and manages “Problem Properties”. Ex. 162 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA 3194-3390; (drug related crime and gangs in PHA – Ex. 163 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA4114-4125; Ex. 156 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA283-285; Ex. 158 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA408-417; Ex. 155 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., 271-272. PHA understands that definition of “problem properties: “loosely defined as those [properties] having numerous code violations, police calls and criminal activity, and/or poor property management practices.” Ex. 193 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA21332, Ex. 194 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA21356; Ex. 199 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22191; Ex. 201 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22206-208; Ex. 202 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22440, Ex. 203 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22475-476; Ex. 204 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22803, Ex. 205 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA22806-08. City Police reports for criminal activity connected to PHA rental properties were sent to Assistant Chief Reding, a member of the PHA Board. P Ex. 157 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA288-307 (reports during 2003-2004).
CITY POLICE OFFICIAL SERVED ON PHA BOARD
In October 2001, Assistant Chief of Saint Paul Police, Tom Reding, was appointed to a
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 34 of 78
35
five year term on the PHA Board of Commissioners thus providing the City with a “bird’s eye view of PHA’s entire rental operation. Ex. 198 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA022029 - 45. Reding served on the PHA Board from October 2001 forward even partnering with Dawkins in the City’s crackdown on so called “Problem Properties in 2003 and 2004. Ex. 198 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff., PHA022029-022045. In March 2004, Reding worked with Dawkins in preparing a training bulletin to police officers on how to work with code enforcement against private landlords. Ex. 105 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP0582-83.
ARGUMENT
Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment as requested in their memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment because there is sufficient record evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact as to each contested cause of action. Summary judgment must be denied because, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and after all reasonable inferences based on the evidence are made in the Plaintiffs’ favor, there are genuine issues of material fact upon which a reasonable fact-finder could decide in favor of the Plaintiffs.
The party requesting summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying the pleadings, admissions, discovery documents and affidavits that it contends show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings to designate specific facts that raise a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. The evidence produced by the non-moving
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 35 of 78
36
party need not be in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. Id. at 324.
A genuine issue of material fact exists if: (1) there is a dispute of fact; (2) the disputed fact is material to the outcome of the case; and (3) the dispute is genuine in that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party. RSBI Aerospace, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 49 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir. 1995). When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Enterprise Bank v. Magna Bank of Missouri, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996); RSBI Aerospace, Inc., 49 F.3d at 401. Moreover, this circuit has held that summary judgment in a civil rights action is inappropriate where there are genuine factual disputes. See Gainor v. Rogers, 973 F.2d 1379, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1992); Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465, 473 (8th Cir. 1995).
I.
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING AND HAVE PRODUCED RECORD EVIDENCE TO RAISE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO BOTH DISPARATE IMPACT AND DISPARATE TREATMENT CLAIMS.
A.
Plaintiffs have standing to bring claims under the Fair Housing Act.
The City does not dispute that Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring its FHA claims. Rather, the City attacks the Plaintiffs’ prudential standing. The test for prudential standing is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff's position a right to judicial relief. The
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 36 of 78
37
Supreme Court has held a party need not be a member of a protected class to suffer harm from discrimination.” Oti Kaga, Inc. v. South Dakota Housing Development Authority, 342 F.3d 871, 881 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The 8th Circuit recognized “the need to construe prudential standing broadly to vindicate the rights of citizens trammeled by illegal discrimination.” Id. at 882. Oti Kaga, despite being a corporation and not a member of any protected class, was held to have prudential standing because the discrimination affected its economic interests and “permitting Oti Kaga to prosecute the discrimination claims will effectuate the purpose of the Fair Housing Act’s anti-discrimination provisions and recognize Congress’s intent under the Fair Housing Act to extend standing to the full limits of Art. III” Id. at 882.
B.
Plaintiffs have presented evidence of disparate impact due to Defendants’ violation of the Fair Housing Act
Proof of a disparate impact claim requires a showing that a facially neutral policy has a significant adverse impact on members of a protected minority group. Oti Kaga, Inc., 342 F.3d at 883. Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims fail because the policy at issue is not facially neutral. If that were the case, the policy would be facially discriminatory and no further analysis would be necessary. However, the analysis looks to the impact of the policy, which must be significantly adverse to members of a protected class. In the present case, the Defendants’ policy of targeting non-PHA low income housing with excessive code enforcement results in less choice in housing for the protected-class individuals seeking affordable housing because it drives private landlords who have
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 37 of 78
38
affordable rental options out of the rental market.
Plaintiffs as a group had or have a higher percentage of people of color and disabled “protected class” in their properties. Plaintiffs were targeted – PHA was not. Plaintiffs have scattered site properties with over two times the number of Blacks occupying their privately owned units than Blacks occupying the PHA scattered site homes. Why? Maybe it is because the City cannot control the private market’s decision as to who should be allowed the freedom and privacy of a home in the inner city at affordable rates with the benefits of public transportation and community.
The City controls the number of Blacks and other minorities that can get into PHA scattered site homes by controlling the Board of Commissioners who are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council. The City went for further control in 2001 by making sure one of its senior police officials sat on the PHA board.
While Defendants using CDBG funds for code enforcement went after Plaintiffs for alleged behavior problems, the City and PHA were working together with federal funding to handle even worse behavior issues at and inside PHA properties. PHA’s problems were costing the taxpayer lots of money, yet Defendants failed to even mention “PHA” in the City’s 2002 Problem Property report where the City claimed the private market was costing the public so much money that the City was justified in cracking down on the private market.
The City had tools in place from 1995 forward for recouping its costs of police and code services but decided not to use those tools.
The City forcibly requires only the private market to bear the excessive costs of “code
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 38 of 78
39
compliance inspections and certifications” with corresponding removal of State Building Code grandfathering protections, application of “current codes,” and resulting increase in costs to the private owners – removing those properties from the rental market for months in the short term during the “code compliance,” and forcing many owners into financial crisis, with abandonment, foreclosure, and reduction in low-income housing stock available for the 10,000 families waiting for housing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SSe
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
JEFF KUBITSCHEK
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Jeff Kubitschek, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
EXHIBIT 78
1. I am a resident of White Bear Township, Minnesota, and have resided there for
7 years. I am married and have 3 children and 3 step-children.
2. I was born in Saint Paul and raised White Bear Lake, Minnesota and graduated
from White Bear Lake High School in 1984. My wife Sara Kubitschek and I
started in the business of providing rental housing in the City of S1. Paul in
1999.
3. I have worked at Seven Comers hardware store in St. Paul for over 17 years.
Working in S1. Paul and as a rental property owner in S1. Paul, I would drive
by our rental properties on almost a daily basis. I would visit and provide
service at one ofthe properties at least two times per week.
4. Our single family and duplex rental homes were located in neighborhoods in
where based upon Iny personal observations over many years, there has been a
large concentration of older housing stock. See Exhibit No.1 attached hereto,
Exhibit C to Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories, which is a list of the rental
properties I owned during 2002 through 2006 by property address; Exhibit No.
2 attached hereto, a list of my properties including year built and census tract;
and Exhibit No.3 attached hereto, a map showing the location of each of my
rental properties during 2002 through 2006.
5. We were owners of four (4) rental properties within the City of S1. Paul,
including properties located at 1086 Minnehaha East, 883/885 Sims, 668 York,
and 748/750 Desoto. Seven (7) of the eight (8) tenants received Section 8
assistance or other assistance. All eight (8) of our tenants were members of a
2
EXHIBIT 78
protected class. In each of our rental properties that housed Section 8 tenants,
we passed the PHA inspection before being approved for receipt of Section 8
rent subsidies.
6. The tenant market for our residential rental properties would be considered
Class C - properties that have minimal amenities for low income individuals,
but are safe and decent affordable housing. Our rents were below market as I
focused on providing housing primarily to low-income.
7. Our rental homes were in the neighborhoods of the City where based upon my
personal observations, there is and has been a heavy concentration of
minorities since I began providing low-income individuals and families with
housing. See Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 attached hereto, described above; and also
Exhibit No. 3 attached hereto, a map showing the location of these properties
and the respective percentage of minority population throughout S1. Paul's
census tracts.
8. Since starting our rental business in 1999, I have worked on a daily basis in the
City of S1. Paul. During that same period, many days I would spend many
hours at my rental properties looking for exterior issues like trash and graffiti,
etc., and working on my properties. I also responded to my tenants' requests
for repairs or other assistance, meeting with potential renters and at times
meeting with, talking with neighbors, meeting with City inspectors, obtaining
permits from City Hall, dealing with contractors on improvement or repair
3
EXHIBIT 78
Issues, traveling between my rental homes, and to and from hardware and
horne improvement stores.
9. My wife and I attempted to screen tenants and deal with behavior issues
without having city provided resources. During the time we owned rental
properties, the City demanded that we and other landlords screen potential
tenants more effectively.
10. Many of my former tenants were good tenants and did not cause complaints
from neighbors or others. I believe in giving everyone a fair opportunity to
live in the City. As long as my tenants met their obligations to me under the
lease and did not cause problems, they could continue to live in my properties.
11. If one of my tenants became a problem, once I was notified of the problem, I
would work to resolve the issue including working with the City police
department to address claimed criminal behavior.
12. Starting in 2002, we experienced increased code enforcement activity on our
rental portfolio, which included exterior and interior inspections, city orders,
shortening of timelines for fixing any claimed deficiency, charging of fees for
excessive use of city services when deficiencies should have been called all at
once, interference with our ability to comply by delayed notices so that we
couldn't get orders remedied, and sending mailings to the wrong or old
addresses.
13. Between 2002 and 2005, the City claimed it was applying its higher standard
consistently across the City. During this period, the City code inspectors under
4
EXHIBIT 78
Dawkins conducted code sweeps in the neighborhoods of our low-incoine
rental properties. In order to ensure that we were not in violation of the higher
standards, I had to take significant efforts to increase the monitoring and
maintenance of our properties.
14. Starting in the fall of 2002 and continuing through 2005, the City's increased
code enforcement activity directed at our rental portfolio interfered with my
ability to attend to my rental business and prohibited me from working to
prepare unoccupied rental homes for re-rental, to communicate with the many
individuals who were seeking housing, and to monitor Iny other rental
properties.
15. Prior to the late fall of 2002, I had always been responsive to City inspections
and repair orders on my rental properties and my relationship with inspectors
had been good.
16. Before I realized the city implemented a heavy handed code enforcement
policy and shortened the timelines for addressing issues - I attempted to
respond to orders and address issues - this increased burden took a substantial
amount of time. Instead of getting rental properties ready for turnover, we
were forced to spend more time addressing targeting by the City for heightened
standard orders - which allowed less time turning over units or other tenant
issues. In an effort to meet the city's elevated standard, I made more visits to
our properties to check and confinn the allegations of the code enforcement
officers and to take care of the issues cited in the orders. The more orders we
5
EXHIBIT 78
received, the more time intensive it became. It became clear that the increase
in orders from the City would mean more time and funding required attending
to those orders, attending administrative hearings, and City induced court
actions.
17. Search warrants were executed at 883/885 Sims on January 20, 2005, when a
law enforcement raid was made on both properties. Both 883 and 885 Sims
were occupied by protected class melnbers receiving Section 8 or other
assistance. Law enforcement officers broke down the doors of both Sims
properties and proceeded with their search; City police trashed the inside of
both properties and inspectors contemporaneously condemned the property.
18. After the raid, Dawkins, through FORCE code enforcement officer Lippert,
sent a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated January 21, 2005.
See Exhibit No.4.
19. The January 21, 2005, Notice of Condemnation stated that the principal
violations were general filthy conditions and infestation of cockroaches. On
January 24, 2005, we hired "Be There Pest Control" to exterminate any
cockroaches in the building. We removed the principal violations noted in the
Notice of Condemnation, which states "Authorization to reoccupy this/these
dwelling units(s) will not be given until it is demonstrated that all principal
violations have been corrected..."
20. On January 25, 2005, my wife Sara faxed a letter to Dawkins along with the
exterminator invoice as well and requested cooperation as one of the tenants
6
EXHIBIT 78
not present at the police raid was cleaning her unit and wanted to occupy her
home again. See Exhibit No.5.
21. We were not allowed to reoccupy the property without a code compliance,
because FORCE inspector Lippert immediately referred the property to the
City's Vacant Building department on January 20, 2005. See Exhibit No.6.
22. On January 26, 2005, after we had removed the principal violations listed in
the Notice of Condemnation, and after faxing a letter and pest control receipt to
Dawkins, Magner sent us a Vacant Building Registration Notice stating that
the premises at 883 Sims had been inspected and found to meet the definition
of a Vacant Building as described in the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter
43, and informing us that they were required to pay a $250.00 vacant building
registration fee and that the enforcement officer might declare the building to
constitute a nuisance building subject to demolition. See Exhibit No.7.
23. We proceeded to pay the $250.00 fee and James Seeger from the City's LIEP
office inspected 883-885 Sims on February 25, 2005, and sent us his three page
code compliance list. See Exhibit No.8.
24.For ten months we were involved with contractors spending time, money and
effort in order to satisfy the City and get a certificate of code compliance. We
lost rental income from our tenants and were unable to afford to pay for the full
"code compliance" Defendants wrongfully demanded in order to again rent our
duplex. See Exhibit No.9. Because of the large expenditures required to
comply with the code compliance on the Sims property, we eventually had to
7
EXHIBIT 78
sell a duplex rental property located at 1086 Minnehaha, which was rented to
members of a protected class receiving Section 8 assistance, because we could
not make the payments without the rental income. We also expended
thousands of dollars in order to meet the code compliance demands of
Defendants, and lost our business expectancy, including profits and now
attorney's fees.
25. On March 9, 2005, an inspection was conducted by Kelley Booker and a
Correction Notice issued for 748 Desoto due to storm doors in disrepair,
windows and/or door screens in disrepair, and windows and/or storm windows
in a state of disrepair. Both 748 and 750 Desoto were occupied by protected
class members receiving Section 8 or other assistance.
26. The City had labeled this property as a "problem property," with a desire to
remove the "problem tenant" due to "police and code issues at the property."
See Exhibit No. 10.
27. On August 3, 2005, Dawkins sent a Notice of the City's intent to revoke the
rental registration certificate for 748 Desoto, stating that he had determined
that the use and occupancy of the premises at 748 Desoto constituted a
nuisance under Chapter 51 of the legislative code because police officers had
been called to a loud party, because of cOlnplaining neighbors, and because of
code violations such as rotting and broken window sills, screens cut around
window air conditioners, gutters plugged with leaves, and a broken screen door
or no screen. Dawkins further stated that he recommended that the City
8
EXHIBIT 78
Council revoke the rental registration certificate, and if revoked, occupancy
would not be allowed until an inspection was conducted by his department
(NHPI) and the property was in compliance. Dawkins requested a call from us
as soon as possible to set up a meeting to discuss how to correct this situation
before the City Council revoked the certificate. See Exhibit No. 11.
28. We contacted Dawkins pursuant to his letter and Dawkins told us that we
needed to find new tenants. At Dawkins request and in the hopes of saving our
rental registration certificate, we served a notice of lease termination on one
tenant, and begged Dawkins to allow us to keep an existing tenant.
29.At Dawkins request, we signed a Certification of Rental Registration NonRevocation
Agreement, whereby we agreed with Dawkins to evict a tenant by
voluntary Notice to Quit or Unlawful Detainer. See Exhibit No. 12.
30. When I met personally with Dawkins to sign the Certification of Rental
Registration Non-Revocation Agreement to remove our tenants in both 748
Desoto and 668 York, Dawkins told me, as he patted me on the back, that "If
we had more landlords like you in this city, we could clean this place up."
31.In January of 2006, we received a Landlord Verification Form from PHA
requesting information to determine eligibility for public housing for the very
same tenant that Dawkins forced us to remove under threat of revoking our
rental registration. Our report to the PHA on the tenant we were forced to
remove was very positive - rent was always paid on time, she was a pleasant
and cooperative person, and we would re-adlnit her. See Exhibit No. 13.
9
EXHIBIT 78
32. We have suffered damages and lost rental income, lost business expectancy,
including profits and now attorney's fees, as a direct result of Defendants'
conduct.
33. In July of 2007, Defendant Schiller issued a Work Order to remove trash from
the yard and alley at the DeSoto property, as well as from "inside of the metal
shed." Again in January of 2008, Schiller issued a work order to remove trash
froln ~~inside of the garage." The City removed some of our personal items
from inside of our shed. See Exhibit No. 14.
34. In January of 2008, 748 DeSoto was designated a Vacant Building, again with
a code compliance requirement. See Exhibit No. 15.
35. On May 11, 2004, an inspection was conducted by Kelly Booker and a
Correction Notice issued for 668 York due to unpainted wood trim around
windows and a mattress in the alley behind the property. We had installed a
new window and were in the process of adding the trim and paint around the
new window. See Exhibit No. 16. Both units at 668 York were occupied by
protected class members receiving Section 8 or other assistance.
36. On May 20, 2004, another inspection was conducted by Kelly Booker and a
Correction Notice issued for 668 York due to a mattress in the back yard off
the alley. We also received an excessive consumption notice and $50.00 fine
from Dawkins for the cost ofthe re-inspection. See Exhibit No. 17.
10
EXHIBIT 78
37. The City had labeled this property as a "problem property," with a desire to
remove the "problem tenant" due to "police issues at the property." See
Exhibit No. 18.
38. On July 28, 2005, we received from Dawkins a Notice of the City's intent to
revoke the rental registration certificate for 668 York, stating that he had
determined that the use and occupancy of the premises at 668 York constitutes
a nuisance under Chapter 51 of the legislative code because of numerous police
calls and because police officers had been called to the premises after the son
of the tenant had a dispute with his brother and shot and wounded him in the
back. According to Dawkins letter, the son of the tenant was charged with
"possession of a firearm by an ineligible." Dawkins further stated that he
recommended to the City Council that they revoke the rental registration
certificate, and if revoked, occupancy is not allowed until an inspection is done
by his department (NHPI) and he has determined the property to be in
compliance with city code and no longer a nuisance. Dawkins ended his letter
requesting a call as soon as possible to set up a meeting to discuss how to
correct this situation before City Council revoked the certificate. See Exhibit
No. 19.
39. We contacted Dawkins pursuant to his letter and Dawkins told us that we
needed to find new tenants. At Dawkins request and in the hopes of saving our
rental registration certificate, we served a notice of lease termination on both
tenants.
11
EXHIBIT 78
40. At Dawkins request, we signed a Certification of Rental Registration NonRevocation
Agreement, whereby we agreed with Dawkins to remove the
tenants from "both up and down" units by voluntary Notice to Quit or
Unlawful Detainer. See Exhibit No. 20.
41. This was the same meeting in which Dawkins told me, as he patted me on the
back, that "If we had more landlords like you in this city, we could clean this
place up."
42. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by
Defendants directed against us, we lost revenue and rental income and incurred
expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other expenses
43. Defendants' discriminatory and illegal code enforcement activity continues to
this day. Code enforcement officers prepared and mailed to us written
Correction Orders and Summary Abatement Orders on our rental properties
wherein they made petty, malicious and false statements about claimed code
violations; many of the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by the
code enforcement officers were false and calculated to make our properties
look bad.
44. Due to the volume of false and petty orders issued by Defendants, and due to
the behavior and items used by tenants which a landlord cannot control, we
attempted, but could not keep up with the City's requirements and therefore
incurred re-inspection fees and excessive consumption invoices.
45. As a direct result of the constant discrimination and illegal code enforcement
12
EXHIBIT 78
treatment and racketeering activity directed at us by said Defendants, all at the
direction or with the approval of Dawkins and Kelly, we were injured in our
rental business and incurred unnecessary expenses, fees and lost profits and we
were thereafter forced to sell at least one of our real estate investment
properties in the City. Other impacted rental property owners were forced to
sell properties as well.
46. Defendant Dawkins owns at least two properties in the City that have been
consistently in a state of disrepair and in serious violation of City Code.
Moreover, certain city inspectors own rental properties in the City and these
inspectors are recipients of preferential code enforcement treatment even
though their properties have multiple code violations.
