Kathy Lantry
St. Paul City Council
City Hall - Room 320C
15 W. Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
LAW OFFICES OF
MINNESOTRAE GIONAL EGAL
SUITE 200
Ifdi EA..T FOIIRTH STREET
ST PA'Alll.. MINNESOTA ri,lOl
(651) 222-5863
FAX (651) 297-6457
August 11,2004
HAND DELIVERED
LAW WORK MANAGER
STEVENWOLFE
ATTORNEYS
JULIAALTHOFF
BETIYBERGER
PERRYDE STEFAN0
M*R111** EAVES
KATHLEENM. EVESTAGE
JON OEFfEN
KEN GlLCHRi8T
JAP*UL HARRIS
LAUWJELINEK
GEWLDG. ULUZNY
DOLLENE LAMBERM
JAMES LAURENCE
LAURA MELNICK
RON MICWLSON
JENNIFER MUCHEK
REBECCAAOSSOW
RACHEL SIBLEY
VALERIE BSNWER
.JAMES J. STREET
COLLEENWALBW
BENJAMIN LWEISS
Re: 321 Bates Avenue
Dear Ms. Lantry:
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services represents the tenant-caretaker, Robert King, in the
above-referenced matter. We DO NOT represent the owner of the property. At the legislative
hearing on August 10. 2004, the hearing officer instructed us to write you a written response and
request as you have this matter on the closed agenda. We would respectfully request that you
read this letter along with the August 5, 2004 letter, which is enclosed herein, into the record. We
have also included a copy of the July 22, 2004 inspection notice, the July 27, 2004 letter from the
owner, the July 29, 2004 letter to the legislative hearing officer from our office and a print out from
the Fire Marshall's office verifying that the inspection notice generated July 14, and typed up July
22, 2004, did not get sent thereby proving that the caretaker did not have notice of the repairs
until the actual hearing on July 27, 2004.
Our office has the following concerns in addition to those noted in the attached August 5, 2004
letter:
1. The neighbors have made repeated false allegations that the caretaker,
Mr. King, is involved in drug activity. As you know, our office has a policy that we do not represent
people if there is credible evidence of drug activity. We checked with Ruth Ann Eide from the St.
Paul Force Unit. There is simply no credible evidence that Mr. King is involved in drug activity on
the premises. Quite the contrary, he has met personally with the Force Unit and Ruth Ann Eide
so that he can learn about tenant screening procedures that the Force Unit of St. Paul
recommends. He has agreed to implement their recommendations. Further, he has agreed to
work hand-in-hand with the Force Unit, the District 4 Community Council and the neighbors to
remedy the criminal activity in the neighborhood.
Mr. King has even agreed to put exterior lighting and cameras on the premises to ward off
the criminal element that is out in the neighborhood. He has no more control over the criminal
activity on the street than the complaining neighborhood residents. I challenge you to find a more
responsive caretaker in the Dayton's Bluff Area. At the hearing, the neighbors even accused Mr.
King of having long grass, not that this is a big matter. However, the point is that this was a
EXHIBIT G STP 018291
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 36 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 29 of 46
completely false allegation as I was personally on the premises on Monday and there is no long
grass on the premises. You know as an officer of the court, I am obligated to be honest and you
know me well enough to know that I am honest and straight forward. Since the neighbors are
lying about that and I question whether they are credible about their other allegations. Although
there are a number of police calls, Mr. King had vacated other problem tenants. He is the only
one there and he is willing and able to work with the Force Unit to prevent other bad tenants from
moving in.
2. The lnspection Office has set this case up for failure. The record is clear
that Unit 1 was condemned for being over-crowded. The unit has been vacated. Therefore, that
unit should no longer be condemned. Secondly, the inspection notices have not been sent out as
represented in their letters. We proved this at the hearing. One may construe this as either a
misrepresentation or fraud perpetrated by the inspectors office. Based on how this case has
proceeded one could argue this was just another tool which was being used to vacate the
building. We obtained an inspection report dated July 14, 2004. At the hearing, it was brought up
by the building inspector herself, Pat Fish, that this letter never went out either. Thus, there are
two inspection reports during the time this matter was before the legislative hearing officer. The
two letters listed the repairs that were of issue before the legislative hearing officer and neither the
owner nor the received the repair notices until the actual hearing date. Is that fair play?
Additionally, the apartment was supposed to be reinspected by the City Fire Marshall prior
to the hearing on August 10, 2004. Naturally, that never happened as there was allegedly another
mistake by the City lnspection Department. Although we provided proof by pictures that a
majority of the repairs were made, the City conveniently did not reinspect the premises by the
hearing as promised and thus it caused yet another delay. Moreover, if you look at the July 22,
2004 notice, it is defective on its face as it states the reinspection will be on or after July 12, 2004.
