The URL can be used to link to this page

99-699�rt�e��e�, _ S�.\ �..fc, ��1`�"� RESOLU�ON GITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Preseated Referred To Council File # qq � �g� Green Sheet # 63555 � Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 20, 1999, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeais for the foilowing addresses: 3 Propertv Appealed ApDellant 4 1307 1309 1311 1313 1314 1315 1316 1318 1333 1335 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1357 1359 5 1361, 1363. 1365, 1377, 1379, 1381, 1383, 1385, Maynard Drive West: 1291, 1292, 1293. 1294, 1295, 1296, 6 12R7 1298 1249 1300 1301 1312 1314 1316 1318 132Q 1325 1327 1329 1349 1351 1352 1353 1354 7 1356, 1358, 1360, 1378, 1380 Mavnazd Drive East Roger W. Diestler for Sibley Manor, Inc. 8 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 9 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 10 building must otherwise be in compliance. ll 1642 Charies Avenue John Lapakko 12 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 13 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 14 building must otherwise be in compliance. I S 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West James Hayden 16 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 17 nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they wili be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 18 building must othenuise be in compliance. 19 756 Curfew Sizeet Gene Olson 20 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornvng doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 21 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wili be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 22 building must otherwise be in compliance. 23 1756 Crrand Avenue Michael Kampmeyer 24 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doars with the foliowing conditions: 1) when the 25 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the 26 building must otherwise be in compliance. 27 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum 28 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 29 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 30 building must otherwise be in compliance. Crreen Sheet 63555 1 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over $om 3-16-99) Judy Tschida Martinez 9 � `G 9 2 Decision: Laid over to the August 10 Property Code Enforcement meeting. 3 1722 University Avenue West (Laid over from 6-15-99) Matthew Mews for Ries Management 4 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the window in the efficiency apartment on the following conditions: 5 1) a Tadder or suitable device must be present at all times in order to reach the window, 2) the window has to be 6 replaced with a compazably sized window that can be opened to the full ea�tent. 7 8 689 Orleans Street (Laid over from 6-15-99) Nancy Roussopoulos 9(Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 299 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) Richazd Spreigl Decision: Variance granted on the existing septic system with the foilowing conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system, therefore, there will be no more than one person living at this address, 2) the owner will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imuiinent health and safety hazard as defined in the state stahxtes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is sold ar transferred to another pariy. 333 Arlineton Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) Robert Spreigl Decision: Variance granted on the existing septic system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system, therefore, there will be no more than two persons living at this address, 2) the owner will a11ow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imxninent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is soid or transferred to another party. 23 924 Forest Street #1 Jill Machado 24 (Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) �� ay `r +a 7� y 1rc5 25 847 Hudson Road Mike Bartelmy for Mike's Towing �'� c��( 26 Decision: The condemnation is lifted on the eastern portion of the building only, and there can be cold storage ��' 27 of the towing vehicle in that eastern portion of the building during off hours. 28 853 Randolnh Avenue Richard Lemke 29 Decision: Laid over to the August 17 Property Code Enforcement meeting. 30 1881 Mechanic Avenue Anne Dresser far Azure Properties, Inc. 31 Decision: Ezttension granted to January 20, 1999, to install emergency lighting. 32 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 33 Decision: Appeal denied. 34 417 Sherburne Avenue 35 Decision: Appeal denied. Henrietta Birkholz Rahena Holtor�j f 1-..4�4 Ov�r '�"o A "�. �-i �\90.`l C: C-o�,k. � 'h� } q � v 2 Green Sheet 63555 q� -Ggq 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman ✓ Harris ✓ Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom ✓ Lantry ,� t 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date: 9 11 12 Adopti Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: ��,--��Q =,�-_.r-�"` 14 Approved by ay � t �� 15 Date: —�� 16 By: ✓� r�ly� 3 Requested by Department o£ : Form Appxoved by City Attorney I: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : 9g -�q9 City Council Offices 7-21-49 GREEN SHEET No 63555 Strathman, 266-8575 28• 1 a 'T'.� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES oFnui,ren owKroR arvcau¢i ❑ CffYAiTOpEY ❑ CfIYttEAI( � ❑ FMiNCMLiEiNICC3M. ❑ RION[{K]E0.V/AtCi6 ❑ WYORI�/�8alf1Y1�� ❑ (CLP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 7-20-99 decision of the Legislative Hearing Of£icer on Property Code En£orcem appeals for the following addresses: 1642 Charles Avenue, 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West, 756 Curfew Street, 1756 Grand Avenue, 1667 Ames Avenue, 2252 Falcon Avenue, 1722 University Avenue West, 6S9 Orleans Street, 299 Arlington Avenue East, 333 Arli.ngton Avenue East, 924 Forest Street �fl, 847 Hudson Road, 853 Randolph Avenue, 1881 Mechanic Avenue, 2046 Wilson Avenue 9i7, 417 Sherburne Avenue, and various addresses on Maynard Drive East and Maynard Drive West. �. COMMENDATIONApprove(A aReject R) PERSONALSERVICECONTRACTSMUSTANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESiIDNS: PIANNING CAMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION Flas this persoM�m eHer vrorked uMer a conhaU for fhis departmeM? YES NO Has this werso�rm ever been a ciry empbyee? YES NO Ooesihis Oe«Mrm pos5ess a sldU not normallYP��ssed M7 anY current citY emWoYee? YES NO Is this peBONfirm a targeted ventlorl YES NO �lain all ves answers on seoarate sheet and attach to areen sheet Cous� Ressarch Gsnter .: .; . OF TRANSACTION COSTIREVQIUE BUDGETED (GRCLE ONE) YE$ NO SOURCE ACTNISYHUMBER 9,`l - Gq°1 July 22 1999 The Honorable Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102-1681 Copy to Hearing Officer Gerry Strathman Dear Council Member Blakey: I am writing to you (with the assistance of my 417 Sherburne Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55163. Cody who lives at 5449 West Bald Eagle Blvd., This property is a duplex; I have lived in the children since September 12, 1998. attorney) about my home at I rent my home from Jeffrey White Bear Lake, MN 55110. top half with my five In October, I filed a discrimination complaint with the Saint Paul Human Rights Department against Mr. Cody. I believed Mr. Cody was discriminating against me because of my race and sex. I sent you a copy of this complaint at the time I filed it. Basically, Mr. Cody was harassing me and my children, including calling us the "N" word, and refusing to make repairs to the property. �n June 29, the Department of Human Rights determined that there is probable cause to believe I was discriminated against. I have attached a copy of the memorandum from the department. (The department also issued a probably cause determination against Mr. Cody for his conduct towards my former downstairs neighbor.) The next step is for us to try to conciliate this matter. In fact, our meeting is set for this morning. I don't think this will be settled because Mr. Cody has continued to harass me and my children, and has taken steps to make our living conditions even worse. Even though I took him to court last fall to get the repairs done, he has not done them to the satisfaction of the building inspector, and, more recently, failed to pay the water bill and terminated garbage collection services. I believe it was the shutting off of the water that forced the building department to condemn the duplex. I ask that I be allowed to remain in my home while I continue to make repairs to it for several reasons: qq ��q� • Much of the work has already been done and none of the remaining items are life threatening. • I have arranged to pay the water bill so that it is turned back on. • My five children and I(ages 9 thorugh 16) have no place else to go. Housing is extremely tight; affordable housing for six people is even harder to find. • My children witnessed the discriminatory treatment and at times were the victims of Mr. Cody's vile rantings. They are suffering because of this and we need to stay together as a family unit for support and strength. • I will be exploring other court actions I can take to get Mr. Cody to take responsibility for his property. • I believe his refusal to make the necessary repairs is part of his continuing campaign to get rid of the "f*ing N*s" in his property, as he has called us. If we are forced to go, he will have won. • This building has two living units in it and isn't in bad shape at all. These two three-bedroom units will provide decent, affiordable, family housing once fixed up. The rents from these two units will be more than enough to pay for the work that needs to be done. I'm willing to contribute my time to help make that happen. • If I don't make this happen, this property will be boarded up and become an eyesore to the neighborhood. Mr. Cody does not appear to care about the condition of this property. I do. On behalf of my five children and myself, I thank you for considering my request. Sincerely, Ms . Rahena Hol ton �o��9.r��--�..� 417 Sherburne Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 CITY OF SAINT PALTL 3�orm Colen�an. 1layor June 29, 1999 Ms. 12aliena Holton 417 Sherburne A�enue Saint Pau1. Minnesota i?10: Re. Ral�ena Holton c. Jeffrer Codc Case A-3408 DearMs. Ho]ton: DEPARTMEIVT OF HUMAN RIGHTS W. H. Tyrone Terrill, Dimctor qq ��9q 900CitvHall Telephone: 612-?66-896G 1� I�! Kel(oggBoulei�ard Facsimi/e: 6J2-266-89G2 Saint Paul, ,i�fti .i� 102-1681 TDD: 613-266-8977 The above-capdoned charge alleging a�iolation of the Salnt Paul Human Riglus Ordinance has been thoroughly im esugated and carefullc considered. Based on witness testimony and documents gati�ered during the investigation, a detennination has been made that there is pzobab3e cause to believe that a viola�ion of the Ordinance has occurred. Pursuant to Section 183.20 of tlie Ordinance I lia�e tl�e autliority io facilitate a resolution of the Probable Causedeterminationthroughconciliation. Theconciliatlonprocessisdesignedtopro�ideaforumwhereboth parties may reach agreement on tern�s that �could settle tI�e matter and thus avoid litigation. A meeling for ilus purpose has been scl�eduled for 9:30 AM Tlmrsday. July 22, 1999. The meeting �r�ill be lield at 900 Ciry Ha1UCourt House. It is imperati��e ihat you be present at this meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum of Findings. Upon receipt of this lettec, please contaci Mr.Rich N}anoen at (651) 266-8971 tlie Human Rights Specialist handiing cour case, and infosm him what damages you are seeking to settle this matier. For Equalih� and Justice for all. C,� � --�� . W. H. T�•rone Terriil Director WHTT/rev Enclosure CERTIFIED LETTER cc: Diane Marie Dube. Atlorncy for Complainant An AOinnativ< Actio�y Gqual Opgortunity Hmpioycr DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CITX OP SALrI�T PAUL ?�'orn� Colenvan, .1lavor 7une 29, 1999 MEMORA.NDUM OF FINDINGS Re: Rahena Holton v_ Jeffrey Cody Case A-3408 W. H. T}'rone Terrill. Director 9�1-�99 900 City Hall Telephone: 6I?-266-89G6 1S l�i%, KelloggBoulevard Facsimile: 672-266-896? SaintPaul,NlN�.iIOZ-1681 TDD: 61?