47. Because of the shocking experience with City code enforcement methods
under Dawkins, the petty conduct by Dawkins and the inspectors, the large
amount of expenses I was forced to incur in a very small amount of time, the
losses of rental income I suffered, and the heightened code standards and
increased enforcement of those heightened code standards in the areas I owned
rental properties, and all the emotional stress this caused, we were forced to
sell or go into foreclosure on all of our single family and duplex rental
properties in the City in order to avoid financial disaster.
48. I incurred significant expenses from those sales transactions that I would have
not incurred but for the City's "forced sale" policy.
49. The city's heightened code standards and increased code enforcement against
13
EXHIBIT 78
me, my rental homes and tenants during 2002 through 2005, was a barrier to
my ability to provide affordable housing to my minority and low-income
tenants and to other "protected class" individuals that were seeking affordable
housing in the City during that time period.
50. I continued to receive calls from prospective tenants looking for affordable
housing in the City of Saint Paul during 2002 through 2005 and during the
period I was in the process of selling the last of my rental homes to save my
investments.
51. I also suffered increased tax burdens due .to quick sales, and I incurred
substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs, and through permit and code
compliance fees.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 8-22-2008
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 22nd day ofAn~
~
Notary Public
Under Seal
14
MATTHEW A ENGEL
NOrARY PUBLIC - MINNESC>'T.'
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1-31-2011
PagDEFENDANTS UNDERSTOOD SIGNIFICANCE OF APPLYING CITY’S HEIGHTENED CODE TO OLDER PROPERTIES OCCUPIED DISPROPORTIONATELY BY PROTECTED CLASS
Dawkins knew that over-zealous enforcement would lead to wholesale abandonment of properties or the inner-city.” Ex. 108 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP 0658.
Dawkins also had a full understanding of what a “code compliance” meant. Bill Cullen depo pp. 211-212, 195, 211-212. Cullen and Royce said, Dawkins knew that it involved renovation that was greater than just maintenance issues - knew it was typically a substantial renovation of an older home and would have a significant financial effect in an adverse way on home owners and rental property owners.
Despite knowledge of that the City’s higher code standard, Defendant City, Mayor Kelly, Director Dawkins and Defendant inspectors, vigorously applied that code in violation of their affirmative duty to further federal fair housing policies. This is reason alone for this Court to deny Defendants’ motion and send this case to the jury.
There are few properties in Saint Paul where a determined inspector could not find a violation of some City ordinance. City’s Chronic Problem Property Case Study, 2002, 4007.
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 39 of 78
40
In 2006, the City conducted a study of 2005 Truth-in-Sale of Housing inspection reports and determined that over 60% of the Reports selected showed homes that had serious violations of the City’s heightened codes.
In 2004 and 2006 through 2007, the City acquired additional housing inspection records of PHA’s rental housing stock that showed a similar high percentage of code deficiencies under City’s more stringent code standard.
Starting in 2002, under the direction of Defendants, the City applied its more stringent code standards to low-income rental properties in the inner city neighborhoods where a disproportionate percentage of residents were “protected class” and rent burdened under HUD definitions.
Defendants applied its more stringent code to low-income rental housing disproportionately occupied by “protected class” who also would be adversely affected by any policy of the City that displaced said “protected class” or in any other way adversely affected them, including by limited their rental choices, or through rent increases from landlords burdened with City regulatory fees such as rental registration fees, inspection fees, permit fees, excessive consumption fees, vacant building fees, forced renovation - “code compliance inspection and certification” fees, and other miscellaneous fees.
Defendants failed to provide resources they acknowledged were critical to survival of the privately owned low-income rental housing occupied disproportionately by “protected class.”
Defendants refused to work with the private rental owners and their “protected class”
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 40 of 78
41
tenants to resolve complex social issues including domestic abuse and other behavior issues, and failed to provide financial resources and other information to meet the City’s more stringent code, including the burdensome “Code Compliance”.
Plaintiffs and other private owners of low-income rental housing occupied by a disproportionate percentage of “protected class” were adversely affected by Defendants’ application of the City’s more stringent code, including from increased City fees, renovation costs, loss of rental income from wrongfully condemnations of rental properties, and were as a result forced to sell or abandon their rental properties. Plaintiffs’ “protected class” tenants were disproportionately affected by Defendants’ application of the City’s code and were subject to displacement from housing and inability to located replacement housing.e 40 Continuation
RESULT WAS PREDICTABLE – ABANDONMENT OF OLDER"
There is significant evidence of wholesale abandonment of inner city homes due to the increase in costs to own such homes to meet the City’s heightened standards. The City now has over 2,000 vacant homes compared to an average year of average 300-400. On March 31, 2003, there were 367 Vacant Buildings with Ward listed [Bates 0030167-176]; November 1, 2007 = 1466 . The City’s Mortgage Foreclosure Study in 2006 noted “foreclosed properties are or were disproportionately renter-occupied.”
The high number of vacant homes now unavailable for low-income housing, naturally results in fewer housing choices and more protected class on the waiting lists. Public Housing Director Jon Gutzmann stated that as of December 2006, there were over 6,000 households on
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 41 of 78
42
the PHA waiting list with waits of three to five years for availability and if the Section 8 waiting list was open, there would be 10,000 households on the list. Gutzmann, 60-63.
Only one out of five people who are eligible are being provided with affordable housing. Id. Gutzmann looks at PHA’s waiting list and can see an affordable housing crisis in the City. Id.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank 1. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) S5.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
FRANK J. STEINHAUSER, III
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Frank J. Steinhauser, II, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as
follows:
I. I am a resident of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, and have resided there for
25 years, having previously resided in St. Paul, Minnesota for 34 years.
2. I was born and raised in St. Paul and attended Central and Highland High
Schools.
3. At the height of my business, I owned 15 rental homes, which consisting of 23
rental units.
4. The tenant market for my residential rental properties would be considered
Class C - properties for low income individuals that have minimal amenities,
but arc safe and decent affordable housing. My rents were below market as I
focused on providing housing primarily to very low-income women with
children that were placed in my rental homes with the assistance of Project
Hope, a low-income tenant housing agency promoting permanent housing
options for the homeless, with partial funding from the Department of I-lousing
and Urban Development. More than ninety (90) percent of my tenants were
African-American women and children and other members of the "protected
class".
5. I made sure my rents were below market rate so those who needed housing
could afford to live in the City and so I could keep my vacancy rates low.
Over the years my rents ranged from $525.00 to $650.00 for a two bedroom
apartment, $650.00 to $1,000.00 for a three bedroom and $550.00 to $1,000.00
for a multi-bedroom single family home.
2
6. During 2002 through about 2004, I recall that I had three Section 8 tenants: my
tenant at 713 Charles was a Section 8 voucher holder; and tenants in both units
of my duplex at 953 \Vilson were Section 8 voucher holders. Prior to 2002, I
had Section 8 tenants for more than 15 years.
7. All of my single family and duplex rental homes were located in the
neighborhoods adjacent to the City'S inner core, where based upon my
personal observations over 24 years, there is and always has been, a large
concentration of older housing stock. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto, a true
and correct list of the addresses of rental homes I owned during 2002 through
2004 by property address and census tract; and maps showing the location of
each of my rental homes during 2002 through 2004 and NHPI Sweeps Maps.
8. All of my rental homes were in the neighborhoods where there is and has been
a heavy concentration of minorities since I began providing low-income
individuals and families with housing in 1984. Year after year, my tenants
were predominatcly people of color, mixed race couples, and disabled
individuals. During 2002 through 2004, my tenants included a majority of
"people of color" and included Section 8 recipients.
9. Since starting my rental business in 1984, I have on average made 8 visits to
the inner city of Saint Paul on a weekly basis. Most of the weeks and months
during the years of 1984 through 2004, I was in the inner city of Saint Paul
every day. During that same period, many days I would spend many hours at
my rental properties monitoring for trash and graffiti and other exterior issues,
3
working on my properties including responding to tenant requests for repairs or
other assistance, meeting with potential renters and at times meeting with lowincome
housing advocates for placement of their clients, talking with
neighbors to discuss problems in the neighborhood, meeting with City
inspectors, obtaining permits from City Hall, dealing with contractors on home
improvement or repair issues, traveling between my rental homes, to and from
hardware and home improvement stores, and to and from City Hall, and
meeting with the Police Department to discuss neighborhood problems,
attending block club meetings, attending court hearings for Unlawful Detainer
actions, and meeting with and taking phone calls from City council members
who wanted certain tenants evicted.
10. There were significant costs in maintaining my older rental homes including
very high costs fi'om tenant caused damages that are typically not reimbursed
because those costs could not be collected due to the financial position of the
tenants and lack of resources including employment, and also Statutory
protections against Garnishment.
11. The City has acknowledged that low-income rental properly owners need
resources to help in the maintenance of their properlies and to deal with
"protected class" renters.
12. Other than through the PP2000 City code inspection program, the federal
Seclion 8 program and the Project Hope low-income rental housing placement
programs, and one time in the 1980s, I have never received any resources from
4
the City or federal government to assist me in renovations or repairs to my
older rental properties. No one from the city, including the inspectors, ever
identified for me any programs that would provide me with resources that I
needed to continue to provide affordable housing in the City.
13. From the fall of 2002 and continuing thereafter, I received no assistance from
the City to help me meet the City's heightened code enforcement standards.
14.1 attempted to screen tenants and deal with behavior issues without having city
resources. Over the years the City has constantly demanded that I screen better
but the City's Police Department has refused to provide me with the necessary
police reports and records I would need to comply with the City's demands,
nor will the city teIl anyone what standards landlords should use for screening.
15. Over the years, most of my tenants have been good tenants and have not
caused complaints from neighbors or others. I believe in giving everyone a fair
opportunity to live in the City and if they keep the terms of the lease with me, I
will continue to provide them with housing.
16. Occasionally, one of my tenant's family members or guest's behavior would be
the basis of a complaint by a neighbor and the City. Once I was noti lied of the
problem, I would work to resolve the issue including working with the City
police department to effectively address claimed criminal behavior. When
presented with solid evidence of criminal or nuisance behavior of one of my
tenants, I would take action to commence lawful eviction proceedings in the
local court system.
5
17. Over the years, I have found it very difficult to get the City through its police
and City Attorneys to hold any of my tenants accountable for their nuisance or
criminal behavior - the police would not arrest the tenant or other party
responsible for the criminal behavior or if there was an arrest, no charges were
ever filed. The City Police would not even take action against a tenant for
writing bad checks.
18. \Vhen I would attempt to take action against my tenants for their nuisance
behavior or other breaches of the lease, including chronic non-payment of rent,
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services ("SMRLS") would often attempt
to stop me from enforcing my rights. My understanding is that the City funds
about one half of the expenses of SMRLS operation. SMRLS would also
attempt to convince the tenant to sue me to get all of their money back if the
tenant claimed the property was not up to code, and that the tenant bring suit
under a Tenant Remedies Action, when the actual housing code violations
were solely related to tenant caused damage.
19. I received an award from the City in my role as a provider of rental housing in
the City for being a good landlord and as City appreciation for my significant
efforts in making the neighborhood a better place to live. My "Certificate of
Appreciation" was signed by the Mayor, a City Council member, and the
President of the District 4 Council. As a part of this award, the city even took
me out to dinner along with a very small group of other exemplary landlords to
6
show their appreciation. Sec Exhibit No.2, attached hereto, Bates No.
0011243.
20. In approximately 1999, I met with City inspectors to discuss complaints that
had been made over a period of time against my properties, against me and
against my tenants.
21. After a meeting with Code Enforcement regarding my properties, there was
just one inspector assigned to all of my properties. If there was a complaint or
an issue on one of my properties, then it would always be that same inspector
who contacted me. His name was Jeff Hawkins. When there was a problem,
rather than writing orders and sending them in the mail, the inspector would
call me on the phone. Most of the time when this happened I was right in the
area or would be later in the day.
22. The PP2000 system worked very well for both inspector Hawkins, myself, and
sometimes for the tenant also because I could address the issue much sooner
and achieve compliance without wasting the time of follow up phone calls and
questions, and then more phone calls and follow up to let the inspector know
the problem had been rectified. I greatly appreciated the savings in time and I
am sure the inspector and the City and neighbors had to appreciate gaining
compliance almost immediately rather than the delays of the inspector writing
and mailing an order and my receipt of such an order. It was a win-win
situation for all concerned. When a tenant was complaining because I was
trying to enforce my lease agreement regarding non-payment of rent or for
7
behavior issues that were brought to my attention by neighbors, or evicting thc
tcnant for damaging my property, the PP2000 inspector was smart enough to
know when this was happening and allowed me the time to remove the tenant
from the property in order to stop the damage or rectify the behavior issue
before I started addressing the issues the City had with the property.
23. Complaints against my propertics dropped off considerably during and after
the PP2000 program due to my being able to work with inspectors Hawkins
and Joel Essling to resolve issues with physical conditions or tenant behavior at
my rental properties. During the PP2000 program, I continucd my monitoring
of all of my rental properties on a daily basis.
24. During 200 I through 2004, I did not change any of the things I had bccn
commcndcd for in the PP2000 program, as I continucd to frcqucntly monitor
my rental homes, respond in a timely manner to all requests from my tenants
for assistance, and work with City inspectors and City police on all issues
brought to my attention. I also continued to invest in my propcrties where
necessary to maintain all of my properties to proper City codes.
25. Councilmember Kathy Lantry has had it in for me as a low-income landlord in
the City since 1998. She has known since 1998 that I rent primarily to lowincome
African-Americans.
26. Prior to what I perceived was an increase in code enforcement and a
heightened code enforcement standard applied to my rental properties in the
fall of 2002, Councilmember Lantry would frequently call me to inform me
8
that neighbors of my rental properties were complaining about my tenants.
Ms. Lantry told me that I was single handedly destroying the property values in
the neighborhoods where those rental properties were located.
27. My Attorney and I met with Kathy Lantry in her office concerning one of my
properties at 910 6'" St. I was shocked to find out that she must have conducted
a criminal background check on one of my tenants when she made the
statement to me that she was shocked that I would even rent to this tenant
because he had been convicted of a felony 5 years previous. This AfricanAmerican
tenant had moved into the downstairs apartment of my property to
be able to care for a relative living in the upstairs unit who had severe medical
problems and would have had to go live in a nursing home without assistance.
28. After much pressure from Lantry, I did evict the tenant and in the aftermath of
that, the neighbors told me that crime had increased because this tenant was no
longer there watching things as he had been previously. The relative he cared
for became so upset over the possibility of having to go to a nursing home that
he had a heart attack and died.
29. It was my distinct impression that the neighbors who were complaining were
biased against my African-American tenants. Some neighbors refused to even
let me introduce them to new tenants who were moving in to my 910 6'" St.
property. As soon as they saw that the tenants were African-American, they
would just walk away one of them making a remark that they were just
going to sell their property. This attitude was pretty much the same for every
9
neighborhood in the inner City I owned property in. The neighbors did not like
African-Americans living there and they were not shy in letting me know.
30. Starting in about the ntll of 2002, the City suddenly increased its code
enforcement activity on five of my fifteen rental homes.
31. The increased code enforcement attention directed against me and my rental
homes and business included exterior and interior inspections, fabricated
correction orders, shortening of timelines for fixing any claimed deficiency,
f~1lse condemnations and the illegal requirement of Code Compliance
certifications on two of my rental homes, two civil lawsuits, and the
encouragement of three of my tenants to start discrimination claims against me
with the City's Human Right Department, all at the same time. Those three
claims were all ruled as "unfounded" by that Department of the City.
32. The City's increased code enforcement activity against my rental homes
interfered with my ability to attend to my rental business and prohibited me
from working to prepare unoccupied rental homes for re-rental, to
communicate with the many individuals who were seeking housing, to monitor
my other rental properties, to assist my other minority tenants with their
requests, and to continue meeting with tenants and neighbors as had been a
normal practice in my business. Not being able to "network" with my tenants
decreased tenant referrals to me and increased my vacancy rate and at the same
time my contact at the referral agency for people needing a place to live
stopped sending me tenants because her agency was being funded by the City.
10
This coordinated effort by the City cost me many thousands of dollars III
losses.
33. Instead of being able to handle the normal needs of my rental business, I was
forced to spend more time addressing the correction orders and condemnations
and "Code Compliance" inspection and certification process from the City's
heightened code enforcement standards.
34. Starting in the fall of 2002, in an effort to meet the city's new elevated
standards, I made more visits to my rental homes to check and confirm the
allegations of the code enforcement oft1cers and to take care of the issues on
the orders. The more orders I received, the more time intensive it became. It
became clear that the increase in orders from the City would mean more time
required attending to those orders, attending administrative hearings to
challenge the merits of the orders, and possible City induced court actions. At
one point, I was driving by every single one of my 15 properties morning, noon
and night to make sure there wasn't s much as a piece of paper on the ground
for fear that the City would issue another order and take further action to
penalize me.
35. Sara Anderson, a case worker with Project I-lope, worked with me on more
than ten occasions in placing her homeless clients into my rental properties in
the City. Ms. Anderson performed inspections of the rental units before
placing her clients into my units. She even placed her own family members
into my rental units. She and I worked together during 2002 on placements.
11
36. Prior to the fall of 2002, I had always been responsive to inspections and repair
orders on my rental properties and generally my relationship with City
inspectors had been good.
37.0n October 8,2002, Sara Anderson and I met with Dawkins for the purpose of
discussing my duplex located at 910 6th Street East that one of Project Hope's
elients had been leasing for a couple of months. Dawkins said that the City's
new code enforcement policies had been approved by Kelly, and Dawkins had
talked to certain court personnel and had been assured that the Com1 would
treat any violations of the new rules "as serious offenses" and that the Court
would go along with enforcement of the new housing policies.
38. On October 8, 2002, Dawkins also stated that the City was going to start
looking at the volume of police calls from every rental property and that the
properties with the higher number of calls and police service would be
aggressively targeted by the City for housing code enforcement. He said
Mayor Kelly wanted him to get rid of the "problem tenants," the people in the
nuisance properties. Dawkins had a large flow chart representing the way the
City was going to respond to complaints regarding rental properties. He stated
the City would help the landlords in court in evicting "problems tenants" and
that the City wanted to do background and police checks on all tenants that I
and other landlords were renting to and would be renting to. Dawkins said that
he and others wanted to gain access to the inside of all rental properties before
tenants moved into the units, and gain access to all of the rental units of Project
12
Hope clients, either before or after the tenants moved in. I offered to let his
staff come in and look at any property I owned. I also told him that I had been
working on the issues at 910 6th St and that most of the Police calls to that
address were for Domestic issues and that Minnesota Statutes didn't allow me
to evict the tenant for that reason. See Exhibit No.3, attached hereto, Bates
No. STP0017 & 0018
39. At the October 8, 2002, meeting with Dawkins, I showed Dawkins a list of
other properties in the neighborhood of my 910 6th East duplex that had
obvious external code violations; these properties had problems that the City
claimed it was concerned about. I asked Dawkins why the City was focusing
on my properties when there were so many other properties ncar my properties
that had significant problems, especially since at this particular point in time I
had been at the property most days doing work and/or monitoring behavior
issues I had heard about from some neighbors. I told Dawkins that I was
taking care of my properties and that people should not be complaining.
Dawkins did not respond to these issues but he told me and Ms. Anderson that
he and the City would work with us. I agreed to have my potential tenants
screened by the City. Dawkins then shook our hands and the meeting ended.
40. FolIowing the October 8, 2002 meeting, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen
continued their course of conduct directed at me and my Project Hope tenants
to shut down my rental business or at least dramatically increase my rental
business costs and expenses that would either force me to sell off my rental
13
properties in the City or force me to no longer rent to African-Americans.
41. Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen were directly involved in the condemnation of my
properties located at 910 6th Street East and at 1024 Euclid.
42. On or about October 17, 2002, Martin and Officer Koehnen commenced an
inspection of my duplex property located at 910 6th Street East. At this time,
the upper unit was not inspected. Both tenants in this duplex home were
AfHcan-American mothers with children. The surrounding neighborhood was
occupied by predominately white families in single family homes.
43. Following this inspection, Martin prepared a Correction Notice dated October
18, 2002, and forwarded this Notice to me and my tenants by mail.