That is clearly erroneous as the reinspection date precedes the date of the notice. Again this
notice was not received until the actual legislative hearing on July 27, 2004. Nevertheless,
essentially all the repairs have been completed with the exception of the electrical work as the
caretaker was taking bids from electricians. If the City Inspector had not been negligent in failing
to give proper notice or if they were not trying to sabotage the success of the repairs, the repairs
would have already been made. I was informed by the on-site and off-site caretakers that they
have narrowed down their electrician bids to two prospects. They will be making a final decision
this Friday on which one to choose.
3. I was concerned that the City was using the Building Inspection Department to
vacate a building of disabling and minority people. Every person in this building was a person in a
protected class. They were either minorities or disabled people. Vacating the building by using
the inspection department in this manner did have a disparate impact. I know the City did not
intend to have a disparate impact. We try to collaborate with the City and try to produce win-win
situations. I can easily see that the owner and tenants would have a claim for disparate impact
against the City. Naturally, I do not represent the owner nor would I be bringing such an action
against the city as we have a long history of collaborating together. However, I thought you
should know that as a practicing housing law attorney who knows about discrimination law that
there is exposure to a discrimination claim on this matter due to the way it was handled.
4. I know you would agree it is best to play with an "open hand" when dealing with
the public. The hearing officer ~nformedu s that the decision will be before the City Council but it
will be presented at a closed meeting. She specifically said we were not invited. I can see the
City Council deliberating in closed chambers on matters. However, when there is a actual vote
whether it is on the consent calendar or otherwise, it should be open to the public for comment. I
2
EXHIBIT G STP 018292
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 36 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 30 of 46
will research the Open Meeting Act and fo~lardit to you. I admit I have not looked at the Open
Meeting Act for awhile as I have not needed to.
5. By forcing a vacate of the building by revoking the Certificate of Occupancy, we
will now have a vacant building on a corner where there is criminal activity. As you know, there is
nothing that will blight a neighborhood more than a vacant building on a city corner. There will no
longer be "eyes and ears" watching the criminal activity. Since Mr. King was working "hand-inhand"
with the Force Unit, he would be able to put good tenants in the building. Without having
people in the building there will be no additional "eyes and ears" thereby resulting in an increase
of criminal activity on the corner.
Although the neighbors consistently claimed there are still squatters, there is
absolutely no evidence of that. They have already proven not to be credible. Mr. King assures
me that he has not allowed squatters in, has secured the building and is working with the Force
Unit to prevent squatters. I went over to the building to take pictures for the hearing and I could
not get in.
6. I was informed by the legislative hearing officer that I would be informed of her
decision by noon today so we could send you written comments. It is now 1:30PM and I was
never called regarding her decision.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me and I hope
the City Council will allow Legal Services to collaborate with the District IV Community Council,
the Force Unit, the Fire Marshall, the caretaker and the neighbors to rectify this situation as it is
not common that we are able to obtain a cooperative caretaker who works for an alleged problem
landlord. I would hate to lose the opportunity to collaborate together on this case as it does
appear that we have got the owner's attention and were making great progress despite the "hide
the ball" tactics that were being played by the inspectors office.
ss
encs
cc Robert King
Debbie Montgomery
Dave Thune
Pat Harris
Jay Benanav
Lee Helgen
Dan Bostrom
EXHIBIT
unday, January 21, 2007
Chapter 45. Nuisance Abatement*
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTAGAINST CITY EMPLOYEES JOEL ESSLING ET ALTo Police Chief John Harrington Fire Chief Doug HoltonFire and Safety Services SaintPaul Police Department Criminal Complaint against apparantly joel.essling@ci.stpaul.mn.us ET AL unknown at this timetoday at approximately 11:01 am Tues. 13Feb07 Affiant VA Widow answered tel:joel.essling st. paul - Google SearchMPR: Former Senate majority leader could lose law license as no ID No appeared.watchdognews.48thissue2006pdf----------------- Forwarded Message:AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTCOUNT I MS 609.43Office of the Revisor of Statutes - StatutesSome Male person stated his name was Joel Essling an InspectorHe stated he wanted to access entrance to 697 Surrey : www.sharonanderson.org Default now taken by Sharon.Affiant stated: Produce ID, What do you want put it in writing etc. RefusedAffiant got camera: White Truck unmarked except for no. 2195 another short Hmong looking person got into a small White unmarked car license 2798THEREFORE: AFFIANT STATES AND ALLEGES THAT THESE (2) MALE PERSONS ID unk except for pic's are stalking, harrassing, trying to intimidate Sharon because she is announced Cand idate for City Council Ward (2) against5 Thune for St. Paul City Council from their Legal Domicile 1058SummitTaxNo. 01-791: St. Paul v. United States - OppositionThune _22 US CODE: Title 42,TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 42 USC 3631
No comments:
Post a Comment