-266-8977 Pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance, a full and impartial investigation of the alle�ations in the above-referenced charge was conducted by this Department. Based on the results of that investigation which are stated below, this Department has made a determination that probable cause exists to be3ieve that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Complainant: I. Complaanant's Allegations 1. The unit was very messy when Complainant viewed it, but Respondent said that he was �oing to remove all the debris, mostly furniture, boxes and food left by the last tenant. Complainant was to clean it after he moved the stuffin exchange for a$100 reduction in renT. There were mag�ots over the food. There were no lights when Complainant moved in and roaches were crawling a11 over. There were — and continue to be — mice. Since the tenant in the other unit has a cat, the mice favored ComplainanYs unit. 2. On September 13, 1998, Respondent was moving in another tenant. Complainant to]d him about the mice and roaches and that the debris remainin� in the house was infested. He said he didn't understand how Complainant could complain because it was the best place she had ever lived an. "You people make the property values �o down," he said. Complainant's sister Monique Holton, Complainant's dau�hter Danielie Ho]ton and one of her school friends were present �vhen he said this. Nlonique told, "Wait a minute. That's not ri�ht." Respondent said to Monique, "Who the fuck are you?" He told her to leave and that he rented to Complainant and her children and no one else. 3. He also said things like: a. "You're black ass should be out of here." b. "I'm �oing to �ive you a U.D." c. "I shou3d have known better than to rent to people like you." d. "I']I have your black ass out of here." e. "Fuck them nig�ers," referring to Complainant's daughter and her friend. �n ,lqinnali��e Action. Hyu:d Op�wrtunity L''mployar Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-340s V 9� '�� Page Two f. ComplainanYs nephew could not be in the unit because "he dresses like a dru� dealer." (The tenant in the other unit heard this.) �. ConstantIy referring to Complainant as "you people." h. He would ask Complainant what she was complaining about, that she should be used to Iiving Iike this, and "you never had anything better than this anyway." 4. Respondent has made it known that it is his house and he can come in anytime he wants to. Complainant has to keep the second lock on her door locked to keep him out. Complainant now tries to make sure someone is always there. When Complainant first moved in and wouSd be Qone, she'd come hack and find thin�s had been moved around. Complainant can't prove it was him, but now she has someone there if she is gone. �. Respondent brou�ht over some bug bombs — but he only bombed the white tenant's apartment and the basement. Complainant asked for a bu� bomb, tellin� him he thought he was beine racist to give the white tenant bu� bombs and the basement, and not for ComplaSnant's unit. Respondent said, "1'm fucking two black women. Pm not racist. Pussy all the same color to me." Then he said, "Pm UD-ing }rour biack ass." The other tenant gave Complainant two ofher bug bombs. The roaches came up because it wasn't bombed properly. 6. On September 30, Respondent came over with notice to leave in 30 days. He said he was trying to sell the building, "you'll have to move.° He lefr, but came back again asking for rent money. Complainant pointed out that he hadn't bombed for the bues ot eliminated the mice. It was about October 10 now. His response v.-as, " I don't have any fucking money. How the hell am I supposed to do anythin� without any fucking money? I should have known better than rent to you bitches. You bitches called the housin� inspector on me." 7 Respondent left and came back on about October 12. Complainant had just come back from the hospital, having suffered a miscarriage. He wouldn't let Complainant go upstairs; every time Complainant moved to eo upstairs, he wouldn't let her move. Complainant's boyfriend was with her. He and the other tenant tried to tell Respondent that Complainant had just returned from the hospital. Respondent said, "Ii you �o upstairs, I'm not fillin� this out and I'm leaving," referring to the landlord statement Complainant needed for rental assistance. He also said, "If you let that "Pauly bitch" in — the housing inspector —"your ass will be out of here." Complainant started to remind him that he hadn't done the work and he said, "You let her in and you're fuckin� ass is out" 8. The housing inspector came October l3. Complainant explained to her and the man with her that she couldn't let her in and �vl�y. She explained that Complainant couldn't get in trouble for lettin� her in so Complainant let her in. 9. On the evening of October 13, Respondent had his friend serve Complainant with U.D's. After court on October 22, Respondent told Complainant she should drop the racism suit and "��e'Il work out the housing problems," and "you shouid think about it." Respondent kept interruptin� her and teliin<� her to be quiet. The jud�e told him to be quiet so Comp]ainant couid taik. The other tenant grabbed her hand and led her out ofthe courtroom The in Ail'mnnb�t l��tion. i'.<pui Oppununtl� i.mplo�cr Memorandum of Findings Case A-3408 q9 -Cq`I Pa�e Three courtroom door closed. Respondent �rabbed her by the shoulders, pullin� her toward him. The other tenant had her by the other hand and was pullin� her away from him. They were right there by the information desk. II_ RespondenrsPosition 1. Complainant is correct about the property bein� "messy." However, she was responsible for removing the debris in exchange for a hundred dollar reduction in rent. Z. On September 13, debris was still in the house, but she was responsible for removin� it. He never said "This is the best place you everlived,° because he did not know what conditions she had lived in before and he would not make those statements to anyone. If he had addressed Compiaitiant's sister, he wouid have said, "Who are you?" not "Who the fuci: are }�ou?" He stated he was renting to Complainant and her children and not to her sister, boyfriend and dog. Respondent did not say "You're black ass should be out of here." b. Respondent did say he was givin� her notice to ]eave based on her boyfriend and do� stayin� there, which was not in the rental a�reement. He did say he would �ive her a UD if he had to. c. He did say "I should have known better than to rent to people like you." He was taikin� about people who do not comply with what is discussed and aereed upon. d. Respondent told Complainant that if she did not remove the do� and live in boyFriend, he would "have your ass out of here." e& f Respondent did not say "Fuck them niggers" or that her nephew dresses like a drug dealer. 4. Respondent told Compiainant that if he needed to come into her apartment, he would first knock, say he was ihe landlord and then wait for a response. Respondent further stated that if she did not respond, he could enter tlte apartment to do repairs. 5. Respondent hrought over "roach bombs" to do the entire building: 4 for the basement, 4 for the first floor apartment, and 4 fur Complainant's apartment. Respondem �ave the downstairs tenant all 12 bombs and instructed her to �ive Complainant four of them for the upstairs apartment. Respondent then told the downsiairs tenant they needed to do the bombin� procedure at the same time in order for it to be effective. Respondent never said he was fucking two black women, nor did he say pussy was ail the same color. Respondent is offended by these accusations and considers them defamatory. The downstairs tenant should have given Complainant all four bombs per Respondent's instructions and Respondent did not do the bombing because they needed to do it together and vacate the buiiding for a few hours. An �n��„�:n«�� n«�„��. rA��:a c��,n«„n� c�„i,i�,>�« Memorandum of Findings q Case A-340S � `� � Page Four 6. On September 30, Respondent did Qive Complainant a 30 day written notice on notebook paper. Twenty minutes after givin� Complainant and the downstairs tenant written notice, Respondent met with a real estate broker at the buildin_. They discussed the property should be available for sale and possession on or hefore October 30. Respondent introduced the rea]torto Complainant and the downstairs fenant and let them know the realtor would be contacting them to gain access to the property to show prospective buyers. Also at this time Respondent asked Comp]ainant about the rent for October ]. Complainant responded with her concerns about mica and roaches. Respondent told her that he needed rent payment to pay for the exterminator because at this time he didn't have the money needed to pay the exterminator. In Housin� Court, Complainant said she was not given written notice. 7. On or about October 13, Respondent did return with the realtor who had a showing with a prospective buyer. At this time, Respondent had his tools to complete some repairs. When they knocked on Comp]ainanYs door, a man answered the door and stated that Complainant was in the hospital and would not be back. Respondent told him he was ihe landlord and that he wanted to come in to do repairs and let the realtor show the layout of the apartment to his client. Respondent �uas denied access hy the man in Complainant's apartment. This entrance denial came afrer Complainant had given Respondent permission the prior day 8. Complainant's statement re�arding this event and the Housin� Inspector is incorrect because he did not even see her on that day. He does not know what happened betuveen Complainant and the inspector because he did not see her that day. 9. Respondent denies ever touchin� Complainant in housing court. III. Compiainant`s Rebuttal ]. Respondent told Complainant if she cleaned the apartment, he would take $100 off of her rent. He was going to remove all the debris from the apartment and the hall doset. He never did; Complainant paid some people to remove the debris from her apartment. Complainant would never have agreed to remove the debris because she would not know how and where to dispose it. 2. Complainant is afraid of Respondent for her safety and her cliildren's safety She has a restraining order against him, but Complainant still has had people stay over because she was afraid ofhim. Complainant told Respondent many times that her boyfriend does not ]i�°e there. Respondent would not accept documentation such as where his mail is delivered and his iega] papers. lnstead he said that Complainant could not have any over night guests at all and that her "black ass" wouid be out of there if she did. There's nothin« in the lease prohibitin� over night guests. 3. An affidavit from a community organizer wfio was dealing with Respondent on Complainant's behatf confinns Respondent's name callin� and verbal abuse. :1n.11limialirzArl�on. Gyual O�eportunii� Y.inpinv.r � Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Five ��-4g� 4. Respondent did not do any repairs in her house until he was made to hy the housing inspector. 5. Complainant made no rebuttal on this alle�ation. 6. Complainant made no rebuttal on this aliegation. 7. On October 13, Complainant was not home. Her boyfriend was there, and he knew that Respondent was only there to show the apartment and not to make any repairs. Complainant had instructed her boyfriend to not ]et anyone in her home umil Complainant was there. Respondent told Complainant if she let the housing inspector back in, she would be evicted. She was served the UD a night or two afrer she let the inspectors in. S. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. IV. Issue Did Respondent discriminate a�ainst Complainant in tl�e terms and conditions of renting the property because of her race? V. Evidence Alle�ation # I . a. Respondent provided a sworn statement that he had an agreement that if Complainant removed the little bit of stufffrom her porcl� and mop the floors there would, he believes, be some money knocked offher security deposit. There were a couple bags oftoys and a cl�air 1eft on the porch. These units were month to month, so there was no tease and this agreement was not in writing. She had said she had help to move these items. She was accusing Respondent of pre}udice for having heip to move stuf� out of the lower unit. 7here was more stuffin tl�e ]ower w1it. Respondent may have helped the tenant in the ]ower unit. Respondent's friend was there, and the friend of the downstair's tenant was helping in the lower unit There was a dead cat in the basement that Respondent removed and he bagged up some garbage, so he did not provide a whole tot of help. b. Respondent's friend provided a sworn statement that when Complainant moved into the Sherburne apartment, it was a mess that had been ransacked and needed to be cleaned up. The upstairs apartment was in better shape and junk was probably left behind but he doesn't recall exactly what. 1�'hen the building was vacant, there was one night when Respondent's friend was there when Complainant was there in tears because she had no place to live. Respondent told her he did not want to rent it to her because of its condition, but because she was cryin�, l�e said she could move in if she cleaned it up. She had heard about it by word of mouth in the neighborhood. Respondent's friend was at the building about 10 or 1 � times helping fix thin�s up. �ln .111imtulnc 4ei�nn. F,qu:d OppnYiuml� l:mploacf Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Six -`� "b f l c. The downstairs tenant provided a sworn statement that the toof of Complainant's unit was leal:in�, window screens were missing, there were roaches, and her kitchen sink was leakin� ail over the floor. There was old furniture and garba�e from the previous tenants of Complainant's unit. Complainant had moved this debris onto her back porch. The downstairs unit was in much worse condition. When Complainant moved in, Respondent had said she could not move into the downstairs unit because it was unfit for human habitation. There was an agreement between Complainant and Respondent about the debris that was lefr behind. Respondent had said that if Complainant cleaned it, he would knock some rent off. The downstairs tenant knew about that agreement because when Complainant came down to confront him about the roaches and �etting bombs for the roaches, Respondent said that if she finished cleanin� the unit and went out to obtain her own bombs, she could deduct it all from hes rent. He claimed he was broke and could not afford it. d. Complainant's sister provided a sworn statement that she saw the condition of Complainant's apartment when she moved in. There were maegots in the refrigerator, filth and roaches. Complainant's family all helped her ciean up. There were chairs, wood, and ciothes around when the witness got there. She doesn't know what Complainant had moved out before she got there. Stuffwas in the apartment like when someone destroys an apartment. For the most part, what this witness helped move wasn't difficult to move. It wasjust nasty. This witness was not completely aware of the exact a�reement between Complainant and Respondent. She knows that Complainant had said Respondent had said she was supposed to c]ean up the piace in exchange for taking some offthe rent. Complainant was upset about him not holding up his pan ofthe bargain, but this witness is not sure exactly what sl�e was upset about. e. Complainant's dau�htet provided a sworn statement that when they first moved in, thete were roaches everywhere that would drop from the ceiling. There were mice and the sink leaked. T1�is witness was not there v.