44. Martin's October 18, 2002, Correction Notice, contained false statements,
including that there was evidence of rodent infestation in the building, that
there were sanitation issues, that the foundation was deteriorated, and that there
was a lack of properly installed and operable smoke detectors. See Exhibit
No.4, attached hcrcto, Bates No. 0010268 and 0010269. Martin admitted in
her Deposition that the rat was in the yard and not in the building Martin
deposition, Vol. 2, pagc 522; see Officct' Kcohncn deposition, pagc 599.
Martin demanded that I remove "rodent harborages" in the yard, tuck-point and
repair the foundation to prevcnt re-infestation, and provide functioning smoke
detectors by October 21, 2002.
45. At the time of Martin's inspection, the smoke detectors were properly installed
in both units of the duplex; the tenants had simply removed the batteries. There
14
were no "rodent harborages" or sanitation issues present at the property
justifying Martin's false claims. However, the adjacent property had a large
volume of trash (at least 20 cubic yards) piled up in the backyard and this may
have been thc source of rodents in the area. Ilccausc of thc extensive trash on
the adjaccnt property, I had been baiting rats at my rental property for two
months prior to the inspection and my efforts had been successful as evidenced
by the dead rat Martin and Koehnen observed outside in the yard on or about
October 17, 2002. The building's foundation did not need tuck-pointing and
was not dcteriorated and was not a source of entry for vermin. I had
dctcrmined that my tcnants had frequently not closcd thc outsidc door to the
building and had dumped len-over food right outside the door.
46. Ancr the Octobcr 17, 2002, inspcction by Martin and Koehncn, I worked on
the other items listed in the October 18, 2002, Notice. I had met the city's
timeline and had all of the repairs required on the correction order completcd
on 10/21/02 which was the first due date for compliance on 6 of the 10 repairs
requested by the city. Exhibit No.5, Batcs No. 0010268 and 0010269 pagc 2
- duplicatc Batcs No. from abovc.
47. On or about October 22, 2002, Martin and Officer Koehnen re-inspected the
downstairs unit at 910 6th Street East. Martin and Officcr Koehnen also went
upstairs and knocked on the door of the upstairs rental unit at 910 6th Street
East and forced their way into that unit against my tenant's wishes and then
conducted an inspcction.
15
48. Following this re-inspection, Dawkins and Martin prepared a written Notice of
Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated October 23, 2002, and forwarded
this written Notice and Order to me and my renters through the mail. See
Exhibit No.6, attachcd hcrcto, Batcs No. 0000005, 5 Ilagcs.
49.ln the October 23, 2002, Condemnation Notice, Martin and Dawkins listed 18
items as being in violation of Code. Exhibit No.6. Many of these items listed
were false. It was false that the conditions present at my property constituted
"material endangerment" as the property did not lack a "basic facility" and was
not "infested with rats". Martin falsely stated that the building's foundation
was in a state of disrepair, that there was a lack of light fixtures, that there were
plumbing leaks, that the units were lacking deadbolt locks, that the storm doors
were in disrepair and that the furnace needed attention.
50. Martin and Keohnen claimed my false ceiling was in disrepair even though 1
put two new ceiling panels into it to replace two damaged ones that the tenant
had caused damage to. Martin and Keohnen tore out the two new panels and
threw them into the corner. The repair they wanted done was in the original
ceiling which was concealed and above the false ceiling. Some plaster had
fallen out years before and there was a small hole there above the false ceiling.
1 had owned property for 17 years prior to this inspection with the same false
ceiling and no inspectors from PI-lA's Section 8, or the City had ever removed,
asked or cared what was above the false ceiling tiles installed in this bedroom.
51. Many of the other items Iistcd by Dawkins and Martin on the first correction
16
order (Exhibit No.5) had actually been corrected by me by the time of the
October 22, 2002, re-inspection but when Dawkins and Martin realized I was
actually in compliance with the original orders issued just days before, they
escalated their attack on me by illegally entering the upstairs apartment against
the tenants will and proceeded to write down items to give a false impression
that I had not made any efforts toward compliance with their orders. Items I,
4,7, 8, II, 13, 16, 18 were t'llse claimed violations. Exhibit No.6, attached
hereto, Bates No. 0000005, 5 pages. Several violations on this list were
duplicated in order to make the problem appear bigger than it really was. The
violation for tuck pointing the foundation, which was totally false, was called
out in # I and 4. Violations 1/ 14 and 15 arc duplicative of each other except for
the addition of the word screen. \Vindow assemblies have a screen as a
component to them and calling out each is just a way of increasing the number
of violations to fit their agenda in stating a high number of violations to trigger
the city's illegal "code compliance" requirements and removal of State
grandfathering protections.
52. At all times there were deadbolt locks on all the apartment doors and there was
nothing wrong with the heating plants. When the code compliance certification
was completed, these items remain unchanged. The heating plants were also
inspected and tested by a licensed heating contractor. His test readings show
the heating plants be in safe working condition. Exhibit No.7, attached
hereto, Bates No. 0000041 and 0000042. This contractor is licensed to do
17
furnace repair work in the City of St. Paul.
53. Another example of the city's outrageous behavior against me and my rental
business is the way they have classified all the violations on these orders as
being "Principal Violations" which had to be corrected before the
condemnation would be lifted and my tenants could reoccupy their home. At
all times in the past, it had been the city policy to classify violations on
Condemnation Orders in two parts.. ... "Principal Violations" justifying
condemnation, and "Other Violations". Once the Principal Violations were
corrected, then the occupant could reoccupy with a later compliance date for
the other violations. Dawkins August 2002 Rules and Procedures stated that
very long standing rule. Exhibit No.8, attached hereto.. When one removes
the duplicate violations, and then removes the falsely stated violations, what if
len is the City condemning this property for 9 minor violations that are some
of the most common violations existing in all homes in the City.
54. The property immediately next to my property continued to have large piles of
of clearly visible trash, and that condition continued for nearly 3 months until
January or February 2003.
55. Sara Anderson from Project Hope and I met with Martin and Koehnen on
October 23, 2002 at the Housing Department office to discuss my 910 6th
Street duplex. Martin and Koehnen started out the meeting by screaming at me
and Ms. Anderson about what they claimed were condemnable conditions in
the building. They showed pictures of conditions they stated demonstrated
18
code violations at the property. I pointed out that some of the pictures actually
showed the items were in compliance with the codes. These were photos of
electrical wiring that was nmning outside of the wall and original ceiling, but
was covered up and protected by another false ceiling they had torn down in
the rear hallway of the building. This type of wiring installation is done all the
time and approved by St. Paul inspectors as well as other inspectors throughout
the State.
56. During this meeting, Koehnen, who is 6'8" tall and weighed over 300 pounds,
while leaning over the table in a threatening and intimidating manner,
screamed at me and Sara Anderson. I was shocked at his abusive,
inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. I left the meeting almost in tears, as
I could no longer stand the abusive treatment.
57. Following my meeting with Martin and Koehnen, Sara Anderson and I
inspected my rental building that Martin and Koehnen had just condemned.
We reviewed the October 23, 2002, Condemnation Notice while inspecting
both the upper and lower rental units in the building. Most of the code
violations stated by Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen in the Condemnation
Notice were false and that the Notice had been written in such a manner to
make both the rental units sound very substandard when in fact the units were
very habitable and were decent and safe.
58. As a result of the condemnation of my rental property at 910 6th Street East, my
African-American tenant LaChaka Cousette and children in the upper unit of
19
the duplex were forced to leave their home. They were happy there and did not
want to leave. The children were heartbroken. It was hard for Ms. Cousette to
find another place to rent. I had no other rental unit ready that I could rent to
her. She and her nunily had to live in more than 10 different places, staying
with friends, family or in shelters, until she could once again find a place of her
own. She also lost her job and finalIy many of her possessions for lack of a
place to take them to or financial resources to be able to store them because of
the forced eviction by the City through Dawkins, Martin and Keohnen.
59. After condemning my 910 6th Street East duplex, Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen,
and Assistant City Attorney Dolan, on October 30, 2002, filed an emergency
tenant remedies action by the City and the lower-unit tenant against me in
Ramsey County District Court. In the City's court action, Dawkins, Martin
and Attorney Dolan made false statements to the Court to shut down my rental
property and business and to increase my costs so as to interfere with my
ability to rent to "protectcd class" tenants.
60. Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, and Assistant City Attorney Dolan abused the
court process by lIsing the "emergency" action rather than a regular tenant
remedies action in order to seek greater sanctions against me when there was
no "emergency". In fact they had no basis for even bringing the lesser action
because those actions are designed to lise the courts to force landlords into
compliance when all else fails. I had been at my property working before they
inspected the property. I met the city's repair deadlines on time. I continued to
20
work at the property to finish the rest of the repairs even to the point where I
chose to have my Attorney represent me in court in my absence so I could stay
and work on the propel1y because complying with the proper codes is
important to me and I believe to my tenants also.
61. Dawkins made nllse sworn statements in the court papers including the
Complaint and Verification, that I had failed to comply with three previous
Correction Notices directed at my 910 6lh Street East property, and Dawkins,
Martin and Koehnen falsely stated that the property had a rat infestation,
inadequate heat, broken toilets and sinks, missing smoke detectors and
defective ceilings and walls. I received the City's Complaint, Verification and
attached City inspection records through the United States Post Oflice. They
also sent copies of City papers by facsimile to my Attorney.
62. As a result of the condemnation of my duplex and the lack of rental income
from the property, in an attempt to gain City approval to once again rent my
property, I agreed to bring my property up to code requirements through what
was represented to me by Dawkins, Martin, Keohnen and Assistant City
Attorney Dolan as a "code compliance" inspection to "as built" standards.
Martin faxed a list to my Attorney on my 1024 Euclid property indicating a
lesser level of compliance so my tenants could reoccupy their home. See
Exhibit No.9, attached hereto.
63. After my agreement to an "as built" "Code Compliance," Martin and Dawkins,
with assistance from Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan, forced me to
21
undergo a full "code compliance inspection and certification" process to
current or modern code standards instead of "as built" standards and they
thereby wrongfully removed my grandfathering protections under the State
Building Code. Exhibit No. 10; attached hereto, Bates No. 0010253 to
0010260. During the "Code Compliance" inspection by LIEf>, one of the City
employees James Seeger informed me, "The building is really not that bad ... if
you have a plugged toilet, you fix the toilet - you don't go get a Code
Compliance."
64. As a result of being subjected to the City's heightened code standards and
increased code enforcement, including City actions against my duplex rental
property located at 910 6th Street East, I lost rental incomes for many months
due to the targeting and illegal condemnations and code compliance
requirements. I also suffered substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs,
"Code Compliance" inspection and certification fees and legal expenses. I lost
rental incomes for many months due to the condemnation of that duplex,
incurred substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs, had to pay for City permit
and "code compliance inspection and certification" fees, had to incur the
substantial costs to renovate my duplex to the City's heightened standards to
meet the LIEf> certification.
65. Martin, Keohnen and Dawkins, and others working in concert with them,
including Martin's supervisor Steve Magner, and Community Stabilization
Project and its stafl~ coordinated their attacks against my 910 6th Street East
22
rental duplex with other illegal actions by City inspections at other properties I
owned during the same period. This included an inspection and condemnation
of a second rental property I owned at 1024 Euclid.
66. At the time of the City's code enforcement against me on all my properties, I
had African-American tenants resided in my 1024 Euclid duplex.
67. On October 25, 2002, as part of Martin and Keohnen's inspection of my
duplex rental unit located at 1024 Euclid, Martin and Koehnen once again
created false entries in their City inspection records regarding my property.
They then entered those false entries into a Notice of Condemnation dated
October 28, 2002, that was mailed by Martin and Dawkins to me and my
tenants through the United States Post Oftice. See Exhibit No. 11, attached
hereto, Bates No. Sec Bates No. 0010292 to 0010294.
68. The usc by Martin, Keohnen and Dawkins of the false entries of code
violations in their orders on my 1024 Euclid home then provided them with the
opportunity to claim that my rental home should be immediately condemned
on the basis of existing emergency conditions. That allowed them to force my
tenants from their rental units.
69. One of the false entries placed by Dawkins and Martin into the October 28,
2002, Condemnation Notice, included their assertion that 1024 Euclid was
subject to vermin infestation. The City's Code and Dawkins August 2002
Rules and Procedures required that there exist "serious infestation" of rats or
mice before the City could condemn a property in the City. At all times prior
23
to the fall of 2002, whenever I had acquired notice from one of my tenants or
from some other source including the City or a neighbor that there was an issue
concerning mice, rats 01' other pests, I had quickly responded to such notice
and either took corrective action myself or hired a professional exterminator to
handle and resolve the problem.
70. \Vhen the City and tenant finally allowed me access to my 1024 Euclid duplex
to conduct my own inspection, I along with my rodent exterminator determined
that there was no rodent infestation in the building and that there was no
evidence that there had ever been any rodents in the building. In fact, the
exterminator noted that no rat droppings could be found. Exhibit No. 12,
attachcd hcrcto, Batcs No. STP1762.
71. Another false entry deliberately and maliciously placed by Martin and
Dawkins in the same Notice of Condemnation was their false assertion that the
1024 Euelid building was without heat. This was falsely listed by Dawkins
and Martin on the Notice as constituting "material endangerment," in order to
falsely trigger the condemnation and a second Emergency Tenant Remedies
action in court against me.
72. Dawkins and Martin knew that their statements that the unit lacked heat were
false because when I was finally allowed entry into the unit, I discovered the
heat thermostat had simply been turned off by either the tenant or someone else
and there was nothing wrong with the heating systems that served both units at
1024 Euclid. This was confirmed by a third party contractor and the
24
paperwork was submitted to the City to confirm such findings. Exhibit No. 13,
attached hereto, Bates No. STPI761. In just a few days over a month later, a
second different heating contractor performed tests on both heating systems
and those test readings show both heating systems to be in safe working order.
Exhibit No. 14, attached hereto, Bates No. 0000112 and 0000117. Both of
these contractors are licensed to do furnace work in the City of St. Paul.
73. The combination of coordinated City actions against my rental business
including the condemnations of two of my duplex rental units, including loss
of rents from those four units for many months, along with the City mandated
improvements, and costs to bring my older properties to "current codes"
through the illegal "Code Compliance" inspection and certification procedure,
along with having to pay for alternative housing, all placed a tremendous
financial drain on my business and almost caused me financial ruin.
74. Since I knew Kathy Lantry had it in for me, and the code inspectors under the
control of Dawkins and Lantry were lying to get my rental properties
condemned and forced into "current code" Code Compliances," I knew my
time was up in the City and that in order to survive, I had no choice but to sell
all my rental properties as soon as I could before being subject to fUl1her
attacks. I had no choice in selling my business in order to save almost two
decades of sacri fice and investments in the properties through hard work.
75. Because of the heightened code standard and increased code enforcement
directed against me, I was forced to sell all fifteen (15) of my rental properties
25
in the City, and 1 presently own no property in the City.
76. The city's increased code enforcement starting in the fall of 2002 against me
and my rental homes was an extreme barrier to my ability to provide affordable
housing to my African-American tenants and other "protected class" members
looking for affordable housing in the City.
77.1 continued to receive calls from prospective tenants looking for affordable
housing in the City during 2002 through 2004. 1 have continued to receive
caBs from former tenants and potential tenants after 1 had sold my rental homes
in the City.
78. Because of the Defendants' coordinated attacks against my rental properties
and against my tenants, including interfering with their rights to enjoy their
rental homes, I sustained losses across my rental business as I lost income and
equity from many of my rental properties. I have also been damaged with
respect to not being able to take advantage of future and current business and
investment opportunities because of this loss.
79.1 lost profits and investments from condemnations, and forced sales, increased
tax burdens, inculTed substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs, permit and
code compliance fees, and other costs and expenses, including alternative
housing costs for tenants that were forced from their homes, and court costs
and attorney's fees.
80. Additionally, because of all the pressure and coordinated targeting of so many
of my properties in such a short period of time, 1 was afraid of the City
26
government and afraid to rent to anyone for fear that I would continue to be
targeted because of who I rented to. I have also suffered damage to my
previously good reputation from the City labeling me in the newspaper as
being "among the worst offenders."
81. I have been damaged from the city's malicious attempted and failed criminal
prosecution of me for something that not only did I have no control over, but
the city has at all times given other property owners whatever extension of
time is needed when bad weather has prevented exterior repairs. The city's
own inspectors have testined to this fact in their Depositions. How can you
possibly expect someone to paint a house in the rain and wet weather without
letting the exterior dry out? At no other time that I know of has the City of St.
Paul prosecuted someone criminally for not painting the exterior of a property
when it rained almost every single day of the month. Martin, Dawkins,
Magner, Koehnen (and other City ofncials and employees behind the scenes
driving the prosecution) tried to prosecute me as retaliation for my coming to
this Court to assert my rights against Defendants' illegal conduct, and to try
and nm me out of resources so I would not be able to pursue my rights in this
Court.
81. I learned in 2003 that Dawkins had created a "Distressed Properties" list and
placed that list on the City's website. See Exhibit No. 15, attachcd hc.·cto, Batcs
040015-040017. On Dawkins' 12/31/2002 version of the Distressed Properties"
list, Dawkins listed nve of my rental properties on the City's website - each of
27
these five properties were occupied at the time he created and posted his lists on
the City's website: 910 61h St. - all African-American tenants; 1024 Euclid - all
African-American tenants; 719 Sherburne - African-American and White tenants;
118 Litchfield - African-American and mixed race couple tenants; and 953 Wilson
- African-American and mixed race couple tenants. These properties were not
"distressed" in any sense, as they were in good condition and well maintained for
"C" class properties, were cash-flowing prior to the City's coordinated efforts
against me, my tenants and my properties, the taxes were current, mortgage and
contract for deed type payments were current, and all City and other government
charges related to my properties were paid.
82. Dawkins' action to label my rental properties as "distressed" greatly injured
not only my reputation, but also my ability to sell my property. This negative
public disclosure by Dawkins was quickly used by real estate investors as a
shopping list for distressed properties and I received written inquires from about
six or seven different investors seeking to purchase my properties for quick cash
with expedited closing.
83. Director Dawkins policy of heightened standards and his labeling all of a
landlords property as a problem when only one property was a problem had the
effect of spreading this bargain basement shopping mentality for investment
property to all of my properties.
84. I learned in 2007 from review of City documents produced in this litigation,
that in the many months before the City issued its Chronic Problem Properties
28
Case Studies in March 2002, City Council staff had searched City and other
government data bases for a listing of addresses and all information concerning all
of my rental properties and for expansive information related to all of my rental
properties and they had surveyed certain of City inspectors and members of
neighborhood councils about me and my rental business. Exhibit No. 16,
attached hereto, Bates No. STP168712 to STP 168753.. I was shocked by this
disclosure. Not only did they have a Demographic report, Bates No. STPI68713,
but they had an electronic list of my African American tenants living at this
address. Bates No. STP168719. It's very obvious that the City Officials intentions
in creating this list were to target me specifically as is evidenced in the results of
their electronic searches. They searched the name "Steinhauser" looking for every
single one of my properties as is evidenced by the return search results bearing
many other people with my last name. See FI'edrick Steinhauser (Bates
STP168732, Grace Steinhauser Bates STP168732, and MarI< Steinhauser
Bates STP 168733.
85. This confirmed to me that Councilmemher Lantry had tremendous
influence on City staff, oflicials and inspectors and that 1 and my AfricanAmerican
tenants were indeed targeted for abuse and forced sale and dislocation
from the City.
86. Within a few weeks of my filing this Federal Fair I-lousing lawsuit against
the Defendants in early May 2004, Defendant Martin issued two criminal housing
tags against me on my rental properties located at 915 and 921 York Ave. On
29
October 23, 2003, Martin had issued correction orders to me on claimed exterior
code violations for painting and soffit and caves repair against both of these
properties. I appealed the orders for more time to complete the work because the
colder weather made it impossible to properly comply with the orders. I was
granted an extension to May I, 2004 by the City's legislative hearing officer.
87. During the Spring of 2004, the Metro area including St. Paul experienced
signi ficant steady wet weather that made completion of the exterior work
impossible. I requested another extension and was granted a one month extension.