=hen Complainant was first tl�ere removin� stuff, but she knows Complainant was very tired afterward A]legations # 2 & 3. a. Complainant's sister testified that around September l3, she was worried about Complainant and when she approached her place she heard them ar�uing. Respondent and Complainant were on the porch and Respondent was in a ra�e. Respondent was cussin� and very disrespectful. "Ni�ger" fell out his mouth more than anything. When this witness first arrived, she was just trying to calm Complainant down at first so she could keep the apartment. Then this witness tried talking to Cody and he was sayinn„ " I just want the nie�er out of my place." He then asked of the witness, "Who are you. You don't have anything to do with it. I don't have to talk to you." The oldest niece of the witness and her friend were comin� home for school. The friend was coming to her home for the first time. They haven't seen that littie girl since. The witness sent them away because Cody was out ofcontrol, saying "F them ni��ers, referring to the �irls. " He was saying that Complainant wasn't takin� care of Iler propeny ri��ht. Complainant was asking w)ry he was helping the girl downstairs, :1n ,90 inn:ilicc :\c�ion. I(yual Opportunily l:mplo�•:r Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Seven q�-6�1 but not doing the thines he was supposed to do for her apartment. The simation eventuaily calmed down �-hen the witness realized that she would not be able to have a conversation_ She had Complainant �o upstairs. In order to wotk things out, the witness went into to the downstair tenant's apartment where Respondent had �one. Respondent was saying how he was goin� to erict Complainant ritrht away because "they' always screw thin�s up. The witness left after a few minutes and the conversation did not last very long at all. It was like he was on acid or something, he was in such a raoe. This witness has heard Respondent say several different things to her on different occasions and cannot identafy exact]y when they were said, but she does recaIl him sayin� things to Complainant like, "I don't see how you could complain. It's the best place you ever lived in. You people make the property va]ues go down." He would say smart remarks and look over smirking. This witness was there several times a week and she saw him there on four occasions in confrontations with Complainant. b. Complainant's teen age daughter testified that in mid-September, she and her friend were coming home from school and she heard Complainant tellin� Respondent that she wanted help getting the roaches out ofthe house and the mice. He was yelling at her, saying, "You F nig_ers. You don't deserve this." The friend of this wimess was lookin� off trying not to notice. The witness asked Complainant ifthey could �o and he said, "Well F that ni�ger too," referrin� to the witness. The aunt of the witness said she and her friend should �o because she didn't want them hearing that. So they went to the show. That was the only incident this wimess heard because when ever he came over after that they would go to their rooms or leave because she has younger sisters and brothers that are scared of him. c. The downstairstenant, who hasfiled a sex discrimination charge against Respondent, testified that when she ;ot ready to move into the Sherburne property in 5eptember, 1998, Complainant came do� n to introduce hezself and talk to Respondent. Respondent said that he didn't see how she could complain and that she should be�rateful she couid �et a piace like that. He said ali you �uys are "ungrateful nig�ers." They were screaming at each ather. Complainant was sayin�, "You're just racist." Respondent was saying about how much money he had put into the unit before people like them had come in and trashed it. Complainant's sister was screaming at him. The wimess started screamin� at him too because he was being rude and trying to dra� her into somethin�. The witness doesn't remember what Respondent said to Complainant's sister. Complainant's daughter heard him call her these raciai sIurs too. After Compiainant went back upstairs, Respondent told the witness that she had to watch ComplainanYs unit because there was drug dealing goin� on He said there were too many "ni�gers"' going in and out ofthe premises. The next day, Respondent came out a�ain and he said he felt better havin� her on the property because she was white, and she could watch the premises for him. That same day he cailed the police on his cetl plione because Complainant's relatives had just pulled up and parked. He told the poiice that they were smoking drugs on his groperty. d A community or�anizer provided a sworn a�davit dated December 2?, 7 998 that in her professional capacity she had been working with Complainant on her housing problems at 417 Siierbume Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103. In her work with Complainant, the witness has had several conversations with Respondent. As ofthe November 30, 1998, Respondent \n AOimiali�J:\.Ywn. L�prJ UpporiunilV I',mpluvti Memorandum ofFindines Case A-3408 v Page Eight �� ' �� had never seen the witness, and to the best of her knowled�e Respondent did not know she is African American. V - On November 30, 1998, the witness responded to a te3ephone message from Respondent. The witness telephoned him and they discussed the continuing need for repairs at Complainant's residence, a subject they had discussed several times in the past. Also in on the conversation was a man Respondent identified as his brother. Respondent said he had le8 this specific messa�e to talk to the witness because he wanted to see if the downstairs tenant had moved out. The witness told Respondent that he needed to jet the repairs done in order to start collectin� the rent and that Complainant had paid for the exterminator to spray the bui3ding. The witness also advised Respondent that if he were to file an unlawful detainer a�ainst Complainant at this time that would be deemed retaliation. At that point, Respondent expressed his desire that he wanted them (Complainant and the downstairs tenant} out ofthe building so he could fix it up and sell it. The wimess pointed out that no matter wt�ether the tenants were there or not, he still had the obligation to make the repairs otdered by the city and asked why they just could not negotiate a stay for them until the first of February. Respondent replied that he wanted "them out of nty place," that his brother was goin� to move into the building; that "I don't want no niggers living upstairs or downstairs;" and that " I don't want no niR�ers around." The brother said the word "nig�ers" first, Respoadent repeated it. The witness told him that he shouldn't move into Saint Paul because prejudice isn't we]come her. The witness told him she was African-American. e. Respondent provided a sworn statement that he does remember stopping in at the downstair tenant's unit to see how the pro�ress was comin� on the property around September 14, 1998. He doesn't recall talking to her about Complainant at that time. He did not mention dru� trafficking out of Complainant's unit but the downstair's tenant said she thought there was drug trafficking upstairs because there was a lot ofvaffic at all hours ofthe night. She said this within the first couple days she was in the property. Respondent and the dov✓nstairs tenant acmally called the police afrer talking about it and she met the officer in the street and introduced herselfas the new tenant downstairs. Respondent did not use the word "ni�gers' in these conversations with the downstair's tenant. There was a time around mid-September when Complainant's boyfriend came down to threaten to beat Respondent up. Respondent daes not recall why he was threatening him. Respondent does not recall having an ar�ument with Complainant about the condition ofher apartment or the debris that was in it. Respondent y�ever used any racial slurs during an argwnent with Complainant. Respondent testified he never used any racial slurs when talkin�n to or about Complainant or her family. He may Uave talked to a community organizer about repairs for Complainant's unit in the fall of l 998. Respondent has a brother, but he doesn't recall a phone conversation with an or�anizer when his brother was present a1so. Respondent may have said to the organizer ihat his btother was moving into the property. Respondent testified he never said "I don't want no ni�gers livin� upstairs or downstairs," and that "I don't want no ni��ers around_" Respondent's brother never said anything like that when Respondent was around. .\n.l0im�:ai�rAeUOn, liyual Upponunilv Lmplo)rr Memorandum ofFindin�s Case A-3408 v Page Nine q°1- `�t°� f. Respondent's friend testified that Complainant and the downstair's tenant were arguin� with Respondent a lot about rent and other problems. This witness never heard Respondent cali them any names. If it was the case, it went both ways. This witness never heard Respondent make any racial slurs to or about Complainant. Allegation � 4. Complainant's sister testified that Complainant does not normally back down from people but she was distrustful ofwhat Respondent might do to her, her I:ids or to the buildin�. She was afraid of him enterin� her apartment when she was gone just based on his comments and how crazy he seemed. The witness spent the night a lot there on the ��eekends when they started going to court because she was worried about Comp]ainant and her kids. This witness is not sure if Complainant's boyfriend was living there or not then because he was living with his mom. But he would spend the night several times a week. This witness wasn't living there then but she is living there with Complainant now. Alle�ation # 5. a. The downstair's tenant testified that Respondent had been helping her with her unit and CompIainant asked if he could repair some thin�s in her unit. Both of their units had a mice and roach problem. Complainant had bou�ht Raid and a couple bombs. The downstairs tenant provided Complainant with bombs and Raid and bleach. They wanted to bomb together while the witness was still c(eaning downstairs before she moved in. Complainant did not want to move in any of her kid's fumiture until the bombs had been set off a couple times. Respondent gave this witness three bombs, they come in a three pack, and he did not say anythin� about givin� any to Complainant. In front of this witness, Respondent told Complainant to eet her own bombs and take it off her rent. On her own, this wimess gave Complainant two ofthe one's Respondent eave to the witness and one the witness had bou�ht on her own. They set off eight total, with two being in the basement. b. Respondent festified he supplied the roach bombs for the whole house about three or four times. He did not tell Complainant to supply them and take the cost offthe rent or deposit. He had the bombs in his possession from previously so he did not have to buy them. c. Respondent's friend testified that there was a deal between the tenants and Respondent that they were to bomb the place Respondent did provide some bombs to the downstair's tenant on the day she was out there in Respondent's �ara�e. This witness did not know how many thou�h. Alle�ation N 6. a. The downstairs tenant testified that on October 7, 1998, Respandent came to ask us for their rent money. Complainant and the witness were to�ether on the front porch by their front doors. Respondent said, " I'm �iving you one mare chance to pay tt�e the rent. �\n.117innainc 4aion. Ifqual Oppniiuni111tn1plo�:r Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Fage Ten qg -`4� How am I supposed to make any repairs ifyou don't pay rent. I owe the IRS �60,000 and it s because ofyou. Cindy yau're a no good whiTe bitch. You're a no good black bitch. I'll evict you if you don't pay pay the rent" He was all red in the face, came into my unit and was saying, "It's a11 your guys fuckin� fault. You and the nigger bitch upstairs. ' The witness's friend was sittin� on my couch as he was yelting this. She said, "So it's their fault you can't pay the IRS and theirfines." He stopped, looked at her, and said, "What the fuck" and walked out and slammed the door. b. Respondent testified that he gave Complainant and the downstairs tenant a 30 day notice on September 30 because they had not made the repairs or paid the deposit. He didn't keep a copy of the notice. He did ask for rent money from Complainant and the downstairs tenant around that time and they may both have been there. He was in a financial bind and he may have mentioned the IRS but he did not say it was because of them. He never said that the downstairs tenant was a no �ood white bitch and Compiainant was a no good black bitch. He doesn't recal3 a friend of the downstairs tenant bein� there that said an}�thing to him. c. The friend of the downstairs tenant testified she was at the downstairs tenant's apartment on Sherburne almost every weekend. Some times she would stay over night there, so she was there quite a bit She was there when Respondent was there on two or three occasions. She never heard him make any racial remarks, but the downstairs tenant told her that he calied Complainant, a ni��er. She thinks she said he said the downstairs tenant was a nigger Iover, too. Respondent's vioient anger frightened this witness and it seemed like he was on drugs or something. There was an incident where he was yeliing at the downstairs tenant about him not being able to pay the IRS because she was not payin� the rent. So he was puttin� ail his problems on her. This witness made comments under her breath about this but she didn't talk to him directly about this because she was trying to stay out of it. Then they were arguing about him not fixing up the place, which he said he couldn't do because of his leg. This witness dosn't recall if he was limping or had a cast. But after the court ordered him, he came around trying to make repairs. This witness dosn't recall him cailin� the downstair tenant or Complainant any names. But the witness doesn't remember the details of that day. The downstairs tenant told the witness about Respondent calling herawhite bitch and Complainant a biack bitch, but the witness doesn't recall witnessing that. It may have happened when they were outside or when they were inside and the witness went out to get away from them. Allegations � 7 & 8. a. Respondent testified that around October l2 or 13 the only conversation l�e had with Complainant was about a showin� and she said fine. He never blocked her way upstairs. b. The downstairs tenant testified that Respondent was not there when the inspector first came to the property, but when he got the orders he went to Complainant and said if she let the inspector in a�ain, he would evict thern. The wimess wasn't there at the time, but when she got home Complainant came runnin� down in tears to teil her what he had said. The witness told her he couldn't kick them out because it wou{d be retaliation An TOimiab�c Action. liyual Opponunny b�npluy7 llfemorandum ofFindin�s Case A-3408 Pa�e Eleven �1`t-6� c. Respondent�s friend testified that he started making repairs from a list from an inspector. The witness was the one doing the repairs usually but Respondent would be with him. There was not much yelling at that time. This witness may have been there when they argued about them calline the inspector, but the lvitness did not pay much attention to exactly what they were arguin� about. The witness doesri t recall Respondent saying, °You bitches called the hovsing inspector on me." :�lleaation ± 9. a. Respondent testified that in mid—October he had his friend serve unlawful detainers on Complainant and the downstairs tenant. In Housing Court around October 22, the referee said Respondent did not win his case because he couid not prove he gave them written 30 day notice at the end of September, ] 998. The referee sug�ested he get an attorney. Respondent is not sure if he talked to Complainant about her dropping her discrimination suit at that time, but he never grabbed her arm. b. The downstairs tenant testified that they were served with an eviction notice after they called the inspector again in mid-October. In housing court around October 22, Cody pulled out a �reen piece of note book paper and told thejudge that this was what he wrote the written notice on at the end of September. But he was lying. Respondent became loud and agitated, so extra bailiffs had to be called up. As they were walking out of court, Respondent pulled Com�lainant by her coat to talk to her about her droppin� the discrimination lawsuit in exchange for him fixing up the property. The downstairs tenant pulled her away from him. A bailiff escorted him out afrer that and made him jo down the elevator first. c. Respondent's friend testified that after the court groceedings, Complainant and Respondent were talking about what needed to be fixed. It was a caim conversation. Respondent did not mention anything about the discrimination suit then. Respondent didn't understa�zd �uhat the discrimination suit was about and neither does the witness. Respondent never �rabbed her by the shoulder durin� that conversation. VI Analysis The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs who have direct evidence of discriminatory intent may prove their case without resort to the McDonnel Douglas burden- shifring analysis. Fe�es v. Perkins Restaurants Inc. 483 N.VJ. 2d i01, 770 n.4 (Minn. 1992); State bYCooper v. Hennepin Countv. 441 N.W2d 106, I 10 n.l(sanle). In the instant case, there are four sworn statements, one from a community or�anizer with no re)ationship to Complainant or her interests, attestin� to Respondent's extremely hostile use on several different occasions of raciai slurs when speaking to and about Complainant. These sworn statements constitute a preponderance of direct evidence to show that Respondent created a racialty hastile housing environment that was both pervasive and severe for Complainant and her family. They aiso are sufficient to show that the difference in treatment that Complainant received from Respondent in terms improvin� her apartment was racialiy motivated, as were his efforts to evict her. M.10innal��: Acvon. liqu:d Oppununily 1'.inpiu�cr Memorandum of Findings Case A-3408 Pa�e Twelve qq-6q9 In view ofthe fore�oing, this Department concludes that there is probable cause to show that Respondent violated the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance as Comp3ainant had alle�ed. �� W. H. Tyr Terr� Dir ct r WHTT(rev K-J Date �an Ailimiativc F1n�on. Byual Oppofluniiy 1Zmploycr NOTES OF TFiE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, 3uly 20, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 130 p.m. � �`'l�i �� STAFF PRESENT: David Dickhut, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Deparhnent; Mike Urmann, Fire Department; Joe Yannarelly, Code Enforcement 1307 1309 1311 1313 1314 1315 1316 1318 1333 1335 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342� 1357.1359.1361,1363,1365.1377.1379.1381.1383.1385. Maynard Drive West; 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1312 1314 1316 1318 1320.1325,1327.1329.1349.1351.1352.1353.1354,1356,1358,1360,1378,1380 Maynard Drive East: Ro¢er W. Diestler for Sibley Manor, Inc. Roger Diestler, owner, appeazed and stated when he was here previously, he thought he was getting a variance for all the properties. This will be an ongoing, as needed replacement. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenvise be in compliance. 1642 Charles Avenue John Lapakko, owner, appeared and stated this appeal is about fire rated doars. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Departsnent has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West Mike Urmann reported he spoke to the owner regazding tkus property, and informed him that the Fire Department would not be opposed to the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following condifions: 1) when the nonconfomung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenuise be in compliance. �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETiNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 2 756 Curfew Street Gene Olson, owner, appeared and stated this appeal is about fire rated doors. This is an older building with wooden doors. In the front, ail the kitchen doors have been replaced with steel ones. Mr. Strathman asked is it understood that when the doors need to be replaced, they will have to be replaced with fire rated doors. Mr. Olson responded yes. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfonning doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confonniug fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1756 Grand Avenue No one appeared representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Deparhnent had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1667 Ames Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Departsnent had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doars with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be repiaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 3-16-49) Judy Tschida Martinez, owner, appeared and stated she installed an egress window in the basement. It has to be inspected. Eveiything has been completed except the steel window we11s need to be installed. Mike Urmann reported he has not reinspected because Ms. Martinez has not received zoning approval nor had permits signed off for the room and board situation. Ms. Martinez stated she is not going to turn this into a rooming house; just family will be living there. Wl�at are the outstanding orders, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded the room and board issue and an illegal sleeping room without escape windows. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMf'sNT NIEETiNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 `'1�i t.�� Page 3 Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the August 10 Property Code Enforcement meeting for the windows to be inspected. 1�22 Universitv Avenue West (Laid over from 6-15-99) David Ries, owner, and Matthew Mews, maintenance, appeared. Mr. Owens reported he met with the representatives of Ries Management and went through both apartments. One apartment is large, takes up half of the space, and has two doors. It does not have a compliant egress window. The other apartment is an e�ciency; it does not have a compliant egress window either, and has one door which leads into the corridor. They agreed to the following for the large apartment: if a fire rated partition was constnxcted in the corridor, the fue department wouid accept the two existing doors leading into separate atmospheres as being compliant with the requirement for the windows. The efficiency is more di�cult, stated Mr. Owens. One window an the efficiency is glass block, which basically makes it a wa1L The other window is too small and the rise on the sill is too high. Mr. Strathman asked if the window size was enlarged, is there an egress to the ouYSide. Mr. Owens responded there is. (Mr. Mews showed Mr. Strathman a diagram indicating their plans.) Mr. Strathman stated everyone is in agreement about how to take care of the fire requirement in the large apartment. The rest of the discussion will be on the efficiency. Mr. Ries stated the people that normally rent this $200 efficiency are younger, more agile people. It is usually a student. It is explained to the tenant how to use the ladder and open the window in the case of an emergency. The window is always clear. There is a 30 foot walkway between that window and the building next door. Mr. Mews indicated that the size of the window is 31 X 35. Mr. Owens added that is the closed dimension and not the openable space. Mr. Strathman asked how the window opens. Mr. Ries responded it is an Anderson window and it cranks up. It is not a great situation, stated Iv1r. Strathman. A person would have to break the glass to get out. Mr. Owens added that at the fime of the inspection, the window would not go out to a fuil horizontal. The standazd Anderson window would open to 90 degrees, but this window will not. Also, there was no ladder or device to access the sill at the time of the inspection. Mr. Strathman stated the weight of the glass would work against a person. He asked could a window be installed that would fully open. Mr. Ries responded they would be willing to install a window that would open fully. He wiil attach the ladder in such a way that it cannot be removed. ��l- ��1� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETINCs NOTES OF 7-20-49 Page 4 Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the window in the efficiency apartment on the following conditions: i) a ladder or suitable device must be present at all times in order to reach the window, 2) the window has to be replaced with a comparably sized window that can be opened to the full ea�tent. b89 Orleans Street (T.aid over from 6-15-99) Nancy Roussopoulos, owner, appeazed. Joe Yannazelly reported the number of cats has been reduced to three. The owner is warking with the Humane Society. She has ananged for a loan to patch up her foundation. At this time, he recommends liffing the condemnation and rechecking the properry in two months. (Code Enforcement is wiliing to laft the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 299 ArlinEton Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) The following appeared: Richazd Spreigl, owner of 299 Arlington Avenue East; Robert Spreigl, owner of 333 Arlington Avenue East; and Jerome Ritter, their attorney. (A letter was submitted to Gerry Strathman from Jerome Ritter.) Mr. Ritter stated the houses at 299 Arlington Avenue East and 333 Arlington Avenue East have septic systems. There has been an order that they connect to the city sewer. The code requires that if a sewer is auailable in the street, then the connection will be made. Mr. Ritter is here asking for an exception on a hardship basis. He spoke to Tom Leclair who acknowledged both septic systems do not create a health and safety hazard. If a hardship basis is found, Mr. Ritter is asking for 3 conditions: 1) they cannot increase the burden on the present system, 2) the systems would have to pass the required inspection to make sure they are not a threat to the ground water, 3) when the owners no longer live at these properties, the variances or exceptions will end. This land has been part of the Spreigl family since about 1900. Mr. Strathman asked do the Spreigl brothers' circumstances satisfy Mr. Ritter's definition of haxdship. 