When the weather continued to be unusually wet over the next month, I again
timely requested an extension but was denied by the City saying it had granted me
enough extensions.
88. The same day I was notified of the denial of my reasonable request, Martin
issued two criminal tags to me on my two York properties. The City prosecllted
me to the full extent of the law all the way to the day of my trial and when
presented with all the evidence in my defense, Maureen Dolan simply dismissed
the City's case against me. During the discovery process of my criminal defense,
the City produced the probable cause sheet prepared by Martin to provide to the
City Attorney handling the prosecution, the same attorney who had been a
member of the City's Problem Property Unit ("PPU") with Martin, Dawkins,
Keohnen, and Magner. Martin wrote on the probable cause sheet, "Tltis is lite PO
who is part ofa major laU' slIit against liS for harassment!II"
89. This malicious action by Martin under the direction of Dawkins, Magner
30
and Assistant City Attorney Dolan, a member of the PPU, damaged me to the tune
of almost nve (5) thousand dollars in Attorney fees, lost time that I could not
properly manage my business, all in an effort to run me out of money so I could
not assert my rights in this Court. It also damaged my reputation with the entry in
court records of the City taking criminal actions against me. Even though they
dismissed the charges, it leaves me and my reputation to look as if I am a criminal
that just beat the system because the state didn't have enough proof.
90. The retaliation by Martin, and other City employees of the PPU against me
caused me to question whether I should continue to pursue my claims against the
Defendants as I felt I was being intimidated by those at the City who still had
police powers over rental properties and over me due to my business in the City
helping those who need affordable housing. It caused me great embarrassment and
humiliation and tremendous emotional anguish and turmoil and pain as they took
this action against me not only when I was trying to bury my son who had just
been killed in an accident, but I hadn't yet gotten back on my feet emotionally
from my brother passing away two months earlier.
9I. The city's code enforcement file on my property at 1038 Aurora shows that
inspectors were going by my property on a very frequent schedule and making
notes into the file that there was nothing wrong with the property, but that they
would continue to check on it. There were several entries like this and it appears
that whoever it was that was doing the checking was writing notes to someone
above him in the office who was looking over his shoulder.
31
92. I have evidence of illegal code enforcement at my 719 Sherburne and 953
Wilson rental homes. Representatives of a tenant housing advocacy group
Community Stabilization Project (CSP) who has a past reputation of persuading
tenants to claim false code violations and even damage the property to claim code
violations so they avoid paying rent by using the court system to enforce
Habitability Statutes under Minnesota law, were involved in the complaint on both
of these properties. The same organization was also working hand in hand with the
Martin and Dawkins when they launched their illegal attacks on my properties at
910 61h St. and also 1024 Euclid. This organization went so far as considering
condemning my properties. Common sense would tell anyone that these separate
yet coordinated attacks are all related. At the 719 Sherburne property the
representatives of CSP were at the property for Martin's inspection and were
greatly disappointed because Martin would not condemn the apartment. Doth of
these properties did have some minor code violations as does every single property
in the City, and had the tenant called me to take care of them, I would have done
so as I always have in the past.
93. At my rental property at 118 Litchfield St., CSP was involved and as was
the case in all of the other properties that were targeted, the tenants who lived
there never even called me to tell me about anything that was wrong with the
property. The same advocate organization was involved and the tenant with the
help of the free lawyers from the advocate group (CSP) and city partner started a
court action against me to try and get money back on their rent. This was
32
something inspector Martin had advised my tenant LaChakka Cousette at my 910
61h duplex to do.
94. The court action was decided in my favor and the tenant was ordered to pay
the rent. Exhibit No 17, attached hel'eto, Bates No. 0002407. Two months after
the repairs were made this tenant was evicted in court for again not paying the
rent. A Writ of Restitution was issued and she was removed with force by the
Ramsey County Sheriffs Department. Exhibit No. 18, attached hereto, Dates No.
0002412.
95. The gas leak was found to be in the tenants stove at 118 Litchfield. I do not
rent apartments with appliances included and have not for years, and as such I
have a provision in my lease that gives notice to the tenants and requires them to
repair or replace any problems with appliances including the stove and the
refrigerator. Exhibit No. 19, attached hereto, Bates #0002384 to 0002390, more
specifically Bates No. 0002388 - item No.74.
95. Upon learning of the gas leak I immediately left my home in Inver Grove
Heights in the evening hours to go to the property and assess the situation because
I thought it to be a very serious safety issue. When I arrived at the property, there
was a cap on the gas line as the tenant had described. This is another example of
the city fabricating repairs, as there was no gas leak when the inspector visited the
property. The leak happened before the inspection and had been made safe by
capping the gas pipe until my tenant could obtain a replacement stove.
96. The city interfered with my contractual rights between my tenants and
33
myself by not allowing me to pursue the tenant for costs of repairing the damage
and in the event that failed by allowing me the time to evict the tenant in court
before repairing damages done by the same tenant. \Vhen there are no threatening
issues it just doesn't make sense to start making repairs and throwing money at a
problem until you are able to stop the damage from happening.
97. Rather, the city demanded the repairs be made on such a ridiculously short
time schedule that I had to hire expensive contractors in order to comply. Inspector
Martin did her inspection on 11/15/02 but yet waited until 11/18/03 to send it to
me through the United States Post Office. Assuming two days for mail to be
delivered, the correction orders gave me only 1 day to comply. Exhibit No. 20,
hereto attached, Bates No. 0010335 to 0010337. Some of these violations
claimed by the city are false, and the ones that did exist were not life threatening
so there was no reason to require such a short time to comply.
98. This is another example of how the city went out of their way to make
doing business so difficult that I had given up providing low income housing and
sold my property. Another example ofinspector Martin's attack on my business is
her correction orders to me on 1/8/03 demanding that I remove my tenants dirty
clothes from the floor and that I make sure that my tenant's medications were out
of the reach of her children. Exhibit No. 21, attached hereto, Bates No. 0010332
to 0010333. Martin has no authority under the city code to require this of me.
99. The City Police report that was created by members of the department
working together with Dawkins, Martin, and others to "document" the file to win
34
the first TRA action by Dawkins, describe how the police were called to my
property at 1024 Euclid. There are many untruths in Sgt. \Vroblewski's report. I
did not threaten my tenant. The statements the officer claims the tenant says I
made do not contain words that I would use, under any circumstance and do not
make sense considering my experience in the inner City. I do not talk that way.
As an example, I am very familiar with the different levels of local, state and
Federal government and their function. I had been in the rental property business
for 18 years and have been in Ramsey County Court more times than I can count
evicting tenants. I have been well aware for decades that the Police powers that the
city enjoys are enforced through Ramsey County and not the state of Minnesota.
For this tenant to claim that I said "why do you have the state on my ass" is just
not believable. Those statements are coming from someone else and anyone that
even knows me a little bit would know that it is not me saying any of those things.
This was obviously something made up by the City to be able to gain leverage
over me in their illegal court action against me.
100. Shortly before these Police Officers were supposedly called at 2: 14 p.m., I
was participating in many back and forth phone calls with my Attorney who was
in phone conferences with my tenants Attorney Jerry Kaluzny at SMRLS
regarding my getting into this property to do the repairs that had caused the
condemnation. My cell phone records show those calls to and from my Attorney
Patricia \Vhitney at her phone number 651-776-8034. Exhibit No. 22, hereto
attached, Bates No. 0001431, Page No.7 of 11.
35
101. My Attorney had arranged a time with the tenant's Attorney that I would go
to the apartment and repair the claimed life safety issues the apartment had been
condemned for. \Vhen I arrived at the apartment, the tenant refused to let me in to
do the repairs so I left and went out to my truck to call my Attorney and report
what had happened. I was advised by my Attorney to just leave and I did leave. I
believe Martin also advised this tenant to sue me like she had advised other tenants
to do the same so they could try and get money back. My tenant did not want the
claimed violations repaired because # I I would have found out that the things the
city and tenant were claiming were violations were really not violations and that
would have hurt their court case against me. Prior to the city condemning this
apartment I had tried many times to gain access to do repairs and the tenant always
refused to let me in and told me to come back at a later time.
102. There arc many very suspicious details in this Police report that the court
should know about. Exhibit No. 23, hereto attached, Bates No. STP1769 to
STP1773. This Police oft1cer was dispatched to the property for claimed threats,
but yet say hardly anything about the threats, but rather proceed to write a 5 page
report on everything from the condition of the house to how much rent and
security deposit I charge, to who I work with to get tenant referrals and how they
screen their tenants, to how broken the system is, to how much money I make and
how wrong it is. That doesn't make sense unless Dawkins or Assistant Maureen
Dolan had coached the Police Officers on what kind of "evidence" they needed to
attempt to gain leverage over me in their first TRA action.
36
103. Also interesting is that on a routine call where someone is supposedly just
making threats and no violence has occurred, there are two other Police officers
that accompany Sgt \Vroblewski and her partner Tim Bradley to this property and
they just happen to be Police officers Dean Keohnen and Mark Wiegel who are
assigned to Martin and Dawkins department. Four Police offieers responding to
take a call like this is far from normal based upon my extensive experience with
St. Paul Police Officers in the inner city, and this report is written more like a brief
to use as evidence in Dawkins' court hearing against me the very next day. This
report was immediately faxed to the code enforcement office.
104. It should be noted that this tenant has been evieted multiple times each year
since leaving my property along with traffic, theft and assault charges against her.
Exhibit No.24, hcrcto attachcd.
105. She also has a criminal record in Wisconsin and also has been evicted by
landlords in Wisconsin. Exhibit No. 25, hcrcto attached.
106. There were some legitimate code violations on my property as there are on
every property in the City. Ongoing code violations are a part of the rental
property business and they are always going to be present in one form or another.
Because of the high amount of damage by tenants, it is impossible to keep a rental
property violation free 100% of the time. My tenant base was a very-low income
people. Most are so poor that they don't have extra money to buy toys for the
children, so the children play with the house and things arc very often broken.
There is less supervision of the children and when their friends come over to play,
37
there is also a higher chance of damage occurring. With some of these rental
properties there was the clement of domestic abuse present and those situations
usually result in damage to the property.
107. When inspector Martin started her assault and illegal code enforcement on
my property at 910 61h St., I was at the property working. I had been there for
several days making repairs. When inspector Martin arrived I had left to get
materials for something I was working on.
108. I had some code violations at 910 6th Street and I knew it and I was at my
property repairing them like a good landlord should be. \Vhat I did not want to
repair were the repairs generated by the illegal "code compliance" certification
Exhibit No. 26 attached hereto, Bates No. 0010253 to 0010260 which illegally
removed all of my "grandfathering rights" and required me to bring the property
up to modern day building codes.
110. The additional claimed violations were not actually violations at all because
the requirements were contrary to the State Building Code and grandt:1thering
protections, even those recognized by the City in its code but subverted in
practice.
III. Portions of the City's own code recoglllze the "Building Code under
which" a building was "originally constructed". For example, City's 2002-03
Minimum Property Maintenance Standards for all Structures and Premises,
Sections 34.09 (2) (a) and (b); and 34.10 (2), (3) ("maintained in accordance with
the Building Code in effect when originally constructed"). The cost of the
38
legitimate repairs is normal expense to repair my property and the "excess money"
because of the city's illegal demands for Code Compliance Certification are
"damages".
113. The reason I was able to comply with the repair orders was that I had been
at the property doing repairs for some time before I received Martin's 10/18/02
correction orders through the United States Post Office on Saturday afternoon with
a compliance date of 10/21/02 on the following Monday. Exhibit No. 27, hereto
attached, Bates No. 0010268 to 0010269.
114. I find it very hard to believe there were rats in the property because I had
been actively baiting the property for a couple of months because of a previous
compliant about rats. I was diligent in checking with my tenants to see if the
problem was still there and they had assured me that the problem was no longer an
issue. Martin stated that she saw a rat and not rats in the plural sense in the front of
the property and outside of the property. Martin admits that the rat was dead which
is proof that I was actively pursuing a remedy to keep my property rat free even
before she did her inspection.
115. I have noticed from review of City "Problem Property" files that Inspector
Martin makes changes in the file where she first cites mice on the property and
then changes it to "rat" in order to be able to increase the perceived severity of the
problem. Hessler Problem Property files.
116. I hired B & E Pest Control because I was forced to hire them by the City. I
had been baiting the property myself and was successful as my tenant told me the
39
rat problem was taken care of. When I hired the exterminator, I told him that I had
been cited by the City for mice and rats in the basement so I would assume that he
thought I had mice and rats. His notes on the receipt about sub par sanitation is a
tenant cleanliness issue and is not something I can control.
117. There were minor things wrong with the properties on York and I was there
repairing those items when Martin stopped by and issued orders. The city did
target me on these properties because my properties were some of the best on the
block. Most other neighbors had violations much worse and Martin and the City
allowed those violations to continue for years. I took photos of them for years to
show the lack of attention by the City. This single fact, plus the fact that they
started criminal charges and tried to put me in jail because I didn't get exterior
painting done when it rained almost every day of the month, is evidence of
targeting and also retaliation.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 81).11 O¥
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this"2,l. day of August, 2008.
Notary Public
Under Seal
,~S}- .ti-.~,
Frank J. Steinhauser, II I
e..
. WILLIAM P. WEIHRAUCH
_." Notary Public
. 'I!J Minnesota
..... M1ee.~~es~31.2010
Dawkins, as Director of Code Enforcement, and former state representative from the inner city who focused on housing related legislation at the State Capitol from 1987 to 2002, acknowledged that “in most cities a balance has to be struck between aggressive enforcement to preserve livability and over-zealous enforcement potentially leading to wholesale abandonment of properties or the inner-city.” Ex. 108 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP 0658.
Dawkins studied the relationship between aggressive code enforcement and resulting abandonment of inner city properties: “Whether it was part of the Kitchen Cabinet discussions or the city council discussions, I don't remember. But I used the example of Baltimore where the aggressive enforcement had tipped the scale so that there was a start of abandonment of properties more than the city had hoped for in Baltimore. And I wanted to make sure everyone understood that using whatever levers or rules or policies the city has, that we need to make sure that we didn't hit a tipping point. … All I know is that I read a study that was in a journal about stepped up code enforcement in Baltimore and that it had tipped the scales so
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 42 of 78
43
that there was more abandonment of properties than the city had thought or wanted to have happen.” Dawkins depo. pp. 159-60.
POLICY ADOPTED FOR “PROBLEM PROPERTIES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintins,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plainti I1s,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) 55.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
STEVEN R. JOHNSON
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Steven R. Johnson, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
I. I am a resident of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. I have resided there since
2005, having previously resided in Eagan, Minnesota since 200 I. I am married
and have 3 children.
2. I was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota and attended Johnson High
School. I took the Kansas State Business Course correspondence in 1982. In
1984 thm 1985 I attended the 916 Vocational school for carpentry.
3. I have been in the real estate business since 1995. During 2002 through 2006,
I owned and managed many rental properties in Saint Paul.
4. About 90% of my tenants during 2002 through 2006 were African-Americans,
American Indians, Hispanics, mixed race couples, those receiving Social
Security Disability and Section 8 housing voucher assistance from the federal
government.
5. During this same period, I received many referral tenants from Project Hope, a
partially HUD funded housing advocacy group. Many of my tenants had
children.
6. My rental properties were located in the inner core area of the City. See
Exhibit"A", a listing of my former rental properties by address with Census
Tract numbers, Census Tract infoffilation. city maps and sweeps maps. Most
of my rental properties were located in areas with a high percentage of people
of color.
7. I owned and managed my properties with assistance from my family members
and employees.
2
8. I made significant investments of time and money into most of the 48 rental
properties that I owned in Saint Paul during 1997 through 2006. Sec Exhibit
"8" attached hereto, "Repairs, Remodel, Improvement and / or Renovation"
9. I have owned numerous rental properties in Saint Paul that were occupied by
tenants with Section 8 vouchers. I recall that I had almost 60 Section 8 tcnants
over the period I owned rental properties in the City of Saint Paul.
10. Undcr the Federal Section 8 program, the Saint Paul Public Housing Agency
(PHA) managed the application, inspection and payment process for the tenant
and for me as a Section 8 landlord. Each time a tenant applied to rent one of
my rental units, I infonncd the applicant that I did take Section 8 vouchers as I
wanted to do my part in providing low-income subsidized housing for the less
fortunatc.
11. PHA would arrange for a third party Section 8 housing inspector to schedule
an inspection of the apartment unit that was going to be subject to the voucher.
Once the inspcction was completed I would immediately work on corrccting
any items the Section 8 inspector notcd needed to be corrccted. The housing
standards that PIIA and its Section 8 inspector used for every inspection were
the Housing Quality Standard (lIQS) under HUD regulations. I understood that
the HQS housing standard was a reasonable housing standard designed to
encourage provision of decent and safe housing but not to set the standards to
high to discourage landlords and real estate investors from agreeing to provide
privately owned, low-income rental stock for public subsidies.
3
12. During early 2003, I became very concerned about what 1 perceived to be the
City of Saint Paul's application of a very high code enforcement standard to
my rental properties including to my Section 8 inspected and approved rental
units. The City's higher standard required me to incur substantial amounts of
extra fees, costs, unnecessary repairs, even renovations, that were not required
by PHA, its Section 8 inspectors, or the federal government.
13. Starting in early 2003, I noticed that the City inspectors were trying very hard
to get properties in my rental portfolio omine either through very questionable
condemnations with no notice ahead of time to repair and with no opportunity
to make repairs that led to the condemnation so that I could take actions to
have tenants reoccupy the rental property or have individuals who were
waiting for affordable housing occupy my properties.
14.1l1e City inspectors seemed to coordinate their inspections of my portfolio so
that I was constantly running from one property to the other to put out the fire
so to speak because of a code order or orders that had been written up on my
properties. Frequently, when I or my employees investigated the notice of
violation, we found that the claimed violation was actually not true - after
many untrue claims in City code orders I determined that the City and its
inspectors were purposefully harassing me through actions. When I received
an order, had it investigated, and found the City's claims were untrue, I knew
that I had to appeal the orders in order not to let the City "build a file" against
me that Director Andy Dawkins and others could then use against me to take
4
action to revoke my rental registration. All of my properties were, as best I
recall, timely registered with the City under its rental registration program. To
register all of my rental properties cost me a substantial sum of money every
year and placed pressure on the cash flow of my low-income subsidized rental
business. The City also conducted sweeps in areas where I owned rental
properties and this also meant that I and my family and employees had to take
significant amounts of time to provide extra close monitoring of all of our
properties in sweep areas. Sweeps also raised the costs of my business.
15. Two of my properties, one I was selling on a contract for deed to my son, and
the other that I was renting to a disabled tenant and his girlfriend, were targeted
by City inspectors under the direction of Andy Dawkins and Mayor Kelly, and
closed down thereby prohibiting any occupancy. I have detailed these actions
below. The inspectors took the actions against the two properties without any
basis under the City's code and then repeatedly demanded that I apply for a
"Code Compliance Inspection," pay the extra fees, hire contractors, and
renovate these properties to current codes all in violation of the Minnesota
State Building Code· that provides legal protections for older homes and
buildings to be subject to the codes that existed at the time the structure was
built or time it was renovated or use was changed. The City would not provide
me with the building permits until I agreed to the City's illegal demands to
give up my grandfathering rights through consent to a "Code Compliance".
The City's actions forced me to keep one of the two properties unoccupied at a
5
time when in short order under Section 8's HQS, I would have been able to
provide a family waiting for housing with a safe, decent rental home. The
City's unjustified and illegal actions in this regard, deeply upset me and my
family and caused us much stress.
16. When the City applied its higher code standards to rental properties in the City
in 2002 and thereafter, and increased the enforcement of that higher standards,
my costs went up right away from note only having to deal with any and all
orders isslIed on my properties, but because after a short while, the City'S
inspectors had us going in so many directions with inspections, re-inspeetions,
appeals of orders, monitoring, meetings with Code officials and employees and
others, that we had no time to run the normal aITairs of our rental business,
such as work on unoccupied units to get them ready for re-rental, interviewing
and screening potential tenants, and the host of other important tasks of owning
and managing low-income rental properties.