1vIr. Ritter responded absolutely. They both receive assistance, and both are on fixed income. David Dickhut reported the public sewer was constructed in 1962. Under defuution of the state code, the drywell system is defined as illegal. As far as he knows, the system is operated properly at each address, but at 333 Arlington, the tank should be pumped according to the 1996 inspection. Mr. Ritter responded it was puxnped in 1996. How did this matter go on for 35 yeazs, asked NIr. Stratiunan. Mr. Dickhut responded it is City policy not to enforce the connection until there is a change in status of the active system in the form of failure or redefinition. A diywell is an illegal system for at least two years, but Mr. Dickhut is not sure how long that has been a law. There has been a legal change in ownership, PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 � �� Page 5 added Mr. Ritter. One of the Spreigls died a few yeazs ago; that property was not sold, but is owned between the children. This may have triggered the change. Mr. Strathman asked were there any other conditions proposed other than the ones Mr. Ritter pzoposed. Mr. Dickhut responded variances have been grauted on those basis before. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the existing septic system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system; therefore, there will be no more than one person living at this address, 2) ttie owner will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imminent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the properry is sold ar transfened to another pariy. 333 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) (See above notes on 299 Arlington Avenue East.) Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the existing sep6c system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system; therefore, there will be no more than two petsons living at this address, 2) the oumer will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imminent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is sold or transfened to another parry. 924 Forest Street #1 Gerry Strathman stated he has been advised that the condexnnation has been lifted and the case is closed.) 847 Hudson Road Phillip Owens reported Michaei Bartelmy wants more time to complete repairs. This was a gazage repair and towing business. There was a fire in the western section and the building was condemned for structural defect. Mr. Qwens allowed Mr. Bartelmy to use the eastern portion of the garage for the continuation of the towing operaflon, i.e. parking their wrecker there. No repairs were made to the building and no permits were pulled. The building has no heat, no piumbing, and limited electricai service. Some repairs were done without a permit; however, Mr. Bartelmy has since obtained pernuts. The work is not compiete and the pernuts have not been signed off. On June 21, the condemnation was extended to the eastem portion. LIEP has revoked the repait garage license through adverse action, stated Mr. Owens. That license cannot be reapplied for up to one year. There are mulfiple exterior violations. There were 1$ vehicles parked on the property, none of which aze properly licensed. Towed vehicles should not be brought to the property, but this has been occurring. (Mr. Owens presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. These photographs were later returned) � ��1� PROPERTX CODE ENFORCEMEI3T MEETING I30TES OF 7-20-99 Page 6 Michael Bartelmy, owner, appeazed and stated he fixed the roof by installing beams to support it. He added a retaiuing wall. The fire was in one room and took a wall with it, but it did not take the supporting wa11. The building is structuraily sound. He adtnits he has too many cazs. Mr. Strathman staxed the issue is that the building is currently condemned. Mr. Bartelmy can enter the building to repair it. The only thing the condemnation does is prevent use of it as a commercial operation. He does not have a license to do repair work anyway. Mr. Bartelmy stated he has a tow truck, caz starter, air pump, etc., that he would like to keep closed in the part of the building that did not bum. He would also like to finish his repairs. No other business will be done there. Is it a probiem to aliow Mr. Bartelxny to keep some of his equipment there, asked NIr. Strathman. Mr. Owens answered he would not have an objection to the undamaged portion of the building being used for cold storage during off hours. Gerry Strathxnan stated the condemnarion will be lifted on the eastern portion of the building only, and there can be cold storage of the towing vehicle in the eastern portion of the buiiding during off hours. 853 Randol�h Avenue Richard Lemke, owner, appeared and stated there was a condemnation on the building and orders to fix it. The lower unit was built up last year and he did not get a certificate of occupancy for it, but Mr. Lemke did not know he needed one. Since then, all the items for the certificate of occupancy have been dealt with except for the requirement of having an escape window in the bedroom. The window is too smali, but the person that lives there is sma11. It is the only window in the bedroom. There is an entrance door and a fire alatm next to it. There is another bedroom eight feet away with two big windows that exit to the porch. If there is a fire, that would be the way a person would exit. Mike Urmann reported the window is positioned in a dormer. There may not be a way to instail a full size escape window within that sleeping azea. The window there is much less than an openable azea of 24 inches. There is no way to make this window compliant for escape or firefighting access. Gerry Strathman asked how big it is. Mr. Urmann guessed that it would be about 30" X 20". Mr. Lemke stated it is a sash window ihat goes up and down. Should a person get out, they would be on the second floor anyway. Also, it is cost prohibitive, and it is uvlalown if it can be done. Could there be another use for the room, asked NIr. Stratlunan. Mr. Urmann responded that was his suggestion. It was previously used as another type of room, which is why it was not cited in the past. Mr. Strathxnan stated he is concemed that a person could get trapped in tlus room in case of a fire. He understands it is on the second floor, but the fire deparhnent could help someone out a second floor window if it is possibie to get out the window. �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEfiTING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 7 Mr. Lemke asked is there anything else he can do with it. Mr. Stzathtuan responded he is wiiling to grant additional time to see if something can be figured out, but he is reluctant to talk about a variance because the window is not lazge enough to be a fire egress. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the Augvst 17 Properry Code Enforcement meeting in order for the owner to see if another window can be installed. 1881 Mechanic Avenue Ron Martinson, representing the Azure Properties, appeared and stated he is requesting additional time to install lighting. Due to the occupancy load of 100 or more, reported Mike Urmann, the building is required to have emergency lighting with battery backup. It is an exiting situation. There aze 47 units. Mr. Stratlunail asked why tlus requirement is being brought up now. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot find anything in the recards about why it was not cited before, but it should have been. When was it built, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Martinson responded around 1970. Gerry Strathman granted an extension to January 2Q, 1949, to install emergency lighting. 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 Henrietta Birkholz, tenant, appeared. Gerry Strathman asked why the apartment has been condemned. Mr. Birkholz responded she was told it is not sanitary enough. She is in the process of getting a townhouse if her loan goes through. The landlord refused to take a check far July. (Mike Urtnann presented photographs to Mr. Strathman. They were later returned.) Mr. Strathman asked has she thought about moving items to storage. Ms. Birkholz responded she cannot afford it, and knows the apartment is messy. The situation looks dangerous, stated Mr. Strathman. Ms. Birkholz stated she cannot leave the apartment unril she gets her loan approved. The apartment just needs a good vacuuming; it is not unsanitary. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 417 Sherbume Avenue Rahena Holtor, tenant, appeared and stated her house was raided by the police department. Dick Lippert condemned her house and gaue her until July 4, 1999, to move, but she cannot move until August 15. She just paid the water bill today. She did all the repairs to get it off of condemnation a previous time. Ms. Holtor has five children. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETIIVG NOTES OF 7-20-99 (Dick Lippert presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later returned.) ��'1� Page 8 Dick Lippert reported many attempts ha�e been made to get the owner to make necessary repairs. Code Enforcement has been to the properry 30 times since October and written a dozen tags. Mr. Lippert became involved in tlus by the Nazcotics Unit of the Police Deparknent. He told Ms. Holtor that he would give her an extension of two weeks because of her children. That was amenable to hez at the time. Mr. Lippert was called to this address on July 16 by a squad because there was a report that the electricity and water were off. The people agreed to leave that night. Mr. Lippert was there at noon today and there appeazed to be people at this house. He also saw a dog in the house. He posted `keep ouY signs. Mr_ Lippert called the water department and NSP, and they aze not going to turn the utilifies back on until full payment is received. This hause is not close to being habitable. A room upstairs and the backyazd is full of trash. Ms. Holtor stated it took everything she had to get the gas, electricity, and water turned on. There is a hallway closet full of items, but she is not responsible for it because it is outside her apariment. Her children are not there. The outside of the properry is bad, but not life threatening. The outside is the owner's responsibility. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal saying there is asnple basis for the condemnation order. The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. rrn �rt�e��e�, _ S�.\ �..fc, ��1`�"� RESOLU�ON GITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Preseated Referred To Council File # qq � �g� Green Sheet # 63555 � Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 20, 1999, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeais for the foilowing addresses: 3 Propertv Appealed ApDellant 4 1307 1309 1311 1313 1314 1315 1316 1318 1333 1335 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1357 1359 5 1361, 1363. 1365, 1377, 1379, 1381, 1383, 1385, Maynard Drive West: 1291, 1292, 1293. 1294, 1295, 1296, 6 12R7 1298 1249 1300 1301 1312 1314 1316 1318 132Q 1325 1327 1329 1349 1351 1352 1353 1354 7 1356, 1358, 1360, 1378, 1380 Mavnazd Drive East Roger W. Diestler for Sibley Manor, Inc. 8 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 9 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 10 building must otherwise be in compliance. ll 1642 Charies Avenue John Lapakko 12 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 13 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 14 building must otherwise be in compliance. I S 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West James Hayden 16 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 17 nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they wili be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 18 building must othenuise be in compliance. 