17. During the entire time I owned rental properties in Saint Paul, no one from the
City, whether it was an inspector, or other employee, or official, ever infonned
me of resources to assist me in providing aITordable housing in the City to the
thousands who were on the waiting lists.
18. When I started to received numerous City code correction notices,
condemnations and vacant building notices, and demands for Code
Compliances, I looked around the City to see if I was the only landlord
receiving this special attention treatment and to see if the claims of Dawkins
6
and others were true as claimed - that the City and its inspectors were applying
the City code consistently. I discovered that in many blocks of the City where
more expensive homes were located, that I could drive down any of those
streets and alleys and observe code violations based upon my experience and
my brother's having been a Section 8 inspector. I started to take pictures
during my drives between my rental properties and then took pictures in other
areas of town over an extended period of time. It was clear to me that the City
was not enforcing its heightened code standards in the predominately White
occupied areas of town. I could drive down the same blocks and alleys month
after month and not see one change. If the City was issuing an initial order, the
owner was being given extensions or there was no effort to gain compliance
with the codes related to extemal violations.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit "e", is a 45 page listing of photographs} took of
City homes during 2004 and 2005. These pictures show the average condition
of homes in Saint Paul and demonstrate that homes across the City have many
code violations under the City's higher standard than HQS. To try and meet
the City's higher standard forced me out of the business of providing
affordable housing in the City of Saint Paul.
20.} started to question why the City and its inspectors were issuing so many
orders on my properties. I had numerous in person meetings with Lisa Martin
and Dean Keohnen and communications with Andy Dawkins about the orders
between 2003 through 2005. When I asked repeatedly why the City and
7
inspectors were commg after my properties, Martin and Keohnen would
frequenlly reply with derogatory tenns to describe my Black tenants, calling
them "trouble makers," "out of towners," Hlow life tenants," Hbottom of the
barrel," undesirable tenants, and HThe black plague come like roaches." I was
deeply offended by these derogatory names and racist attitudes. Since most of
my tenants were Black Americans, it was clear what Martin and Keohnen
meant by the "black plague" comment.
21. I will now go through the some of the City code enforcement efforts against
my properties during 2003 through 2005.
22. On or about March 12, 2003, and continuing to present, City housing
inspectors and officials, including Andy Dawkins, Lisa Martin, Officer Dean
Koehnen, Michal Kalis, Paula Seely and Dick Lippert, along with Assistant
City Attorney Maureen Dolan and others, have harassed me and my tenants on
my rental properties in an effort to shut down my rental business, or force
change in ownership of my properties. Defendants actions have forced me to
sell off many of my rental properties through their coordinated efforts to apply
the City's heightened code enforcement standards to my low-income rental
properties that were during 2003 through 2005 occupied by 90% minorities,
primarily African-Americans and many Section 8 tenants.
23. Even though I had had no abnormal history of code violations during my
ownership of rental properties prior to 2003, commencing on or about March
12, 2003, most of my rental properties were selectively targeted by Defendants
8
for application of the City's heightened code enforcement standards.
24. Defendants have repeatedly harassed me by selectively enforcing the City
heightened housing standards in a very strict and petty manner against me,
while at the same time looking the other way on serious housing code
violations at numerous adjacent properties not owned by me.
25. On January 30, 2003, Defendant Kalis, supervised by Dawkins, commenced
the illegal harassment against me by posting a "Vacant Building" sign on my
occupied property located at 469 Whitall Street. This property was in fact
occupied by my son, Kevin as was his home. Kalis ignored the obvious
occupancy of the home and posted the home as vacant thereby forcing my son
to leave his home in the middle of winter. This home had originally been
purchased by me to place into my low-income rental inventory but when my
son needed a place to live, he agreed to buy the property on a contract for deed
and fix up the property to become a rental property.
26.0n or about February 1,2003, I called Kalis to inquire why he had posted the
home "vacant". I infonned Kalis that the home was in fact occupied by my son
and that the posting was wrong. Kalis responded, "Too bad." I asked how I
could have the vacant building posting removed? Kalis told me, "In order to
get the vacant building posting removed I would have to comply to a full code
compliance. I asked him what that meant as I had no prior experience or
knowledge of "full code compliance". Kalis answered that I would need a
complete an upgrade of the home to current building standards in order to
9
reoccupy the home. Kalis refused to give me any further information or clarify
what I needed to do.
27. I was forced to file an appeal of Kalis' vacant building posting through the City
Council legislative hearing process. Following my successful appeal, on
february 10,2003, the City rescinded the "Vacant Building" status.
28. Inspector Martin at the direction of her supervisor Steve Magner and Dawkins,
retaliated against me for my challenge to their authority and illegally placarded
my home without basis and for my appeal. This retaliation was carried out
against me by Martin conducting an exterior inspection of 469 Whitall and
thereafter issuing and mailed me a Correction Notice dated February 10, 2003.
Martin infomled me that she would re-inspect the home on february 24, 2003,
and that the Code "deficiencies" must be corrected by that time or a criminal
summons could be issued.
29. On February 1,9, 2003, before the February 24, 2003, re-inspection deadline,
Martin made a second inspection, and then prepared and mailed to me and the
occupant a Revised Correction Notice dated February 21, 2003, that noted
additional "deficiencies" to be corrected by the original February 24, 2003,
deadline.
30. About one month later, Inspector Richard Lippert and Dawkins prepared and
mailed to me and the occupant a "Notice of Condemnation As Unfit For
Human Habitation And Order To Vacate" dated March 31, 2003, wherein
Lippert and Dawkins deliberately and maliciously condemned my 469 Whitall
10
home for no valid reason. Although the Notice was dated March 31, 2003, it
ordered that my home vacated hy March 28, 2003, three days earlier. Lippert
and Dawkins made the same demand as Kalis two months earlier that a full
code compliance be completed on my home before it could be reoccupied.
31. The March 31, 2003, Notice of Condemnation on my home was based solely
on a slight cracking in three joists on the porch. I already knew of this problem
as I had previously discussed the repair with other City inspectors who
informed him that it wa<; a minor repair. Based solely upon this minor problem,
the condemnation and order to vacate the property prohibited my son and his
girl friend and her two children from reoccupying their home.
32. Magner, Lippert, Kalis, Martin and Koehnen, and other inspectors from the
City, under the supervision of Dawkins, continued to selectively target me and
my business and tenants by condemning a second rental property that I had
purchased in December 2002. This property was located at 941 Cypress Street.
I leased this home to David Lindorf who was disabled, confined to a wheelchair
and receiving Social Security Disability Income assistance, and his
girlfriend, and Debbie Doolittle.
33. In February 2003, Dawkins' NHPI commenced harassment against my 941
Cypress tenant by repeatedly citing the disabled tenant with Vehicle
Abatement Orders and Summary Abatement Orders, and by issuing a criminal
misdemeanor housing code citation to my tenant.
II
34. Said Defendants were able to condemn my 941 Cypress rental property on
March 13, 2003, after a questionable warrant and police "drug raid" into the
home. Lippert and Dawkins promptly condemned my rental home as part of
the alleged "drug raid" forcing Mr. Lindorf and Ms. Doolittle from their home.
35. As part of the condemnation of 941 Cypress property, Lippert and Dawkins
prepared and mailed to me a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate
dated March 13, 2003 , see Exhibit "0". The sole basis for the condemnation
of was listed as "excessive storage of combustible materials "throughout" the
home. Lippert and Dawkins falsely and maliciously statcd the condition of the
home. The tenant was simply repairing his snow blower in his kitchen. Instead
of allowing the tenant to remove his snow blower and gas can from his kitchen,
Lippert and Dawkins took the most drastic action in condemning the property
and prohibiting anyone from living in the home.
36. Subsequently, I received in the mail from Martin a Correction Notice dated
January 16, 2004, rcgarding my rental property located at 606 Edmund
Avenue, that listed the claimed code violations following Martin and Officer
Koehnen's inspection of the property on January 15, 2004. Prior to conducting
that inspection, and in order to gain access to the interior of the home, Martin
and Koehnen falsely infonned the tenant that I had sent them to conduct the
inspection. Whcn the tenant would not invite Martin and Koehnen inside,
Martin and Keohnen forced their way into the rental unit to conduct the
inspection.
12
37. Martin's January 16, 2004, Correction Notice ("Notice") contained twelve (12)
claimed code violations of which live (5) were false. Martin's claims regarding
the toilet scat, cabinets, carpet, roof and sanitation (Items 5, 6, 9, II, and 12)
were deliberately false and those claimed code violations did not in fact exist,
see Exhibit "E".
38. Martin and Koehnen had personally been present, witnessed and inspected the
606 Edmund property in June 2003, when they, with no prior notice, came to
the property uninvited. At that time, I was almost completed with an extensive
renovation of the home which included the items specifically listed in the later
Notice from Martin.. Martin and Koehnen personally toured the premises,
including the interior, and expressed amazement of the quality of the materials
and workmanship and time and effort being expended by me and my crew on
renovation.
39. Kalis issued a citation to me on my 469 Whitall rental property on May 19,
2004, with a Summary Abatement Order ordering me to cut and remove tall
grass, weeds and rank plant growth. Kalis mailed the Summary Abatement
Order to me on May 20, 2004. The lawn at 469 Whitall was not over the eight
inch limit for grass height under the City's code. Kalis' claims were false.
40. Kalis again cited my 469 Whitall Street property on July 9, 2004, with a
Summary Abatement Order ordering me to cut and remove tall grass, weeds
and rank plant growth. Kalis mailed the Summary Abatement Order to me on
July 13, 2004. My son had cut the grass at 469 Whitall on July 7, 2004, and
13
once again the 1a\\11 was well under the code limit. Kalis' claims were false and
maliciously made in concert with the other Defendants and designed to
increase my costs and frustration with the City.
41. Kalis cited my 483 Sherburne Ave. single family rental property on October I,
2004, with a Summary Abatement Order mailed to me and ordering me to cut
and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth. The lawn at 483
Sherburne was not over the limit for grass height under the code but was in fact
3-4 inches in height on October 6, 2004, when I again cut the grass. Kalis'
claims were falsely made in concert with the other Defendants to increase my
costs and discourage me from continuing to provide low-income AfricanAmericans
with housing in the City.
42. Paula Seeley participated in enforcing the City's heightened code enforcement
standards against my low-income rental properties while she and other
inspectors provided PHA with preferential treatment under a working
relationship with PIIA and its inspectors. Seeley repeatedly issuing false
citations on my properties in order to harass me and increase my costs and
discourage me from continuing to rent to African-American tenants.
43. On March 23, 2004, Seeley issued a Correction Order which she mailed to me
on March 24, 2004, stating that I was in violation of the City Code for a
tenant's vehicle parked on an unapproved surface. Seeley ordered the vehicle
to be removed from the grass. The Vehicle was not parked on the grass but
14
rather was parked on a fully code compliant gravel surface on top of an older
cement garage noor.
44. Seeley also issued a Vehicle Abatement Order for my 483 Sherburne Ave.
property and mailed this Order to me on April 2, 2004, claiming that an
automobile owned by my tenant was parked on grass, an unapproved parking
surface. Seeley's claim was false, as the vehicle was actually parked on a
gravel surface on top of an older cement garage 110or.
45. On April 19, 2004, Seeley issued a Correction Order for my 483 Sherbunle
Ave property, which she mailed to me on April 20, 2004. Seeley claimed a
code violation existed for garbage and rubbish stored on property. When I
received the notice and conducted an inspection of the property, I found one
garbage bag in front of the 90 gallon trash container. At the same time, other
neighboring properties had excessive garbage and trash rubbish.
46. Dawkins mailed me an April 20, 2004, Excessive Consumption Notice billing
me $50.00 for the cost Seeley's inspection. The Notice stated that "Failure to
pay this bill will result in revocation of your registration."
47.1 filed a legislative appeal of Seeley's Correction Order dated April 19, 2004. I
along with my son and daughter and three of my tenants attended the appeal
hearing on May II, 2004. The City Council legislative hearing officer allowed
inspector Seeley to present her testimony of claimed trash but refused my offer
to present evidence that Seeley's claims of code violations were false.
15
48.1 received a St. Paul City Council Public Hearing Notice - Ratification of
Assessment, dated August 13, 2004, notifYing me that a hearing would be held
on September 22, 2004, to authorize a property assessment on 483 Sherburne
of the excessive consumption fce of $50.00 that Dawkins had levied, plus a
$20.00 service fee. I had not paid the Excessive Consumption fee of $50.00
levied by Dawkins on my 483 Sherburne property in protest over the false code
violations claims.
49. Following my receipt of the Assessment Notice, I called Dawkins to protest the
assessment of fcc and explained to Dawkins the false code violation citation
that had led to the nssessment. Dawkins informed me that if 1 failed to make
the payment, my rental registration would he revoked. 1 couldn't afford to lose
my rental registration and so 1 was forced to make payment to the City in the
amount of $70.00 in order to keep my rentnl registration and to continue my
rental business at 483 Sherburne Ave.
50. On or about February 16, 2005, Seeley issued a Correction Notice on my
property located at 483 Sherburne Ave., and mailed the Notice to me on
February 17, 2005, notifying me to eliminate the code violation of, "trash
container is overflowing and there is scattered trash on the ground and alley
area. Remove." 1 detennined that the claimed violation was without any basis
and in fact was completely false.
51. The properties surrounding and nearby 540 Charles, a duplex, had many
deficiencies and had no citations. On July 13, 2004, I was issued a citation for
16
excessive garbage and sanitation by the City of St. Paul. When I went to see
what the problems was, the only thing I found was a chair lefi by the garbage
container f()r disposal. Afier that I received another citation for minor garage
repairs, while other properties nearby had major repairs needed. On September
4, 2003 I received another citation for excessive garbage and sanitation, which
was only I bag of garbage next to the garbage container. On Octobcr 12, 2004
the City of St. Paul ordercd me to provide garbage service which had always
bcen providcd for the tenants. I sent all the proof and documcnts to the city.
The city ignorcd Illy documents and proof of service and on October 17, 2004
issued city garbage service through March 29, 2005, along with the service I
already had. I had sent several lctters to the city to have their garbage service
removed during this time.
52. On May 24, 2005 I attendcd the City Council Hearing to dispute the city
providcd garbage service. \Vhen I asked for proof of excessive garbage, the
city reduced the city provided garbage fees because of no evidence but would
not dismiss their fees completely. During the time that I owned 540 Charles, I
was also cited for illegal parking when the property always had "class 5"
gravel for a parking surface. 540 Charles was a Section 8 property that
occupied African-Americans families. On April 28, 2005 I sold the property
due to unduc city harassment.
53.0n June 14, 2004 I received a citation for gravel on the sidewalk at 405
Jessamine from a storm that caused floods and trees down all over the city.
17
had never had a problem with gravel before the storm. On August 9, 2005 1
received another citation for gravel on sidewalk caused by heavy rains. The
whole neighborhood had wash outs and flooded basements, trees down and
damaged homes. 1 was cited the day after the stann. 1 was cited for excessive
garbage many times due to the neighbors trash piled up, falling onto my
property. Between October 15, 2004 and October 22, 2004 1 disputed with
Dawkins about city provided garbage service. 405 Jessamine, triplex housed
Section 8 families of African-American decent. 1 tinally sold this property due
to illegal harassment by the city and inspectors.
54.1 received several violations for brush pile SE comer of yard by fence. This
violation was not our fault and plain to sec. The neighbor at 1062 Blair had cut
and trimmed trees and shmbs and pile them up in their yard, some of the bmsh
fell onto 1066 Blair. Joe Yannarelly, city inspector issued the citation to the
wrong property. I called Yannarelly to explain, but he was not concemed on
who's fault the violation was. It stands cited. Even after the bmsh was cleaned
up on my property, the bmsh pile stayed at 1062 Blair for a year after. I finally
sold 1066 Blair below market value, just to get away from the haralisment.
These undue citations have caused my family much time away from their
families to look into the problems that might exist, just to find that they were
falsified statements.
55.At 67 Jessamine the city claimed I had mold on the property because ofa water
stained ceiling. 'Ine city ordered me to tear off the roof and replace the roof or
18
they would give an order to vacate, when the roof had at least 10 - 15 years
left. Once the roof was tom ofl: the inspector admitted that he found no mold
when he signed off on the completion. I later sold this building because the city
was making me put on expensive roof.'i when it was not necessary.
56.574 - 576 Bay, duplex, housed Section 8 families of African-American decent.
On January 7, 2005 I was given a false correction order for grartiti on the
garage. The garage never had any graffiti. It was freshly painted and in
excellent condition. I received citations for excessive garbage even though
there were 2 containers for garbage and a fenced in area, just for garbage. The
inspector had to pass the property across the alley, which had continuous
garbage and construction debris all along side of it. There were many
properties nearby that had many violations and were never enforced. Again, I
sold this building because I could not take the continuous harassment.
57. On January 5, 2005 I received a citation for expired tabs on a vehicle at 237
Forbes that was covered up with a protective car tarp because it was a collector
car. Down that same alley at 5 different properties all had unlicensed vehicles,
parked on illegal surfaces, some even up on blocks and they were still like that
for more than 6 months later. The tenant called the inspector to make
arrangements for no more citations to get his tabs renewed on his next pay
period. On January 26, 2005 a summary assessment was made by the
inspector. The tenant complied with updating the tabs before February 7, 2005,
but I received an excessive consumption fees. The tenants that resided at 237
19
Forbes were on disability social security income and of Hispanic and African
American decent. I sold this property because of the un fair treatment.
58. On December 12, 2004, Sunday atlernoon, at 954 Carroll the vacating tenants
removed personal belongings including furniture and disposing of items in the
backyard of the property. We were closely monitoring the situation of the
move out and noticed the debris carlyon Sunday evening. We immediately
loaded 2 truck loads of debris to haul away the next morning on December 13,
2004. We had completed disposal of all of the debris by 10:30 am. On
December 14,2004 I was cited by the city with a sanitation correction order by
Matt Dornfield. There was no debris anywhere on the property for the date of
the citation. During the 2 Y2 years of ownership, the property conditions in the
alley of other properties were never addressed by the city Le. long grass,
excessive garbage, broken windows, illegal parking, non running vehicle,
fences and garages falling down and deteriorated roof..<;, etc. While attending to
all of the illegal harassment directed at my properties, I had my family and
employees helping Ollt when we all should have been re-renting houses and
maintaining properties.
59. I received several citations for excessive garbage which was caused by the
neighborhood properties around 666 'I1lOmas. I received several citations for
illegal parking surface when I always had "class 5" gravel for parking. Most of
the properties down this alley never had legal parking surface, only dirt and
20
grass. A lot of the properties nearby didn't even have trash containers and the
condition oCthe alley never changed much.
60. I sold 371 Smith on January 31, 2005 and received a citation on April 22, 2005
for excessive garbage, even though I didn't own the property. I sent a copy of
the Warranty Deed to the City of St. Paul Inspections Department as proo[ On
May 3, 2005 I received an excessive consumption fee of $50.00 and was told
by the inspections department that if I didn't pay the fine that they would
revoke my rental registration license. I had to pay the fine, when I sent in the
check I sent in another copy of the warranty deed and explanation that I didn't
own the property and was never reimbursed by the city.
61. The tenants that were illegally kicked out of 941 Cypress, who were on
disability, transferred to 390 Sherburne, still being harassed at their new
location with vehicle abatement orders from Lisa Martin. On January 12, 2004
there were 3 cars located in the back parking on gravel. One of the vehicles
was having it's tire changed, due to a flat tire, but it was a running vehicle. l11e
other 2 vehicles were also running vehicles. Inspector Martin and Officer
Koehnen came to the property with no warning to have the vehicles towed with
a police escort of several squads. They towed the vehicles illegally when the
tenant and landlords stated that there was no reason to tow the vehicles. There
were many vehicles down the same alley that were inoperable and parked on
dirt for 3 to 4 1110nths. I never noticed any harassment by inspectors towards
these owners or citations or even any change in the conditions that I continued
21
to observe on these properties. The tenants could only afford to get one of the
vehicles out of tow. They lost the other 2 vehicles to the city for illegally
towing them. Also on January 12, 2004 Martin proceeded to due code
correction compliance. We completed I, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of correction order by
February 7, 2004, at re-inspection, out of 7 items. Items 6 and 7 could not be
completed during winter months, they were paint and a porch to be tom down,
that there was nothing wrong with. Martin extended the time into spring for the
remaining 2 items, but assessed an excessive consumption charge for
additional inspections. I completed items 6 and 7 by early spring. Inspector
Martin passed the items on February 7, 2004, but cited additional items that
had already been passed at the prior re-inspection. She was very rude and
arrogant. Also in attendance of final inspection on February 7, 2004, were
Officer Koehnen, Andy Dawkins, and Assistant District Attorney Maureen
Dolan who were all harassing us until they ran into Channel 5 News in front of
the house. To this day, we have never received a correction notice completion.