19 756 Curfew Sizeet Gene Olson 20 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornvng doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 21 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wili be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 22 building must otherwise be in compliance. 23 1756 Crrand Avenue Michael Kampmeyer 24 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doars with the foliowing conditions: 1) when the 25 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the 26 building must otherwise be in compliance. 27 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum 28 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 29 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 30 building must otherwise be in compliance. Crreen Sheet 63555 1 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over $om 3-16-99) Judy Tschida Martinez 9 � `G 9 2 Decision: Laid over to the August 10 Property Code Enforcement meeting. 3 1722 University Avenue West (Laid over from 6-15-99) Matthew Mews for Ries Management 4 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the window in the efficiency apartment on the following conditions: 5 1) a Tadder or suitable device must be present at all times in order to reach the window, 2) the window has to be 6 replaced with a compazably sized window that can be opened to the full ea�tent. 7 8 689 Orleans Street (Laid over from 6-15-99) Nancy Roussopoulos 9(Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 299 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) Richazd Spreigl Decision: Variance granted on the existing septic system with the foilowing conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system, therefore, there will be no more than one person living at this address, 2) the owner will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imuiinent health and safety hazard as defined in the state stahxtes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is sold ar transferred to another pariy. 333 Arlineton Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) Robert Spreigl Decision: Variance granted on the existing septic system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system, therefore, there will be no more than two persons living at this address, 2) the owner will a11ow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imxninent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is soid or transferred to another party. 23 924 Forest Street #1 Jill Machado 24 (Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) �� ay `r +a 7� y 1rc5 25 847 Hudson Road Mike Bartelmy for Mike's Towing �'� c��( 26 Decision: The condemnation is lifted on the eastern portion of the building only, and there can be cold storage ��' 27 of the towing vehicle in that eastern portion of the building during off hours. 28 853 Randolnh Avenue Richard Lemke 29 Decision: Laid over to the August 17 Property Code Enforcement meeting. 30 1881 Mechanic Avenue Anne Dresser far Azure Properties, Inc. 31 Decision: Ezttension granted to January 20, 1999, to install emergency lighting. 32 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 33 Decision: Appeal denied. 34 417 Sherburne Avenue 35 Decision: Appeal denied. Henrietta Birkholz Rahena Holtor�j f 1-..4�4 Ov�r '�"o A "�. �-i �\90.`l C: C-o�,k. � 'h� } q � v 2 Green Sheet 63555 q� -Ggq 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman ✓ Harris ✓ Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom ✓ Lantry ,� t 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date: 9 11 12 Adopti Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: ��,--��Q =,�-_.r-�"` 14 Approved by ay � t �� 15 Date: —�� 16 By: ✓� r�ly� 3 Requested by Department o£ : Form Appxoved by City Attorney I: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : 9g -�q9 City Council Offices 7-21-49 GREEN SHEET No 63555 Strathman, 266-8575 28• 1 a 'T'.� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES oFnui,ren owKroR arvcau¢i ❑ CffYAiTOpEY ❑ CfIYttEAI( � ❑ FMiNCMLiEiNICC3M. ❑ RION[{K]E0.V/AtCi6 ❑ WYORI�/�8alf1Y1�� ❑ (CLP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 7-20-99 decision of the Legislative Hearing Of£icer on Property Code En£orcem appeals for the following addresses: 1642 Charles Avenue, 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West, 756 Curfew Street, 1756 Grand Avenue, 1667 Ames Avenue, 2252 Falcon Avenue, 1722 University Avenue West, 6S9 Orleans Street, 299 Arlington Avenue East, 333 Arli.ngton Avenue East, 924 Forest Street �fl, 847 Hudson Road, 853 Randolph Avenue, 1881 Mechanic Avenue, 2046 Wilson Avenue 9i7, 417 Sherburne Avenue, and various addresses on Maynard Drive East and Maynard Drive West. �. COMMENDATIONApprove(A aReject R) PERSONALSERVICECONTRACTSMUSTANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESiIDNS: PIANNING CAMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION Flas this persoM�m eHer vrorked uMer a conhaU for fhis departmeM? YES NO Has this werso�rm ever been a ciry empbyee? YES NO Ooesihis Oe«Mrm pos5ess a sldU not normallYP��ssed M7 anY current citY emWoYee? YES NO Is this peBONfirm a targeted ventlorl YES NO �lain all ves answers on seoarate sheet and attach to areen sheet Cous� Ressarch Gsnter .: .; . OF TRANSACTION COSTIREVQIUE BUDGETED (GRCLE ONE) YE$ NO SOURCE ACTNISYHUMBER 9,`l - Gq°1 July 22 1999 The Honorable Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102-1681 Copy to Hearing Officer Gerry Strathman Dear Council Member Blakey: I am writing to you (with the assistance of my 417 Sherburne Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55163. Cody who lives at 5449 West Bald Eagle Blvd., This property is a duplex; I have lived in the children since September 12, 1998. attorney) about my home at I rent my home from Jeffrey White Bear Lake, MN 55110. top half with my five In October, I filed a discrimination complaint with the Saint Paul Human Rights Department against Mr. Cody. I believed Mr. Cody was discriminating against me because of my race and sex. I sent you a copy of this complaint at the time I filed it. Basically, Mr. Cody was harassing me and my children, including calling us the "N" word, and refusing to make repairs to the property. �n June 29, the Department of Human Rights determined that there is probable cause to believe I was discriminated against. I have attached a copy of the memorandum from the department. (The department also issued a probably cause determination against Mr. Cody for his conduct towards my former downstairs neighbor.) The next step is for us to try to conciliate this matter. In fact, our meeting is set for this morning. I don't think this will be settled because Mr. Cody has continued to harass me and my children, and has taken steps to make our living conditions even worse. Even though I took him to court last fall to get the repairs done, he has not done them to the satisfaction of the building inspector, and, more recently, failed to pay the water bill and terminated garbage collection services. I believe it was the shutting off of the water that forced the building department to condemn the duplex. I ask that I be allowed to remain in my home while I continue to make repairs to it for several reasons: qq ��q� • Much of the work has already been done and none of the remaining items are life threatening. • I have arranged to pay the water bill so that it is turned back on. • My five children and I(ages 9 thorugh 16) have no place else to go. Housing is extremely tight; affordable housing for six people is even harder to find. • My children witnessed the discriminatory treatment and at times were the victims of Mr. Cody's vile rantings. They are suffering because of this and we need to stay together as a family unit for support and strength. • I will be exploring other court actions I can take to get Mr. Cody to take responsibility for his property. • I believe his refusal to make the necessary repairs is part of his continuing campaign to get rid of the "f*ing N*s" in his property, as he has called us. If we are forced to go, he will have won. • This building has two living units in it and isn't in bad shape at all. These two three-bedroom units will provide decent, affiordable, family housing once fixed up. The rents from these two units will be more than enough to pay for the work that needs to be done. I'm willing to contribute my time to help make that happen. • If I don't make this happen, this property will be boarded up and become an eyesore to the neighborhood. Mr. Cody does not appear to care about the condition of this property. I do. On behalf of my five children and myself, I thank you for considering my request. Sincerely, Ms . Rahena Hol ton �o��9.r��--�..� 417 Sherburne Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 CITY OF SAINT PALTL 3�orm Colen�an. 1layor June 29, 1999 Ms. 12aliena Holton 417 Sherburne A�enue Saint Pau1. Minnesota i?10: Re. Ral�ena Holton c. Jeffrer Codc Case A-3408 DearMs. Ho]ton: DEPARTMEIVT OF HUMAN RIGHTS W. H. Tyrone Terrill, Dimctor qq ��9q 900CitvHall Telephone: 612-?66-896G 1� I�! Kel(oggBoulei�ard Facsimi/e: 6J2-266-89G2 Saint Paul, ,i�fti .i� 102-1681 TDD: 613-266-8977 The above-capdoned charge alleging a�iolation of the Salnt Paul Human Riglus Ordinance has been thoroughly im esugated and carefullc considered. Based on witness testimony and documents gati�ered during the investigation, a detennination has been made that there is pzobab3e cause to believe that a viola�ion of the Ordinance has occurred. Pursuant to Section 183.20 of tlie Ordinance I lia�e tl�e autliority io facilitate a resolution of the Probable Causedeterminationthroughconciliation. Theconciliatlonprocessisdesignedtopro�ideaforumwhereboth parties may reach agreement on tern�s that �could settle tI�e matter and thus avoid litigation. A meeling for ilus purpose has been scl�eduled for 9:30 AM Tlmrsday. July 22, 1999. The meeting �r�ill be lield at 900 Ciry Ha1UCourt House. It is imperati��e ihat you be present at this meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum of Findings. Upon receipt of this lettec, please contaci Mr.Rich N}anoen at (651) 266-8971 tlie Human Rights Specialist handiing cour case, and infosm him what damages you are seeking to settle this matier. For Equalih� and Justice for all. C,� � --�� . W. H. T�•rone Terriil Director WHTT/rev Enclosure CERTIFIED LETTER cc: Diane Marie Dube. Atlorncy for Complainant An AOinnativ< Actio�y Gqual Opgortunity Hmpioycr DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CITX OP SALrI�T PAUL ?�'orn� Colenvan, .1lavor 7une 29, 1999 MEMORA.NDUM OF FINDINGS Re: Rahena Holton v_ Jeffrey Cody Case A-3408 W. H. T}'rone Terrill. Director 9�1-�99 900 City Hall Telephone: 6I?-266-89G6 1S l�i%, KelloggBoulevard Facsimile: 672-266-896? SaintPaul,NlN�.iIOZ-1681 TDD: 61?-266-8977 Pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance, a full and impartial investigation of the alle�ations in the above-referenced charge was conducted by this Department. Based on the results of that investigation which are stated below, this Department has made a determination that probable cause exists to be3ieve that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Complainant: I. Complaanant's Allegations 1. The unit was very messy when Complainant viewed it, but Respondent said that he was �oing to remove all the debris, mostly furniture, boxes and food left by the last tenant. Complainant was to clean it after he moved the stuffin exchange for a$100 reduction in renT. There were mag�ots over the food. There were no lights when Complainant moved in and roaches were crawling a11 over. There were — and continue to be — mice. Since the tenant in the other unit has a cat, the mice favored ComplainanYs unit. 2. On September 13, 1998, Respondent was moving in another tenant. Complainant to]d him about the mice and roaches and that the debris remainin� in the house was infested. He said he didn't understand how Complainant could complain because it was the best place she had ever lived an. "You people make the property values �o down," he said. Complainant's sister Monique Holton, Complainant's dau�hter Danielie Ho]ton and one of her school friends were present �vhen he said this. Nlonique told, "Wait a minute. That's not ri�ht." Respondent said to Monique, "Who the fuck are you?" He told her to leave and that he rented to Complainant and her children and no one else. 3. He also said things like: a. "You're black ass should be out of here." b. "I'm �oing to �ive you a U.D." c. "I shou3d have known better than to rent to people like you." d. "I']I have your black ass out of here." e. "Fuck them nig�ers," referring to Complainant's daughter and her friend. �n ,lqinnali��e Action. Hyu:d Op�wrtunity L''mployar Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-340s V 9� '�� Page Two f. ComplainanYs nephew could not be in the unit because "he dresses like a dru� dealer." (The tenant in the other unit heard this.) �. ConstantIy referring to Complainant as "you people." h. He would ask Complainant what she was complaining about, that she should be used to Iiving Iike this, and "you never had anything better than this anyway." 