At this time, many other properties had several violations that got worse
through the summer of 2004, with seeing no enforcement. During fall clean up,
we had bags of leaves on the side of the garage and received an abatement
order for leaves. The tenants moved out because of continued harassment and
no longer rent from me. The tenants were on Social Security income and one
was a disabled American Indian. I sold the property below market value,
because of the illegal targeting.
22
62. As a direct result of the Defendants application of heightened code
enforcement standards to my rental properties, my rental business incurred
signilicant financial burdens including lost of rental income, dramatic increase
in expenses, inability to attend to nomlal business matters because of all the
time and attention needed to defend my real estate investments and tenants
against coordinated actions by Dcfendants.
63. I was limited in my ability to properly and timely turnover my unoccupied
rental units to get them back onlinc for rental income due to the extra
monitoring and work I and my staff were required to undergo in order to meet
the City's heightened code enforcement standards. I incurred unnecessary
expenses, permit and inspection fees and suffered lost profits and further
income as a result of Dcfendants action against mc. I was forced to sell of
property afler property to cover the extra costs that were unnecessary needed in
my business to provide safe and decent housing to the needy in the City.
eventually lost all of my Saint Paul rental properties through forced sale in an
accelerated sale process.
64. I attendcd a St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords, (SPARL) with
Frank Steinhauser and my brother Ken Johnson. Mayor Kelly was the guest
speaker at this meeting. Mayor Kelly was addressing the crowd, stating how he
was going to force his way into rental properties using the inspection
department, as he spoke the crowd became outraged. Mayor Kelly continued
with a loader tone and stated, "we will get inside of the interiors of these
23
homes". My brother, Ken Johnson, stood up and asked Mayor Kelly "what if I
don't want you in my properties, and won't let you in?" The crowd cheered
Ken on. Mayor Kelly became outraged. Mayor Kelly stood up and leaning
towards the crowd, pointing his finger, with a loud and angry voice said "you
will comply!" My brother Ken said "no I won't." The crowd was cheering on
Ken with approval. Mayor Kelly made a few more comments to the crowd
about his new enforcement tactics. The crowd became even more enraged as
the meeting went on. It seemed to me, that Mayor Kelly had more to say, but
instead walked away.
65. Following the filing of the Steinhauser federal court Complaint on May 5,
2004, wherein I was identified as a witness and similarly injured property
owner who had potential claims against the City of Saint Paul and the
Steinhauser defendants, the individual Defendants eontinued illegal eode
enforcement aetions directed against my properties.
66. On June 24, 2004, City Attorney Dolan and Kalis applied for ex-parte
restraining orders against me and my brother for conduct that allegedly
occurred on May 24, 2004. When the Ramsey County District Court judge
reviewed the actual evidence, the restraining orders were dismissed as there
was no basis for the relief sought by said Defendants through Kalis. Dismissal
of the restraining orders occurred only after I and my brother were forced to
hire St. Paul attorney Thomas C. Plunkett, thereby incurring substantial
attomey's fees and costs in having our attorney obtain the necessary court
24
relief. I was in the process ofpreparing my federal claims against the City and
the Defendant herein during the time of this retaliation.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 8-22-2008
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This 22nd day ofAugust, 2008
Melanie Kathleen Bath
Notary Public
Under Seal
25
sl Steve R. Johnson
Continuation Pg 40
Dawkins states, “A problem property is best defined by simply saying: If you live next door to a problem property you know it! Constant calls to get rid of the junk, intolerable behavior by occupants and guests, etc. A problem property can be a rental property or an owner occupied property; it can be a commercial property or a residential property; it can be a single-family unit, a duplex or an apartment building.”
The official approved Dawkins-Kelly policy was that if landlord had one property labeled a “problem property” Defendants could target all of that landlord’s rental properties and could apply Mayor Kelly’s heightened “code to the max” and “call everything” code standard. The net effect of Dawkins’ policy was that the City was able to multiple the “code to the max” punishment to the landlord’s other properties where innocent protected class tenants lived. One tenant misbehaved, all the tenants of the targeted landlord suffered the consequences of a now weakened landlord who was too busy fighting the City to meet the critical housing needs of protected class members.
Caty Royce provided a good example of how dangerous Dawkins really was at the helm of the City’s Code Enforcement where a disabled woman was forced from her duplex unit due to an unrelated tenant’s alleged behavior in the separate unit.. Royce, pp. 41-42.
Dawkins notes show repeated instructions to inspectors to “get inside”, “try to get
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 43 of 78
44
inside, code to the max”; “Code to the max; “Do code to the max to help eviction”,; “Try to get to VB Cat. II for code compliance.”
NHPI Director Dawkins’ notes state, “Want to check inside”“Not many code issues on exterior. Inside is a question.”“How get inside?” “inspector is trying to get inside to see if there are interior issues.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
MARK E. MEYSEMnOURG
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Mark E. Meysembourg, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as
follows:
I. I am currently a resident of the State of Florida, residing at **** Monette
Road, Riverview, Florida. I moved to Florida from Minnesota in January
2004. My last residence in Minnesota was at 772 East Cook, in Saint Paul
where I lived for seven years.
2. I was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota in 1951 and graduated li'OIll Cretin High
School 1969. I attended Dunwoody Industrial Institute in Minneapolis for
machine shop training and Saint Paul Vocational Institute for tool and die
making. I served in the United States Army from 1969 to 1972 and received a
honorable discharge. In 1994, I graduated li'OIll Concordia College with a
Business Degree.
3. In 1976, I started in the business of providing rental housing in the City of
Saint Paul. Between 1997 and 2004, I lived in Saint Paul and owned rental
properties in the City. I lived at 772 Cook in the City which when I bought it
was a rundown duplex. I completed remodeled that home. My home at 772
Cook was within short walking distance from 4 of 5 rental homes I owned. My
rental homes consisted of four duplex homes and one single family home.
4. My single family and duplex rental homes were located in the neighborhoods
adjacent to the City'S inner core, where based upon my personal observations
over many years, there has been a large concentration of older housing stock.
See Exhibit No.1 attached hereto, a list my rental homes I owned during 2002
through 2004 by property address and census traet and maps showing the
2
location of each of my rental homes during 2002 through 2004 and Sweeps
Maps from NHPI of St. Paul
5. The tenant market for my residential rental properties would be considered
Class C - properties for low income individuals that have minimal amenities,
but are safe and decent affordable housing. My rents were below market as I
focused on providing housing primarily to low-income.
6. All of my rental homes were in the neighborhoods where based upon my
personal observations, there is and has been a heavy concentration of
minorities since I began providing low-income individuals and families with
housing.
7. During the period of approximately 2002 through 2004, about fifty (50)
percent of my tenants were African-Americans and Hispanics and mixed race
couples. See Exhibit No.2 attached hereto. Defendants' counsel incorrectly
stated that I did not provide the identity of my tenants' race but simply said I
would update my Answers to Interrogatories. See Exhibit No.3 attached
hereto, selected pages from my answers to Interrogatories - please see pages 89
- in November 2004, I listed the race of my tenants and made disclosure.
Historically, 70 percent of my tenants were African-Americans and Hispanics,
and mixed race couples.
8. Since starting my rental business in 1976, I lived in the City of St. Paul and
White Bear Lake. I made an average of 2 visits on a weekly basis to my rental
properties in the City. During that same period, many days I would spend
3
many hours at my rental properties looking for exterior issues like trash and
grafliti, etc. and working on my properties. I also responded to my tenants'
requests for repairs or other assistance, meeting with potential renters and at
times meeting with, talking with neighbors, meeting with City inspectors,
obtaining permits from City Hall, dealing with contractors on improvement or
repair issues, traveling between my rental homes, to and from hardware and
home improvement and to and from City Hall.
9. In maintaining my older rental homes, I incurred significant expenses
including from tenant caused damages that were rarely reimbursed to me.
10. I have never received any direct resources from the City or federal government
to help me with my low-income rental business except when I rented to
Section 8 tenants. I did not receive any financial assistance from the City or
federal government to assist me in renovations or repairs to my older rental
properties. No one from the city, including the inspectors, has ever identified
for me any programs that would provide me with resources that I needed to
continue to provide affordable housing in the City during 2002 through 2004.
From the fall of 2002 and continuing thereafter, I received no assistance from
the City to help me meet the City's heightened code enforcement standards.
11. I attempted to screen tenants and deal with behavior issues without having city
resources. During the time I owned rental properties, the City demanded that I
and other landlords screen potential tenants more effectively. The Police
Department would provide me with the minimal information reports and
4
records to provide any better screening. I would travel to the St. Paul Police
Station and make a request for the summaries they offered.
12. Many of my former tenants were good tenants and did not caused complaints
from neighbors or others. I believe in giving everyone a fair opportunity to
live in the City. As long as my tenants met their obligations to me under the
lease and did not cause problems they could continued to live in my properties.
13. If one of my tenants became a problem, once I was notified of the problem, I
would work to resolve the issue including working with the City police
department to effective address claimed criminal behavior. When presented
with solid evidence of criminal or nuisance behavior of one of my tenants, I
would take action to commence lawful eviction proceeding in the local court
system.
14. Over the years, I have found it almost impossible to get the city, through its
police and City Attorneys, to hold any of my tenants accountable for their
nuisance or criminal behavior - the police won't arrest or the tenant will not be
charged.
15. Between 2002 and 2004, the City claimed it was applying its higher standard
consistently across the City. During this period, the City code inspectors under
Dawkins conducted code sweeps in the neighborhoods of my low-income
rental properties. See Exhibit No.1, Sweeps Maps for 2003 and 2004. In
order to ensure that I was not in violation of the higher standards, I had to take
significant efforts to increase the monitoring and maintenance of my
5
properties.
16. Starting in the fall of 2002 and continuing through 2004, the City's increased
code enforcement activity directed at my rental portfolio interfered with my
ability to attend to my rental business and prohibited me from working to
prepare unoccupied rental homes for re-rental, to communicate with the many
individuals who were seeking housing, and to monitor my other rental
properties.
17. Instead of being able to handle the normal needs of my rental business, I was
forced to spend more time addressing the correction orders and condemnation
and code compliance on my 970 Euclid property, and attending administrative
hearings to challenge the merits of the orders, and City induced court action.
18. Prior to the late fall of 2002, I had always been responsive to City inspections
and repair orders on my rental properties and my relationship with inspectors
had been good.
19. Defendants Andy Dawkins, Lisa Martin, Steve Magner and Officer Dean
Koehnen were directly involved in enforcement of the City's heightened code
standards to my rental properties and subsequent condemnation of my property
located at 970 Euclid Street during the period of November 2002 through
Febmary 2003.
20. On or about November 15, 2002, Martin and Koehnen, conducted an interior
inspection of my 970 Euclid rental property. Martin and Koehnen did not have
an administrative search warrant or my tenants' consent. No emergency
6
existed justifying the entry by City inspectors into the rental units of my
tenants. I never received notice from the City that the City was going to
conduct an inspection.
21. As a result of the inspection, Martin and Koehnen prepared and mailed to me a
Correction Notice dated November 15, 2002, containing false claims of code
violations. This Correction Order was also mailed to both tenants of my 970
Euclid duplex. Claimed code violation item number 4 (lacking deadbolt door
locks) and item number 7 (leaking plumbing) were false and item number 12
(roof is deteriorated, defective, or in a state of disrepair) was also false as the
roof had been partially replaced two years before and was not in need of
further repair. See Exhibit No.4, attached hereto, STP 1307 to 1309.
22. I filed a legislative appeal with the City detailing the claimed code violations
listed by Martin that were false. Sce Exhibit No.5, attachcd hereto, 0030982.
I attended the hearing on my appcal. At the hearing, my tenants testified on
my behalf. Officer Koehnen appeared at the hearing and was initially in a
seated position in the hearing room but when the first of my tenants started to
testify, Koehnen stood up and stepped into the isle in direct line with the
tenant, spread his feet, folded his arms and glared at each tenant, all in an
attempt I believe to intimidate my tenant witnesses. Koehnen continued this
intimating conduct through the testimony of my tenants. Frank Steinhauser
and his attorney were in attendance at my appeal hearing. My legislative
appeal was denied. Sec Exhibit No.6, attached hereto, STP 015121 - STP
7
015123, City Notes of the Property Code Enforcement Hearing, December 10,
2002. See also Exhibit No.7, attached hereto, Transcription of audio tape of
Legislative Hearing on December 10, 2002 (15 pages). My tenants in both
units of 970 Euclid told the City hearing officer that when presented with a city
inspector and police officer at their doors, they felt like they had no choice but
to let them inside because of the City employees' persistence and being told by
the City employees that they had to come inside. One tenant told the City
hearing officer that the inspector and officer "budged their way in". The City
inspector was Lisa Martin and the Police Officer was Officer Koehnen. See
Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7.
23. Martin obtained an administrative search warrant and on December 31, 2002,
conducted a second interior inspection of my 970 Euclid rental property.
24. In a second Correction Notice dated January 2, 2003, mailed to me, Martin
again listed the false items from the first Correction Order, including the lack
of deadbolt locks and restated false statement of the deteriorating roof. The
January 2, 2003, Corrcction Order was also mailed to both tenants of my
duplex. See Exhibit No.8, attached hereto, STP 1304 - 1306.
25. Thereafter, I filed a formal complaint against the City claiming that my rights
had been violated.
26.0n or about February 3, 2003, Martin, Koehnen and Steve Magner, Martin's
and Koehnen's supervisor, conducted a third inspection of my 970 Euclid
rental property again without advance notice to me, and without a search
8
warrant or any other valid basis. I was working in the upper unit of my duplex
but left to buy some paint. \Vhen I returned, I found Martin, Koehnen and
Magner inside my home in the basement conducting an illegal inspection. They
saw me and came up from the basement and confronted me. I did not provide
my consent to this third inspection and attempted to assert my rights. During
this third inspection, Magner informed me that there was a missing safety
valve on one of the boilers in my duplex. I pointed out that his assertion was
false as the boilers had been serviced the previous year. After a shouting
match ensued, the City employees left.
27. The next day, Dawkins, Martin, Magner and Koehnen retaliated against me as
Dawkins issued a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated February
3, 2003 (listing Martin as the inspector) and mailed this Notice to one of the
occupants of 970 Euclid Street and to former owner in Anchorage, Alaska.
Sec Exhibit No.9, attached hereto, STP 1299 to 1301.
28. Dawkins and Martin claimed in this written Condemnation Notice that the west
side boiler lacked a pressure relief value and as such this condition constituted
"material endangerment" justifying immediate condemnation of the duplex.
This was falsely stated by Martin and Dawkins in order to justify the
retaliatory emergency condemnation by Dawkins and Martin of my building.
Martin and Dawkins intended the false claims and condemnation to forcibly
remove my tenants, including my protected class tenants, and thereby cause
further damages to me and my tenants.
9
29. In the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated February 3, 2003
Dawkins and Martin also falsely stated that the "roof' was "deteriorated" and
the lack of deadbolt locks. The roof was not deteriorated and there were
deadbolt locks in compliance with the Codes.
30.1 again filed a legislative appeal. Exhibit No. 10, attached hereto, 0031011.
During this hearing on February 25, 2003, I presented evidence to the City
hearing officer that the claim by Dawkins and Martin of the lack of a boiler
safety relief valve was false. The City's hearing officer refused to look at my
evidence and once again denied my appeal. See Exhibit No. 11, attached
hereto, Transcription of audio tape of Legislative Hearing on February 25,
2003 (8 pages).
31. On or about March 13, 2003, Assistant City Attorney Dolan, a member of
PPU, prepared a written tenants remedies court complaint against me on behalf
of the City. None of my tenants joined the City's action against me. The
Complaint included a fact statement that the duplex boiler "lacks a pressure
relief valve." This false claimed violation was listed first in a list of items that
Martin, Dawkins and Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dol1an claimed needed
repair in my 970 Euclid rental home. The City's Complaint, sworn
Verification and City inspection documentation were mailed to me.
32. During the court proceeding, Martin and Magner, along with Attorney Dolan,
falsely represented to me that the "code compliance" inspection they were
demanding as a part of the settlement of the City's action against me, was to be
10
"as built," and as such, the building would not have to be completely brought
to current code. This false statement was made to fraudulently induce me to
settle. See Exhibit No. 12, attached hereto, Transcript of Proceedings, March
27, 2003, pages 3 and 4, where the agreement to a "Codc COlllpliance" "as
built" was read into the court record. Assistant City Attorncy, Maurcen
Dolan, a member of the City's code enforcement Problem Property Unit,
statcd, "Just so the record is clear, Counsel asked the inspector, 'Are vou
going to be requiring him to bring it up to the 2003 code?' The response was,
'No. This building is not a newlv built building. It will be expected to be
compliant as it was built the veal' it was built." page 4 (emphasis added).
33. The following week, during my conversation with the City's License,
Inspection and Environment Protection ("L1EP") office, I was informed that
once the City's LIEP inspectors were involved on my property, there was no
such thing as "as built" code compliance, but rather LIEP only conducted
"code compliance" inspections to present or current codes, which required all
major systems in a rental building to be brought up to current code
requirements, thereby removing grand-fathering protections of state law. I was
shocked by this disclosure.
34. I was unable to withdraw from my end of the settlement agreement and
Dawkins, Martin and Dolan required me to bring my 970 Euclid building up to
current code, eliminating the grand-fathering protection for my building under
previous building codes. I later learned why I received no judicial relief from
11
such a clear fraud by the City. Andy Dawkins, the City Attorney, various
Assistant City Attorneys, and City Council President Dan Bostrum, had all had
private meetings with the Chief Judge of the Court to gain assurances of
support - a "buy-in" Dawkins called it, for all City positions against rental
property owners, and the City had been allowed by the Court to "judge shop"
for the right referee to properly handle the City's civil actions. The City went
further and had at a least one private meeting with Referee Yanish - who was
also "trained" by Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan, who was not only
the City's prosecutor against me, but also a member of the City's Problem
Property Unit with Lisa Martin, Officer Dean Koehnen and Steve Magner. As
one can see from the record, Referee Yanish made no disclosures to me of this
special conflict - and neither did Maureen Dolan.
35. As a result of the City's increased code standards, including the code
compliance, removal of my grandfathering protections for my older rental
property and the false claimed code violations, I lost rents from my 970 Euclid
rental home for over one year, was required to incur tens of thousands of
dollars in extra expense to meet the LIEP "code compliance inspection and
certification" process including to meet "current codes".
36. As part of LIEP's full code compliance inspection process on my 970 Euclid
duplex, LIEP did not require any repairs to the roof, the deadbolt locks
remained on the doors as before the November 15, 2002, inspection, and the
boilers' pressure relief valves that were in existence at all times during 2002
12
and 2003 were unmodified by the LIEP inspection process. Sec Exhibit No.
13, attached hereto, City Code Compliance Inspection report from the City's
LIEP office dated April 22, 2003. This proves that Dawkins, Magner, Martin
and Koehnen were falsely claiming that certain code violations existed at my
970 Euclid rental property, and that actually the claimed code violations were
not serious to the point that they justified condemnation of my property and
dislocation of my tenants from their rental home and the further prohibition
against my re-rental of my duplex for many months while my contractors
performed the work to meet the City's heightened code standards. See Exhibit
No. 14 (also marked Exhibit "23"), and 15, attached hereto, 0030098 and
0030099.