4. Respondent has made it known that it is his house and he can come in anytime he wants to. Complainant has to keep the second lock on her door locked to keep him out. Complainant now tries to make sure someone is always there. When Complainant first moved in and wouSd be Qone, she'd come hack and find thin�s had been moved around. Complainant can't prove it was him, but now she has someone there if she is gone. �. Respondent brou�ht over some bug bombs — but he only bombed the white tenant's apartment and the basement. Complainant asked for a bu� bomb, tellin� him he thought he was beine racist to give the white tenant bu� bombs and the basement, and not for ComplaSnant's unit. Respondent said, "1'm fucking two black women. Pm not racist. Pussy all the same color to me." Then he said, "Pm UD-ing }rour biack ass." The other tenant gave Complainant two ofher bug bombs. The roaches came up because it wasn't bombed properly. 6. On September 30, Respondent came over with notice to leave in 30 days. He said he was trying to sell the building, "you'll have to move.° He lefr, but came back again asking for rent money. Complainant pointed out that he hadn't bombed for the bues ot eliminated the mice. It was about October 10 now. His response v.-as, " I don't have any fucking money. How the hell am I supposed to do anythin� without any fucking money? I should have known better than rent to you bitches. You bitches called the housin� inspector on me." 7 Respondent left and came back on about October 12. Complainant had just come back from the hospital, having suffered a miscarriage. He wouldn't let Complainant go upstairs; every time Complainant moved to eo upstairs, he wouldn't let her move. Complainant's boyfriend was with her. He and the other tenant tried to tell Respondent that Complainant had just returned from the hospital. Respondent said, "Ii you �o upstairs, I'm not fillin� this out and I'm leaving," referring to the landlord statement Complainant needed for rental assistance. He also said, "If you let that "Pauly bitch" in — the housing inspector —"your ass will be out of here." Complainant started to remind him that he hadn't done the work and he said, "You let her in and you're fuckin� ass is out" 8. The housing inspector came October l3. Complainant explained to her and the man with her that she couldn't let her in and �vl�y. She explained that Complainant couldn't get in trouble for lettin� her in so Complainant let her in. 9. On the evening of October 13, Respondent had his friend serve Complainant with U.D's. After court on October 22, Respondent told Complainant she should drop the racism suit and "��e'Il work out the housing problems," and "you shouid think about it." Respondent kept interruptin� her and teliin<� her to be quiet. The jud�e told him to be quiet so Comp]ainant couid taik. The other tenant grabbed her hand and led her out ofthe courtroom The in Ail'mnnb�t l��tion. i'.<pui Oppununtl� i.mplo�cr Memorandum of Findings Case A-3408 q9 -Cq`I Pa�e Three courtroom door closed. Respondent �rabbed her by the shoulders, pullin� her toward him. The other tenant had her by the other hand and was pullin� her away from him. They were right there by the information desk. II_ RespondenrsPosition 1. Complainant is correct about the property bein� "messy." However, she was responsible for removing the debris in exchange for a hundred dollar reduction in rent. Z. On September 13, debris was still in the house, but she was responsible for removin� it. He never said "This is the best place you everlived,° because he did not know what conditions she had lived in before and he would not make those statements to anyone. If he had addressed Compiaitiant's sister, he wouid have said, "Who are you?" not "Who the fuci: are }�ou?" He stated he was renting to Complainant and her children and not to her sister, boyfriend and dog. Respondent did not say "You're black ass should be out of here." b. Respondent did say he was givin� her notice to ]eave based on her boyfriend and do� stayin� there, which was not in the rental a�reement. He did say he would �ive her a UD if he had to. c. He did say "I should have known better than to rent to people like you." He was taikin� about people who do not comply with what is discussed and aereed upon. d. Respondent told Complainant that if she did not remove the do� and live in boyFriend, he would "have your ass out of here." e& f Respondent did not say "Fuck them niggers" or that her nephew dresses like a drug dealer. 4. Respondent told Compiainant that if he needed to come into her apartment, he would first knock, say he was ihe landlord and then wait for a response. Respondent further stated that if she did not respond, he could enter tlte apartment to do repairs. 5. Respondent hrought over "roach bombs" to do the entire building: 4 for the basement, 4 for the first floor apartment, and 4 fur Complainant's apartment. Respondem �ave the downstairs tenant all 12 bombs and instructed her to �ive Complainant four of them for the upstairs apartment. Respondent then told the downsiairs tenant they needed to do the bombin� procedure at the same time in order for it to be effective. Respondent never said he was fucking two black women, nor did he say pussy was ail the same color. Respondent is offended by these accusations and considers them defamatory. The downstairs tenant should have given Complainant all four bombs per Respondent's instructions and Respondent did not do the bombing because they needed to do it together and vacate the buiiding for a few hours. An �n��„�:n«�� n«�„��. rA��:a c��,n«„n� c�„i,i�,>�« Memorandum of Findings q Case A-340S � `� � Page Four 6. On September 30, Respondent did Qive Complainant a 30 day written notice on notebook paper. Twenty minutes after givin� Complainant and the downstairs tenant written notice, Respondent met with a real estate broker at the buildin_. They discussed the property should be available for sale and possession on or hefore October 30. Respondent introduced the rea]torto Complainant and the downstairs fenant and let them know the realtor would be contacting them to gain access to the property to show prospective buyers. Also at this time Respondent asked Comp]ainant about the rent for October ]. Complainant responded with her concerns about mica and roaches. Respondent told her that he needed rent payment to pay for the exterminator because at this time he didn't have the money needed to pay the exterminator. In Housin� Court, Complainant said she was not given written notice. 7. On or about October 13, Respondent did return with the realtor who had a showing with a prospective buyer. At this time, Respondent had his tools to complete some repairs. When they knocked on Comp]ainanYs door, a man answered the door and stated that Complainant was in the hospital and would not be back. Respondent told him he was ihe landlord and that he wanted to come in to do repairs and let the realtor show the layout of the apartment to his client. Respondent �uas denied access hy the man in Complainant's apartment. This entrance denial came afrer Complainant had given Respondent permission the prior day 8. Complainant's statement re�arding this event and the Housin� Inspector is incorrect because he did not even see her on that day. He does not know what happened betuveen Complainant and the inspector because he did not see her that day. 9. Respondent denies ever touchin� Complainant in housing court. III. Compiainant`s Rebuttal ]. Respondent told Complainant if she cleaned the apartment, he would take $100 off of her rent. He was going to remove all the debris from the apartment and the hall doset. He never did; Complainant paid some people to remove the debris from her apartment. Complainant would never have agreed to remove the debris because she would not know how and where to dispose it. 2. Complainant is afraid of Respondent for her safety and her cliildren's safety She has a restraining order against him, but Complainant still has had people stay over because she was afraid ofhim. Complainant told Respondent many times that her boyfriend does not ]i�°e there. Respondent would not accept documentation such as where his mail is delivered and his iega] papers. lnstead he said that Complainant could not have any over night guests at all and that her "black ass" wouid be out of there if she did. There's nothin« in the lease prohibitin� over night guests. 3. An affidavit from a community organizer wfio was dealing with Respondent on Complainant's behatf confinns Respondent's name callin� and verbal abuse. :1n.11limialirzArl�on. Gyual O�eportunii� Y.inpinv.r � Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Five ��-4g� 4. Respondent did not do any repairs in her house until he was made to hy the housing inspector. 5. Complainant made no rebuttal on this alle�ation. 6. Complainant made no rebuttal on this aliegation. 7. On October 13, Complainant was not home. Her boyfriend was there, and he knew that Respondent was only there to show the apartment and not to make any repairs. Complainant had instructed her boyfriend to not ]et anyone in her home umil Complainant was there. Respondent told Complainant if she let the housing inspector back in, she would be evicted. She was served the UD a night or two afrer she let the inspectors in. S. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. IV. Issue Did Respondent discriminate a�ainst Complainant in tl�e terms and conditions of renting the property because of her race? V. Evidence Alle�ation # I . a. Respondent provided a sworn statement that he had an agreement that if Complainant removed the little bit of stufffrom her porcl� and mop the floors there would, he believes, be some money knocked offher security deposit. There were a couple bags oftoys and a cl�air 1eft on the porch. These units were month to month, so there was no tease and this agreement was not in writing. She had said she had help to move these items. She was accusing Respondent of pre}udice for having heip to move stuf� out of the lower unit. 7here was more stuffin tl�e ]ower w1it. Respondent may have helped the tenant in the ]ower unit. Respondent's friend was there, and the friend of the downstair's tenant was helping in the lower unit There was a dead cat in the basement that Respondent removed and he bagged up some garbage, so he did not provide a whole tot of help. b. Respondent's friend provided a sworn statement that when Complainant moved into the Sherburne apartment, it was a mess that had been ransacked and needed to be cleaned up. The upstairs apartment was in better shape and junk was probably left behind but he doesn't recall exactly what. 1�'hen the building was vacant, there was one night when Respondent's friend was there when Complainant was there in tears because she had no place to live. Respondent told her he did not want to rent it to her because of its condition, but because she was cryin�, l�e said she could move in if she cleaned it up. She had heard about it by word of mouth in the neighborhood. Respondent's friend was at the building about 10 or 1 � times helping fix thin�s up. �ln .111imtulnc 4ei�nn. F,qu:d OppnYiuml� l:mploacf Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Six -`� "b f l c. The downstairs tenant provided a sworn statement that the toof of Complainant's unit was leal:in�, window screens were missing, there were roaches, and her kitchen sink was leakin� ail over the floor. There was old furniture and garba�e from the previous tenants of Complainant's unit. Complainant had moved this debris onto her back porch. The downstairs unit was in much worse condition. When Complainant moved in, Respondent had said she could not move into the downstairs unit because it was unfit for human habitation. There was an agreement between Complainant and Respondent about the debris that was lefr behind. Respondent had said that if Complainant cleaned it, he would knock some rent off. The downstairs tenant knew about that agreement because when Complainant came down to confront him about the roaches and �etting bombs for the roaches, Respondent said that if she finished cleanin� the unit and went out to obtain her own bombs, she could deduct it all from hes rent. He claimed he was broke and could not afford it. d. Complainant's sister provided a sworn statement that she saw the condition of Complainant's apartment when she moved in. There were maegots in the refrigerator, filth and roaches. Complainant's family all helped her ciean up. There were chairs, wood, and ciothes around when the witness got there. She doesn't know what Complainant had moved out before she got there. Stuffwas in the apartment like when someone destroys an apartment. For the most part, what this witness helped move wasn't difficult to move. It wasjust nasty. This witness was not completely aware of the exact a�reement between Complainant and Respondent. She knows that Complainant had said Respondent had said she was supposed to c]ean up the piace in exchange for taking some offthe rent. Complainant was upset about him not holding up his pan ofthe bargain, but this witness is not sure exactly what sl�e was upset about. e. Complainant's dau�htet provided a sworn statement that when they first moved in, thete were roaches everywhere that would drop from the ceiling. There were mice and the sink leaked. T1�is witness was not there v.