37. My contractors finally completed the demanded repairs and renovations and I
was provided by the City a "Certificate of Code Compliance" on January 16,
2004. See Exhibits 16 and 17, attached hereto, 0030104 and 0030106.
38. Because of the shocking experience with City code enforcement methods
under Dawkins, the lying by inspectors Martin and Magner, Koehnen, and
Dawkins, the treatment by the City's Attorneys, and the Ramsey County
District Court, the large amount of expenses I was forced to incur in a very
small amount of time, the losses of rental income I suffered due to the
condemnation, and the heightened code standards and increased enforcement
of those heightened code standards in the areas I owned rental properties, and
all the emotional stress this caused, I was forced to sell all of his rental
13
properties in the City in order to avoid financial disaster.
39. I incurred significant expenses from those sales transactions that I would have
not incurred but for the City's "forced sale" policy.
40. The city's heightened code standards and increased code enforcement against
me, my rental homes and tenants during 2002 through 2004, was a barrier to
my ability to provide afTordable housing to my minority and low-income
tenants and to other "protected class" individuals that were seeking affordable
housing in the City during that time period.
41. I continued to receive calls from prospective tenants looking for affordable
housing in the City of Saint Paul during 2002 through 2004 and during the
period I was in the process of selling the last of my rental homes to save my
investments.
42. While I attempted to minimize my losses, I also suffered increased tax burdens
due to quick sales, and I incurred substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs,
and through permit and code compl iance fees.
43.ln about 1999, I notified the City inspections department, Harold Robinson, of
a complaint I had with a property located at 97 \Vest Sycamore that was in
significant disrepair. Thereafter, I continued to file complaints against the
property due to its serious state of disrepair. In 2003 and 2004, I continued to
file complaints against that property. See Exhibit No. 18, attached hereto,
0032904-908, my 10-20-04 letter to Inspector Robinson; three pages of black
and white photographs of the subject property; Complaint Report sheets, two
14
pagcs, 0032912-13; my follow-up Icttcr to Inspcctor Robinson of 11-24-04,
0032914-17; City Corrcction Noticcs to 97 Sycamorc from 200 I, 1999 and
2004, 0032918-21; and St. Paul's Pcrmit Onlinc printout for subjcct propcrty,
two pagcs. It was clcar to me that evcn though thc City issued ordcrs to corrcct
dcl1ciencies, thc City ncver took any action to cnforce those orders but Ict the
building fail into further disrepair ovcr an cxtcnded pcriod of time, dcspitc my
complaints while targeting my low-incomc rcntal duplex at 970 Euclid which
was in far bettcr condition.
FunTIlEn YOUR AFFIANT SAYTII NOT.
Datcd: August 22, 2008
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 220d day of August, 2008.
Jordan Brightwell
Notary Public
Undcr Scal
Defendants had solved the way to properly handle the “problem properties” with the successful “PP 2000” program that encouraged and facilitated a working relationship with the private low-income landlords. 045077-79, “Progress Report on PP 2000 January to September, 2000”. Defendants abandoned a most successful “problem properties” program called, “PP 2000” run by the City from 1999 through 2001. 045077-79.
In fact, the City Council in January 2001, had found the “Problem Properties 2000” “program” so successful that “There are also other problem properties that should be included and the program could be expanded to include those.” Minutes, January 24, 2001, 45654-58.
The PP 2000 program was a “new approach to dealing with properties that had a history of unresolved or repeat Code violation”. Id. The main thrust of the program was to eliminate violations before they enter the formal City complaint system by getting a small group of owners to take a more business like approach to managing their properties.” Id.
The first phase of PP2000 was to identify the owners to include in the program from data in City complaint files and from other sources. Id. The PP 2000 inspectors then met with
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 44 of 78
45
each of the owners to explain the program, how it affected them and what the City expected from them.
Jeff Hawkins, a member of the PP 2000 inspector group, stated, “the idea with PP2000 is that you communicate with the landlords and see what problems they were having so that you could formulate a better plan for compliance instead of just constant punishment for it”. Hawkins, p.18-19. “[W]e wanted to work towards compliance and towards everybody having a good working relationship instead of the constant enforcement, enforcement, enforcement” Id. 26-27. PP 2000 inspectors thought the City could obtain better housing stock with a cooperative relationship with owners. 27-28. PP 2000 had an overall positive effect. p. 33-34.
Due to older buildings and deterioration issues and higher costs, landlords with more properties seemed to have more difficulty. Id. 21. The landlords had cost pressure from tenant caused damage as well. Id. 23
From discussions with the PP 2000 landlords, Hawkins observed that there needed to be a balance between the costs of doing repairs on properties in relation to attempts to keep rents affordable especially with the older rental properties. Id. 22; 67-70.
According to Hawkins, PP 2000 did exactly what the City Council wanted it to do to gain compliance and have a working relationship with the landlords at that time. Id. 26. “It was an overall positive effect” as fewer complaints were coming through the system and the neighborhood people saw an improvement in the housing stock. The "working relationship with the landlords," led to the positive effect (Id. 33), “landlords were partners in this too” and “we wanted to do is communicate with the landlords” Id. 33. “[W]e listened to them, listened
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 45 of 78
46
to their problems and then tried to work it out together. So we were more of a partnership versus I'm telling you what to do and by when.” Id. 33-34. He recalls that the program was successful with about 70 percent of the PP2000 landlords. Id. 34-35.
Steinhauser was selected by the City for PP2000. Id. 36. Hawkins recalls at least weekly if not daily communications with Steinhauser. Id. 37. Recalls dealing with Steinhauser on the lower East side of City. Id. 37.
The relationship with Steinhauser is the only property owner Hawkins remembers from the PP2000 Program or for Code Enforcement – he says that relationship was the epitome of the program - the success. Hawkins described his working as a City code inspector and a PP2000 inspector with Steinhauser as a successful relationship and what he wanted for all those other landlords or the other ones in the 70 percent. Id. 42. Essling, 206 (Steinhauser was cooperative).
Hawkins recalls that owners informed the City that if code enforcement pushed too hard, there would be abandonment of the low-income properties. p. 81. Hawkins stated that inspectors enforced minimal property standards, not some suburban covenants or anything of that effect. 69-70
He was concerned that renovation could have an adverse impact on the tenants as the tenant may not be able to find replacement housing. p. 92. If violations were only in one unit of a multi-unit building, he would only condemn the one unit to keep the other unit occupied. p. 93.
See Dick Lippert’s memo dated 10/11/00, re PP 2000 Report, to inspectors Essling,
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 46 of 78
47
Hawkins, Yannarelly, one page, on success of the PP 2000 program. Ex. 99 to 3rd Engel Aff., STP0408; Joel Essling Memo PP2000 no date - one page - lists Steinhauser, Vue and others; PP2000 Memo - lists 19 owners, including Steinhauser, Vues, PP2000 Memo - lists 17 owners, including Steinhauser, Vue; Also see Dick Lippert Deposition for PP 2000 topics, pages 62, 72, 73, 91, 92, 93, 94.
The City, Kelly and Dawkins abandoned the successful PP 2000 program and adopted a policy of confrontation with same low-income protected class landlords with heavy enforcement, excessive consumption fees, condemnations, code compliances, criminal tags, TRAs, which had an adverse impact on same landlords.
The PP 2000 Progress Report memo and related PP 2000 documents, and inspector deposition transcripts (Hawkins, etc), demonstrate that PP 2000 was a great success and would have been available to Kelly and Dawkins as an alternative to their “heavy enforcement” “code to the max” program against low-income landlords, would have improved the housing stock, and avoided the displacement of tenants, and vacant units both during City required renovations and due to long term vacancies15
sl Mark E. Mcysembourg
A disparate treatment claim requires evidence of intent to treat members of a protected class differently than others similarly situated. “Intentional discrimination may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence.” Duckworth v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept., 491 F.3d 401, 405 (8th Cir. 2008).
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 47 of 78
48
In the present case, the City acknowledges that their current system of code enforcement unfairly targets people of color, acknowledges a need for change, but no action is taken. In a December 19, 2005 email message from Jane Prince, legislative aide to former council member Jay Benanav , Ms. Prince states: “the issue of how a complaint based system may unfairly target people of color is a huge one, and I’m not sure what we do to get at it. A new Mayor and Toni’s and Jay’s influence in a new administration can sure help.” Further, Ms. Prince discusses the issue of discrimination with a constituent when addressing the number of complaints called-in on specific properties, stating: “we’re thinking it makes sense to invite both Tyrone Terrill from the Human Rights Office, and Bob Kessler, the new LIEP/Code Enforcement director, so that they can help us think through the very real possibility that people color are targeted by the city’s complaint based system.” This statement by a City employee acknowledges that the Defendants’ code enforcement discriminated against minorities, but dismissed the discriminatory effect and took no remedial action. Moreover, the Defendants were put on notice of the discriminatory effect of their conduct, but did not correct the conduct to eliminate the discriminatory effect. From that evidence of deliberate indifference to the discriminatory effect, a reasonable fact-finder could determine that the Defendants acted with discriminatory intent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
KELLY G. BRISSON IN
OPIlOSITION TO SUi\IMARY
JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Kelly G. Brisson, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
1. I am a resident of Minnesota.
2. I was born and raised in Saint Paul. In 2001, I purchased my first home at 297
Burgess, in Saint Paul. This was a duplex, two story home.
3. I bought my home to fix up and to rent out one floor to help me with my living
expenses and for investment purposes. I had purchased the duplex on a contract for
deed. I lived in the upper floor unit of this home.
4. My duplex rental property was located near the inner City of St. Paul. My tenants
were Hispanics and a White disabled male on Social Security Disability and receiving
Section 8 rental subsidies. See Exhibit "1", attached hereto, List of my former
property address, census tract, and map location in St. Paul.
5. In the spring of 2003, I started to rent to Leo Sider, who was disabled, receiving
Social Security Disability payments and was eligible to receive Section 8 housing
assistance from the PHA. Mr. Sider applied to Section to live in my main floor rental
unit.
6. As part of Mr. Sider's application to rcnt from mc and receive public assistance,
housing inspectors from PHA completed a Section 8 inspection of Brisson's duplex
on April 3, 2003. The inspectors conducted the inspection using the Housing Quality
Standards and detcrmined that four items needed correction and attention and Brisson
immediately made the repairs. Exhihit "2" attached hereto, 20076-77.
7. On April 14,2003, PHA inspectors re-inspected my duplcx and issued approval to me
under Section 8. See Exhihit "3" attached hereto 20078-79. Mr. Sider moved into
the main floor rental unit.
8. During the next several months I continued to work on improving my home and
rental property. Part of the renovation process included repairing certain portions of
the roof that had been damaged by squirrels. Construction debris collected on the
ground. In the summer of 2003, Defendant Lisa Martin issued me two criminal
2
citations for claimed roof, paint and trash code violations on my property.
9. I had been a victim of identity theft and an unauthorized person ran up electric bills in
his name with the utility company. As a result, the electricity to my upstairs unit was
suspended. However, the power was still connected and available in the lower unit
that Mr. Sider occupied.
10. When Andy Dawkins and Martin learned of the electricity suspension, Martin and
Dawkins prepared a written Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated July
15, 2003, of my entire duplex, claiming the home as "Unfit For Human Habitation"
and forwarded the Notice and Order to Brisson through the mail. Exhibit "4"
attached hereto, STP0811-R13.
II. The written Notice stated that the condemnation was based upon a "principal
violation" of "Lack of Electricity" in the home and that this condition constituted a
"material endangerment". This was false as there was electricity to the lower unit.
12. In the July 15, 2003, Notice of Condemnation, Martin and Dawkins also cited eleven
items that they stated were code violations on the exterior of my home that PHA and
the Section 8 inspection had not required me to attend to as part of the Housing
Quality Standards.
13. Dawkins and Martin falsely stated in their written order of July 15, 2003, that the
windows and screens were missing, defective or in a state of disrepair. The windows
and screens were on the home and were in fine shape except that I still needed to add
window casing trim to the newly installed windows. Martin and Dawkins also falsely
stated that there were missing or defective handrails and guardrails. In fact, only one
handrail/guardrail was temporarily detached to allow building materials to be brought
3
into the home for improvements.
14. As a result of the wrongful condemnation of both the upper and lower units of my
duplex, 1and my disabled tenant were forced from our home.
15. 1 filed a legislative appeal of this Condemnation Order with the City. The City
legislative hearing ofl1cer, and later, the City Council, denied my appeal. Exhibit "5"
attached hereto, STP 0807-809.
16. The week of August 4, 2003, 1 received a letter from Section 8 welcoming me as a
new owner to the St. Paul Section 8 program. Exhibit "6" attached hereto, 20073.
PHA told me "Owners are an important part of the success of this program and we
want you experience to be a positive one"
17. On August 7, 2003, Martin again inspected my home. On August 12,2003, Dawkins
and Martin prepared and issued a Revised Notice of Condemnation that again listed
the "Lack of Electricity" and cleven other violations listed on the July 15, 2003,
Notice of Condemnation. Exhibit "7" attached hereto, STP0795-98. Again, Dawkins
and Martin forwarded this written Notice and Order to me by mail.
18. Martin and Dawkins also listcd on the Revised Notice twelve additional interior code
violations claimed to have been discovered during tvlartin's interior inspection on
August 7, 2003. The Reviscd Notice included a total of 24 items and stated that due
to the amount of violations, Code Enforcement required a "Code Compliance"
Certificate before the condemnation was lifted.
19. Many of the items listed by Martin and Dawkins as violations on the August 12,
2003, Revised Notice of Condemnation were false. They falsely listed the lack of
electricity to the building when in fact only the upstairs unit was disconnected.
4
Martin and Dawkins falsely stated that the home was "Lacking deadbolt door locks"
on entry doors. Every entry door did have deadbolt locks at the time of Martin's
inspection and at all times before and after that. The only exception was that a
deadbolt lock on one door had been knocked loose from the door after being hit with
building materials; the new replacement deadbolt lock for that door was located right
next to the door ready to be put back into place. Inspector Martin observed all this.
20. In the August 12, 2003, Revised Notice of Condemnation, tvfartin and Dawkins also
falsely stated that the windows and screens were missing, defective or in a state of
disrepair. This continued to be false as the windows were new and screens were fine.
I was going to be adding window casing trim to the newly installed windows OIice a
different inspector had approved the installation of the windows. Martin knew of that
pre-inspection requirement. Martin and Dawkins also falsely stated that the front
storm doors were in disrepair. I had replaced all three screen and storm doors,
including the front storm door.
21. Some of the violations that Martin and Dawkins listed in the August 12, 2003,
Revised Notice were duplicates of other violations listed in the same written Notice
of Condemnation, but listed as separate numbers, and r..·ftutin and Dawkins duplicated
these items in their effort to inflate the number of claimed violations so they could try
to justify their demand that I go through a full "code compliance" on my duplex.
22. Because of the condemnation by said Defendants of home and my rental unit, I was
not allowed to live in my own home and my disabled tenant had to leave his home
following the July 15, 2003, condemnation and order to vacate. I lived out of my
tnlck following the July 2003, condemnation and order to vacate.
5
23. After the July 2003, Notice of Condemnation, I called Dawkins to tell him that my
home should not have been condemned. I infomled Dawkins that the lower unit did
have electricity and explained the false items listed in the Notice. I asked Dawkins to
come out to look at my home to see for himself. Dawkins refused. I attempted many
times to talk to Dawkins by phone but Dawkins would not take my calls.
24. Through Martin's and Dawkins' illegal condemnation of my entire home, they were
able to deny me the rental income I needed from my tenant to pay contract for deed
payments and repairs and to maintain my investment in his property.
25. After I received the August 12, 2003, Notice of Condemnation I filed another
legislative appeal with the City. On August 26, 2003, I attended the legislative appeal
hearing. I informed the hearing ofiicer that my home had passed a PHA Section 8
inspection just months before the harassment inspections by Martin and Dawkins, and
I described to the hearing ofiicer the true condition of my duplex. The hearing onicer
issued a decision in my favor and reversed the condemnation on my duplex. One of
the City's inspectors present at the hearing stated that I really did not need a "code
compliance" on my home.
26. On September 2, 2003, the Council upheld the hearing ofiicer's decision and the
Condemnation was officially removed from my home. On September 22, 2003, I
received a letter by mail from Dawkins stating that the condemnation was lifted
because the City had determined that the conditions causing the condemnation and
Order to Vacate, had been corrected. Exhibit "8" attached hereto, 20120.
27. After the condemnation was lifted, my tenant and I were able to occupy the duplex at
297 Burgess Street for almost one month.
6
28. On October 3, 2003, a search warrant was requested by law enforcement authorities
seeking to find a "meth" lab on the premises of my home. The search warrant was
not executed until six days later on October 9, 2003, when a law enforcement raid
was made of my home.
29. Early in the morning of October 9, 2003, law enforcement ofticers, without
announcing their presence or authority in violation of the express terms of the search
warrant, suddenly broke down my door with a battering ram and immediately shot me
and my dogs with a fire extinguisher. I had been asleep immediately before the raid.
I was informed by law enforcement officers that I was being arrested for two
outstanding housing court warrants that had been issued by Martin in June and July
2003. I was arrested and held in jail for a day and a half, and then released from
custody. I was not charged with any crime related to the warrant.
30. Upon my release from custody and return to my home, I discovered that on October
9, 2003, the day law enforcement oflicers had raided and destroyed his home, City
inspectors had inspected my upstairs unit. I discovered that the law enforcement
oflicers had broken my entry door and had also torn out all of my smoke detectors in
the upstairs unit; the detectors were still there, but were hanging by their wires from
the ceiling. The ofticers had also punched large holes in my upper floor walls,
damaged the unit's plumbing, damaged my furniture and had thrown furniture all
around the unit, and caused other damage to the unit.
31. At no time was I involved with illegal drug manufacturing that would give the
government any reason to suspect me and provide probable cause to obtain a search
warrant to raid my home. I was not arrested for illegal drugs, nor charged for drug
7
possession or illegal drug manufacturing.
32. On October 14, 2003, I once again received from Dawkins through the mail a written
Notice of Condemnation of his home. Exhibit "9" attached hereto, STP078I , 783.
Five code deficiencies were listed as the basis for condemnation; each of the five
were directly caused by law enforcement officers during their raid. The Notice stated
that my duplex could not be occupied and that the building must be vacated by
October 9, 2003, the day of the raid.
33. The Condemnation Notice of October 14, 2003, stated that "nue to the alllount of
deficiencies, a Code COlllllliallce Inspection will he required before a Il lncl1nl
Lift will be issucd."
34. 1 once again filed a legislative appeal. This time, my appeal was denied. Exhibit
"10" attached hereto, SP 1170, 1178-80.
35. After 1was illegally kicked out of my home by the City, 1 stopped by my home to get
my mail and found a letter and other documents from the City addressed to me and
David Johnson who 1 was buying the home from on a contract for deed. The City, in
its letters told me I had to register my home with the City as a "Vacant Building," pay
a vacant building fee of $200.00 every year. Exhibit" 11" attached hereto, 20128131,20133-
136.
36. 1 then appealed to the City Council and was denied the right to go back to living in
my home. Exhibit" 12" attached hereto, STP 1170, 1178-80.
37. 1 appeal then to the City Council. My attorney pointed out to the Council that the
damage listed in the October 14, 2003, Notice was a result of law enforcement
conduct and that the damage listed related only to the upstairs unit, not the Section 8
8
approved rental unit on the main floor. The Council denied my appeal and the
condemnation of the entire duplex was affirmed. Exhibit "12" attached hereto.
38. After I lost rental income from my tenant, I was unable to afford to pay for the full
"code compliance" that Defendants wrongfully dcmanded in ordcr to again occupy
and rent my duplex homc. I was forced to sell my duplex home as I could not make
the payments on the contract for deed or pay for other expenses on the duplex without
rental income. I also lost thousands of dollars expended in rcmodeling and repairing
my home in order to meet the dcmands of Dcfendants, and I lost my investmcnt in the
property including equity I had built up through my hard work. I also incurred
increased living costs due to loss of my duplex home, as well as attorney's fees, as a
direct result of how Dawkins, Martin and others constantly interfered with my rental
property.
39. I made significant efforts to meet Defendants' demands and expcnded my own funds
and borrowed funds for demanded repairs and to make payments to my tenant to help
him with housing expenses.
40. Although numerous other properties in the City had serious code violations, including
in my neighborhood which Defendants' ignored, Dcfendants selcctively targeted me
and tenant with the City's heightened code standard that was much higher than
Section 8's standard.
9
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: August 22t 2008
Subscribed and swom to before me
this 220d day of Augustt 2008.
William P. Weihrauch
Notary Public
The City has long recognized that there exists a bias of City residents against rental housing and renters in the neighborhoods of the City and significant racial bias against “persons of color” in the City. There March 2002 Chronic Problem Case Studies (40007)
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 48 of 78
49
noted significant bias and discrimination by City residents against members of the minority community and the City’s use in its report of derogatory labels (not just what the neighbors were calling the “protected class” occupants of City properties, but the actual names City employees working with the City Council were using – “Down ‘n Out” for example. 40007, pp. 12, 34, 37, 41-42, 44, 54, 58, 64, 102.
Kelly and Dawkins, as representatives to the State Legislature in the 1980s and 1990s, admitted their frustration with low-income inner city residents, who at all times were disproportionately “protected class” tenants in low-income rental housing.
In 1995, the City and PHA discovered that the City’s “minimum housing maintenance code” was actually “more stringent” 82% of the time when compared to the federal mandated Housing Quality Standards (HQS) applicable to federally subsidized, Section 8 “low income” housing in the City. Ex. 171 to 3rd Shoemaker Aff. The City and PHA privately admitted that HUD would not approve a City and PHA plan to substitute the City’s higher code for HQS in Section 8 inspections of privately owned low-income rental housing because HUD, the City and PHA recognized that application of a higher code standard to City housing stock would adversely affect availability of affordable housing stock.
The City and PHA failed to disclose to HUD and the public that the City’s Code was more stringent that HQS 82% of the time and that application of the City’s more stringent code to the City’s older housing stock would adversely affect and unduly restrict the availability of affordable housing and housing choice in the City.
In 2000, the City and PHA confirmed there early discovery and conclusions concerning
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 49 of 78
50
the more stringent City code when compared to HQS. Once again, the City and PHA failed to fully disclose to HUD or the public the fact of the City’s more stringent code.
From at least 1995, the City and PHA have worked together in making certain that the City’s more stringent code standards are applied to Section 8 and privately owned rental properties occupied disproportionately by “protected class” members.
From the mid-1990s, City has been on notice that increased government regulations on the privately owned low-income rental market would have a disproportionately adverse affect on “protected class” renters in the neighborhoods of the inner city. In 2002, Dawkins confirmed that over-zealous code enforcement of a higher code standard would lead to “wholesale abandonment of properties in the inner-city.”
Dawkins own statement to Bill Cullen and Sara Anderson are sufficient evidence at this stage of the litigation to constitute a prima facia case of disparate treatment.
Steve Mark, a low-income landlord discovered the open racism in the City inspections departments when he was issued a over crowding order requiring a Hispanic tenant to leave to other roommates in a unit equal in size that the inspector allow three whites to live in. Steve Mark Affidavit.
Perry DeStefano, a former legal aid attorney in Saint Paul, testified in this case at length concerning 321 Bates and many other properties in Saint Paul where African-American occupied rental buildings were shut down by City inspectors without cause just because certain neighbors complained. DeStefano wrote to the City Council in 2004 notifying the City that neighbors were using the city inspections department to adversely impact protected
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 50 of 78
51
classes in the city – that the 321 Bates neighbor complaints were false but the inspector shut the property down and offline - the Black owner was forced to sell the property. Ex. 101 to 1st Shoemaker Aff. DeStefano, pp. 17-32 and exhibits.
Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan, who as a member of Dawkins Problem Property Unit (PPU), showed Bee Vue what motivation was really driving the City’s code enforcement: “Personally, I don’t think you people deserve to be in this country”. Ex. 150 to 2nd ShoemakerAff., Vue Affidavit, para. 8.
Catie Royce had this to say about another member of the small but powerful PPU under Dawkins: Magner is racist. p.123-24.
Proof of the racist motivation behind the City’s actions is the credible evidence that Defendants did have less restrictive means available to meet legitimate policy interests. The highly successful PP2000 program that the City Council was recommending be continued shortly before Mayor and Dawkins took control and dramatically shifted policy and practices, and the City’s successful partnership with PHA on behavior issues related to PHA’s tenants, were alternatives that would not have adversely impacted and injured “protected class” members and their housing providers. The City’s partnership with PHA had existed for decades. The City worked with the largest provider of low-income housing – a “secretly” recognized “problem property” landlord with considerable criminal elements within its tenant base that the City had to provide with an “army,” like Dawkins says, to control the rental grounds of PHA in order to quell public discontent who surrounding those “problem properties”. The City and PHA even installed a separate police call-in number for PHA
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 51 of 78
52
tenants so PHA rentals could stay below the public’s radar. Yes, PHA was considered by itself and by the City as a “problem property” owner but the City still provided all types of support to PHA and not once did anything to undermine PHA’s significant mission, like Plaintiffs, to provide “safe and decent” affordable housing to those less fortunate.
The evidence presented shows that PHA and the Plaintiffs were similarly situated as were the tenants of both – both groups of tenants receiving federal housing subsidies but yet only the Section 8 tenants living in fear of Lisa Martin and Dean Koehnen banging on their door early in the morning to roust them from bed and force them from their home for claimed violations of the City’s heightened code
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Barrilal, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
SANDRA HARRILAL
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Sandra Harrilal, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
1. I am a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota. I have owned my own home in St. Paul
at 780 Charles since April 200 I. I am a school teacher. My race is AfricanAmerican.
2. I owned two rental properties in the St. Paul which I bought in 2003. I sold
these properties in 2004 and 2005 due to the City's code enforcement against
my rental property located at 704 Lawson Ave. East. This duplex home I
purchased from Ray Hessler, at the time an owner of many low-income rental
properties in the City.
3. At the time I purchased the 704 Lawson rental property, I registered the home
with the City rental registration office and listed my home address at 780
Charles, where the City should contact me about my rental property.
4. All my tenants in the duplex at 704 Lawson were African-Americans during
the time I owned it. One unit was occupied between May 2003 and August
2004 with an African-American couple with three children. The second unit
was occupied by an African-American woman from May 2003 to March 31,
2004.
5. My second rental property at 476 Lawson Ave, was occupied by an AfricanAmerican
as a qualified Section 8 rental home between April 2003 and April
30, 2004. These two homes were in good condition.
6. My two rental properties were located in the inner ring of St. Paul, where there
is a concentration of minorities. See Exhibit"1" attached hereto, a listing of
addresses of my former properties, census tract information and maps of Saint
2
Paul from City documents showing concentrations of minority groups and low
income concentrations, CDDG Block Group map, Saint Paul Sub-Grantee
Service Areas map, Racial Minority Population map with "children of color"
plotted where more than 50% of public school students, and 2004 Code
Enforcement Sweeps and 2003 Sweeps maps.
7. Starting in early 2004, I experienced increased code enforcement activity on
my rental portfolio, which included exterior and interior inspections, city
orders, shortening of timelines for fixing any claimed deficiency, charging of
fees for excessive use of city services when deficiencies should have been
called at once, interference with my ability to comply with City orders due to
delayed postmarks and actual deliveries of City enforcement orders and notices
of claims for excessive services.
8. In 2003 and 2004, Andy Dawkins, Inspector Lisa Martin, Inspector/supervisor
Steve Magner, and Officer Dean Koehnen participated in City action directed
at me at my duplex rental property located at 704 East Lawson. I did not leam
about this action under early 2004. The neighborhood surrounding my rental
home at 704 Lawson had a significant percentage of minorities residing there.
9. In February 2004, I discovered that Community Stabilization Project ("CSP")
was contacting my tenants with flyers informing them of the City's interest in
condemning my 704 Lawson rental property for claimed nuisance. I had not
had any nuisance at my property since I purchased the property the pervious
year. Exhibit "2" attached hereto, 60179.
3
10. I contacted Ray Hessler, the prior owner of the rental property, and obtained
City code enforcement documentation of December 16, 2002, and February 13,
2003, along with a copy of his cancelled check for the repair work and a
receipt for a new hot water heater installed in the 704 Lawson home. Exhibits
"3",60273-75, and "4", 60267-268 attached hereto.
11. I then contacted Inspector Martin and was informed that the City was suing me
with a Tenant's Remedy Action claim ("TRA") over claimed code deficiencies
on 704 Lawson property. I was shocked by this news. Martin informed me
that she had mailed a Correction Notice to me in September 2003. At no time
prior to that call had I been provided with any notice of the City'S code
enforcement actions on 704 Lawson or the City's lawsuit against me.
12. I learned that the Correction Notice Martin had referred to was dated
September 15, 2003, and was actually addressed to 704 Lawson, not to my
home address that I had registered with the City's rental registration program.
Exhibit "5", 60195-198, attached hereto.
13. I also did not receive a copy of the TRA Summons at my home rental
registration address either. However, in the Complaint, Dawkins referred to
my home rental registration address so it was clear to me Martin, Dawkins and
others knew how to provide me with "actual notice" of important matters
related to my rental property but they deliberately choose not to provide me
with the notices so that Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen and her supervisor Magner
4
could "build a file" against me for further actions against me and my tenants
and my rental home.
14. The September 15, 2003, Correction Notice, Exhibit "5" prepared by Martin
was attached as Exhibit II I to the Verified TRA Complaint prepared and sworn
to by Dawkins. The Correction Notice listed 12 items that Martin claimed were
code deficiencies. Dawkins claimed in Paragraph No.6 that the code violations
had not yet been remedied. This was false as items numbers 10 and 12 had
been remedied; the hot water heater had been replaced and the illegal locks had
been replaced before the City's commenced the TRA.
15. My tenants did not join in the City's TRA against me. I was forced to retain
attorney Douglass E. Turner to protect my interests in Ramsey County District
Court during the period of February 2004 through July 2004.
16.After the City started its TRA lawsuit against me in early February 2004,
Inspector Martin continued to issue me frequent Code Orders on my 704
Lawson property: on February 25, 2004 (Exhibit "6", 60219-221) and May 5,
2004 (Exhibit "7", 60226-27) and she wrote letters on May 11, 2004, and May
27,2004 (Exhibits "8", 60230-31 and "9", 60248-49 attached hereto.
17. This caused me further distress and expense of workman and attorney's fees to
defend against this continued action against me that was not justified.
Inspector Martin wrote her code orders so vague that I and my workman did
not know what Martin was saying needed to be fixed. My attorney had to
write letters to Martin seeking clarification, which caused me further expense.
5
18. During 2003 and 2004, many homes and garages in the 704 Lawson
neighborhood were in similar condition as my rental home. Quite a few homes
and garages around 704 Lawson were in bad condition with significant
deterioration - not like my propc11y at 704 Lawson.
19. My garage was in better shape than Andy Dawkins' garage for 2003 through
2005, and my home was in better shape on the exterior than Councilmember
Dave Thune's home during that same time. The City did not enforce its code
against its officials and employees, but came after me and my AfricanAmerican
tenants and raised my costs of providing housing to both Section 8
renters and others who were in need.
20. I received no offers of assistance from the City, Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen,
Magner or anyone else to help me with complying with the City's heightened
standards during 2003 through 2004.
21. During the time the City's TRA lawsuit was in Court, Dawkins and Martin
continued their scheme of delayed notice to me in an attempt to prejudice me
in the Court action and hurt me further. Following a May 27, 2004, inspection
of 704 Lawson, Martin prepared an additional Correction Notice dated June I,
2004. Exhibit "10", 60276-278 attached hereto. In this Notice, Martin
provided me until June 14, 2004, to correct the alleged deficiencies. The
envelope that enclosed the June I, 2004, Correction Notice was postmarked
"June 15, 2004." Martin intentionally delayed mailing this Notice to me for
two weeks after the date of the Notice. I believe she did so in order to
6
prejudice me in the 'I'RA action because I had hired an attorney and hc and I
were defending my right to rent to African-Americans in my community and
because we were standing up to her bully tactics. Martin delayed the mailing to
me shortly after she and my attorney had been writing back and forth and there
had been vigorous arguments in court. I received Martin's Code Orders days
after her June 15, 2004 deadline. I was shocked by Martin's continued dirty
tactics. My attorney again had to continue to defend my interests and this
caused me further expenses.
22. Dawkins also sent me a letter notice dated June I, 2004, notifying me that his
Code department had conducted an inspection of my rental property at 704
Lawson on May 27, 2004, and he claimed the City had determined that I was
not compliant with a previous order to repair the property. Exhibit"11",
60279-281 attached hereto. Dawkins stated that I was being billed $50.00 for
the cost of the inspection for excessive consumption of City services. Dawkins
stated that my property was scheduled for a re-inspection on June 14, 2004,
and warned me that if I did not have the violations COlTected by that date, I
would be billed an additional $75.00 for additional City re-inspection costs.
He also threatened to revoke my rental registration if! did not pay his bill.
23. I didn't receive Dawkins' important letter and notice by the June 14, 2004
deadline he had set because Dawkins delayed mailing his June I, 2004, and
excessive consumption notice to me for over two weeks. The postmark on the
envelope enclosing Dawkins' notice is dated June 16, 2004. Again, I had to
7
contact my attorney and seck his advice to protect my interests. This caused me
further expense and fear that a government official would be so underhanded
with me, even while the City was in Court.
24. Due to the way the City inspection department had treated me by not providing
me with important City notices, Orders and legal proceedings, I knew I could
not survive as a landlord in the City and it would only be a matter of short time
and Martin, Dawkins, Magner, and Keohnen would find a way to run me over
and devastate me financially. I did not have the money to continue to have an
attorney constantly by my side every day to protect me from the City while I
continued to provide housing for renters in the City.
25. Because of the way I was treated by Andy Dawkins, Inspector Martin, Steve
Magner and Officer Keohnen, with harassment and dirty tricks, and the great
expense I had to incur on my rental property, I knew I could not stay in the
rental business in St. Paul.
26. I had been able to provide Section 8 housing in the City and I got through the
Section inspection program without any difficulties. I had passed the Section 8
inspection on my property at 476 Lawson and both of my rental properties
were in similar condition.
27. The City's inspection program was impossible to comply with - the standards
were so high -"professional manner," for example, that I would have had to
raise my rents in order to pay for the work required by the City orders,
especially to the high level of their satisfaction, and by the need for an attorney
8
to defend me at every step I made in the City. If the City enforced its code on
my second property with the same forcc, I would have suffered cven more
financial hardship and lost my investments in both properties.
28. During most of 2004, my time was spent trying to meet the elevated demands
of Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen and Magner on my 704 Lawson property. That
took its toll on my mental and physical condition. In 2004, I had calls from
potential renters but I could not have them occupy 704 Lawson until the City
finally said my property was up to its high standards in late summer 2004. I
was afraid to re-rent either of my apartments in 2004 after I lost my tenants for
fear that Martin, Keohnen, Magner and Dawkins would again try to shut me
down by falsely claiming my properties were a "nuisance" and then forcing
expensive modifications to my low-income homes.
29. During then week of February 22, 2005, I received in the mail a Rental
Registration Notice from Dawkins' department dated February 8, 2005.
Exhibit "12", 60283-286. The Notice included a small printed statement that,
"Code Enforcement appeals information may be obtained be calling 651-2668989.
Any appeal to this registration requirement must be filed within ten (10)
days of the datc of this letter." When I saw the mail delay again from
Dawkins' office, and the fact I was long past the appeal time listed in the
notice, I knew I had really had no choice but to sell my homes.
9
30.1 lost rental income during 2004. I needed the rental income to pay for normal
maintenance and repairs, utilities, mortgage payments and other expenses of
my homes.
31.1 was forced to sell my two rental properties in the City because the City
applied a strict standard to my low-income rental homes that Section 8 had not
applied.
32.1 found out later that the City had labeled me a "problem property" owner and
that is why they were enforcing the City code to the max on my 704 Lawson
property. Exhibit "13" attached hereto, showing "PROBLEM PROPEnTY"
and "RR exists? Yes" (Rental Registration). This document lists Inspector
Martin as the assigned inspector back in 2003 and 2004. She knew I had a
home address on file in her office but chose to ignore that address for the
September 2003 Correction Orders and for giving me actual notice that the
City had started a lawsuit against me so she could built a court case against me
that I was a repeat violator.
Ii'URTIIER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTI-I NOT.
Dated: 8122/08
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 22nd day of August, 2008.
William P. Weihrauch
Notary Publ ic
Under Seal
10
/s Sandra Harrilal
Sandra Harrilal
2000
II.
PLAINTIFFS’ EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING AND HAVE PRODUCED RECORD EVIDENCE TO RAISE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO BOTH “PROTECTED CLASS” AND “CLASS-OF-ONE” CLAIMS
The question before the court on a motion for summary judgment is whether the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc., 85 F.3d 1365 (8th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted). Where a defendant moves for dismissal of a § 1983 action on the basis of qualified immunity, the court has a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory, even if it is not advanced by the plaintiff. See Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1312 (8th Cir. 1997). The court may order
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 52 of 78
53
dismissal of a § 1983 case on the basis of immunity only if it appears beyond reasonable doubt that plaintiffs can prove no set of facts that would entitle them to relief. Id. at 1308.
A.
Plaintiffs have standing to bring equal protection claims
Defendants cite the case of Berry v. City of Little Rock, 904 F. Supp. 940 (E.D.Ark. 1995), in arguing that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring their equal protection claims. However, the Berry court determined that the landlords did have standing because the landlords suffered lost rental income and additional costs. Id. at 945. As in Berry, the Plaintiffs herein have standing to assert equal protection claims because the Plaintiffs suffered economic harm as a result of being targeted by the Defendants’ unequal code enforcement. lost rental income, increased expenses for upkeep of their properties, and reduced sale prices resulting from forced sales.
B.
“Protected class” equal protection claims
Defendants’ unequal enforcement of the city housing code resulted in a significant adverse effect on minority residents of Saint Paul, and there was a viable alternative that had been previously used by the Defendants that did not result in the disparate adverse effect. To make a prima facie case of a violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Plaintiffs must show that the Defendants’ conduct had a disparate impact on minorities compared to other non-minority residents of Saint Paul. See Darste-Webbe Tenant Ass’n Bd. v. St. Louis Housing Authority¸417 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2005). Defendants’ unequal code enforcement increased the cost of private landlords providing low-income housing in Saint Paul, with the
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 53 of 78
54
intended and actual result of removing low-income housing stock from the Saint Paul rental market. The reduction in low-income housing stock reduced the housing choices of low-income residents of Saint Paul and increased the likelihood that they would have no choice but to either live in PHA-owned housing or leave Saint Paul. The burden now shifts to the Defendants to demonstrate that their actions had a manifest relationship to legitimate, non-discriminatory policy objectives and that they were justifiable as being necessary to the attainment of legitimate, non-discriminatory objectives. Id. If the Defendants do so, the burden shifts back to the Plaintiffs to show that a viable alternative means is available to achieve those legitimate policy objectives without discriminatory effects. Id. The viable, The City had a non-discriminatory alternative in the PP2000 Program that had been previously used by the City before the Defendants implemented their plan to drive from the City the “undesirables.”
C.
“Class-of-one” equal protection claims
The record evidence supports the Plaintiffs’ “class-of-one” equal protection claims. “The purpose of a class-of-one claim is to secure every person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents. It is recognized law that a class-of-one claimant may prevail by showing she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Barstad v. Murray County, 420 F.3d 880, 884 (8th Cir. 2005). To prevail on a
Case 0:05-cv-00461-JNE-SRN Document 237 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 54 of 78
55
class-of-one claim, a plaintiff must prove that it was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Id. at 887.
In the present case, the Defendants intentionally treated the Plaintiffs and other private owners of low-income housing differently than the PHA, which also owned low-income housing and who had the same characteristics that City claimed important for justifying its heavy-handed approach to Plaintiffs but not for PHA.
The evidence shows that the Defendants routinely closed code inspection files without action when it was determined that a property was PHA-owned and did no follow-up inspection. Plaintiffs set out the City’s preferential treatment of PHA above. The Defendants have not, and cannot, provide a rational basis for the preferential treatment of the PHA, which suffers from the same problems in its low-income housing as do the Plaintiffs.