=hen Complainant was first tl�ere removin� stuff, but she knows Complainant was very tired afterward A]legations # 2 & 3. a. Complainant's sister testified that around September l3, she was worried about Complainant and when she approached her place she heard them ar�uing. Respondent and Complainant were on the porch and Respondent was in a ra�e. Respondent was cussin� and very disrespectful. "Ni�ger" fell out his mouth more than anything. When this witness first arrived, she was just trying to calm Complainant down at first so she could keep the apartment. Then this witness tried talking to Cody and he was sayinn„ " I just want the nie�er out of my place." He then asked of the witness, "Who are you. You don't have anything to do with it. I don't have to talk to you." The oldest niece of the witness and her friend were comin� home for school. The friend was coming to her home for the first time. They haven't seen that littie girl since. The witness sent them away because Cody was out ofcontrol, saying "F them ni��ers, referring to the �irls. " He was saying that Complainant wasn't takin� care of Iler propeny ri��ht. Complainant was asking w)ry he was helping the girl downstairs, :1n ,90 inn:ilicc :\c�ion. I(yual Opportunily l:mplo�•:r Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Seven q�-6�1 but not doing the thines he was supposed to do for her apartment. The simation eventuaily calmed down �-hen the witness realized that she would not be able to have a conversation_ She had Complainant �o upstairs. In order to wotk things out, the witness went into to the downstair tenant's apartment where Respondent had �one. Respondent was saying how he was goin� to erict Complainant ritrht away because "they' always screw thin�s up. The witness left after a few minutes and the conversation did not last very long at all. It was like he was on acid or something, he was in such a raoe. This witness has heard Respondent say several different things to her on different occasions and cannot identafy exact]y when they were said, but she does recaIl him sayin� things to Complainant like, "I don't see how you could complain. It's the best place you ever lived in. You people make the property va]ues go down." He would say smart remarks and look over smirking. This witness was there several times a week and she saw him there on four occasions in confrontations with Complainant. b. Complainant's teen age daughter testified that in mid-September, she and her friend were coming home from school and she heard Complainant tellin� Respondent that she wanted help getting the roaches out ofthe house and the mice. He was yelling at her, saying, "You F nig_ers. You don't deserve this." The friend of this wimess was lookin� off trying not to notice. The witness asked Complainant ifthey could �o and he said, "Well F that ni�ger too," referrin� to the witness. The aunt of the witness said she and her friend should �o because she didn't want them hearing that. So they went to the show. That was the only incident this wimess heard because when ever he came over after that they would go to their rooms or leave because she has younger sisters and brothers that are scared of him. c. The downstairstenant, who hasfiled a sex discrimination charge against Respondent, testified that when she ;ot ready to move into the Sherburne property in 5eptember, 1998, Complainant came do� n to introduce hezself and talk to Respondent. Respondent said that he didn't see how she could complain and that she should be�rateful she couid �et a piace like that. He said ali you �uys are "ungrateful nig�ers." They were screaming at each ather. Complainant was sayin�, "You're just racist." Respondent was saying about how much money he had put into the unit before people like them had come in and trashed it. Complainant's sister was screaming at him. The wimess started screamin� at him too because he was being rude and trying to dra� her into somethin�. The witness doesn't remember what Respondent said to Complainant's sister. Complainant's daughter heard him call her these raciai sIurs too. After Compiainant went back upstairs, Respondent told the witness that she had to watch ComplainanYs unit because there was drug dealing goin� on He said there were too many "ni�gers"' going in and out ofthe premises. The next day, Respondent came out a�ain and he said he felt better havin� her on the property because she was white, and she could watch the premises for him. That same day he cailed the police on his cetl plione because Complainant's relatives had just pulled up and parked. He told the poiice that they were smoking drugs on his groperty. d A community or�anizer provided a sworn a�davit dated December 2?, 7 998 that in her professional capacity she had been working with Complainant on her housing problems at 417 Siierbume Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103. In her work with Complainant, the witness has had several conversations with Respondent. As ofthe November 30, 1998, Respondent \n AOimiali�J:\.Ywn. L�prJ UpporiunilV I',mpluvti Memorandum ofFindines Case A-3408 v Page Eight �� ' �� had never seen the witness, and to the best of her knowled�e Respondent did not know she is African American. V - On November 30, 1998, the witness responded to a te3ephone message from Respondent. The witness telephoned him and they discussed the continuing need for repairs at Complainant's residence, a subject they had discussed several times in the past. Also in on the conversation was a man Respondent identified as his brother. Respondent said he had le8 this specific messa�e to talk to the witness because he wanted to see if the downstairs tenant had moved out. The witness told Respondent that he needed to jet the repairs done in order to start collectin� the rent and that Complainant had paid for the exterminator to spray the bui3ding. The witness also advised Respondent that if he were to file an unlawful detainer a�ainst Complainant at this time that would be deemed retaliation. At that point, Respondent expressed his desire that he wanted them (Complainant and the downstairs tenant} out ofthe building so he could fix it up and sell it. The wimess pointed out that no matter wt�ether the tenants were there or not, he still had the obligation to make the repairs otdered by the city and asked why they just could not negotiate a stay for them until the first of February. Respondent replied that he wanted "them out of nty place," that his brother was goin� to move into the building; that "I don't want no niggers living upstairs or downstairs;" and that " I don't want no niR�ers around." The brother said the word "nig�ers" first, Respoadent repeated it. The witness told him that he shouldn't move into Saint Paul because prejudice isn't we]come her. The witness told him she was African-American. e. Respondent provided a sworn statement that he does remember stopping in at the downstair tenant's unit to see how the pro�ress was comin� on the property around September 14, 1998. He doesn't recall talking to her about Complainant at that time. He did not mention dru� trafficking out of Complainant's unit but the downstair's tenant said she thought there was drug trafficking upstairs because there was a lot ofvaffic at all hours ofthe night. She said this within the first couple days she was in the property. Respondent and the dov✓nstairs tenant acmally called the police afrer talking about it and she met the officer in the street and introduced herselfas the new tenant downstairs. Respondent did not use the word "ni�gers' in these conversations with the downstair's tenant. There was a time around mid-September when Complainant's boyfriend came down to threaten to beat Respondent up. Respondent daes not recall why he was threatening him. Respondent does not recall having an ar�ument with Complainant about the condition ofher apartment or the debris that was in it. Respondent y�ever used any racial slurs during an argwnent with Complainant. Respondent testified he never used any racial slurs when talkin�n to or about Complainant or her family. He may Uave talked to a community organizer about repairs for Complainant's unit in the fall of l 998. Respondent has a brother, but he doesn't recall a phone conversation with an or�anizer when his brother was present a1so. Respondent may have said to the organizer ihat his btother was moving into the property. Respondent testified he never said "I don't want no ni�gers livin� upstairs or downstairs," and that "I don't want no ni��ers around_" Respondent's brother never said anything like that when Respondent was around. .\n.l0im�:ai�rAeUOn, liyual Upponunilv Lmplo)rr Memorandum ofFindin�s Case A-3408 v Page Nine q°1- `�t°� f. Respondent's friend testified that Complainant and the downstair's tenant were arguin� with Respondent a lot about rent and other problems. This witness never heard Respondent cali them any names. If it was the case, it went both ways. This witness never heard Respondent make any racial slurs to or about Complainant. Allegation � 4. Complainant's sister testified that Complainant does not normally back down from people but she was distrustful ofwhat Respondent might do to her, her I:ids or to the buildin�. She was afraid of him enterin� her apartment when she was gone just based on his comments and how crazy he seemed. The witness spent the night a lot there on the ��eekends when they started going to court because she was worried about Comp]ainant and her kids. This witness is not sure if Complainant's boyfriend was living there or not then because he was living with his mom. But he would spend the night several times a week. This witness wasn't living there then but she is living there with Complainant now. Alle�ation # 5. a. The downstair's tenant testified that Respondent had been helping her with her unit and CompIainant asked if he could repair some thin�s in her unit. Both of their units had a mice and roach problem. Complainant had bou�ht Raid and a couple bombs. The downstairs tenant provided Complainant with bombs and Raid and bleach. They wanted to bomb together while the witness was still c(eaning downstairs before she moved in. Complainant did not want to move in any of her kid's fumiture until the bombs had been set off a couple times. Respondent gave this witness three bombs, they come in a three pack, and he did not say anythin� about givin� any to Complainant. In front of this witness, Respondent told Complainant to eet her own bombs and take it off her rent. On her own, this wimess gave Complainant two ofthe one's Respondent eave to the witness and one the witness had bou�ht on her own. They set off eight total, with two being in the basement. b. Respondent festified he supplied the roach bombs for the whole house about three or four times. He did not tell Complainant to supply them and take the cost offthe rent or deposit. He had the bombs in his possession from previously so he did not have to buy them. c. Respondent's friend testified that there was a deal between the tenants and Respondent that they were to bomb the place Respondent did provide some bombs to the downstair's tenant on the day she was out there in Respondent's �ara�e. This witness did not know how many thou�h. Alle�ation N 6. a. The downstairs tenant testified that on October 7, 1998, Respandent came to ask us for their rent money. Complainant and the witness were to�ether on the front porch by their front doors. Respondent said, " I'm �iving you one mare chance to pay tt�e the rent. �\n.117innainc 4aion. Ifqual Oppniiuni111tn1plo�:r Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Fage Ten qg -`4� How am I supposed to make any repairs ifyou don't pay rent. I owe the IRS �60,000 and it s because ofyou. Cindy yau're a no good whiTe bitch. You're a no good black bitch. I'll evict you if you don't pay pay the rent" He was all red in the face, came into my unit and was saying, "It's a11 your guys fuckin� fault. You and the nigger bitch upstairs. ' The witness's friend was sittin� on my couch as he was yelting this. She said, "So it's their fault you can't pay the IRS and theirfines." He stopped, looked at her, and said, "What the fuck" and walked out and slammed the door. b. Respondent testified that he gave Complainant and the downstairs tenant a 30 day notice on September 30 because they had not made the repairs or paid the deposit. He didn't keep a copy of the notice. He did ask for rent money from Complainant and the downstairs tenant around that time and they may both have been there. He was in a financial bind and he may have mentioned the IRS but he did not say it was because of them. He never said that the downstairs tenant was a no �ood white bitch and Compiainant was a no good black bitch. He doesn't recal3 a friend of the downstairs tenant bein� there that said an}�thing to him. c. The friend of the downstairs tenant testified she was at the downstairs tenant's apartment on Sherburne almost every weekend. Some times she would stay over night there, so she was there quite a bit She was there when Respondent was there on two or three occasions. She never heard him make any racial remarks, but the downstairs tenant told her that he calied Complainant, a ni��er. She thinks she said he said the downstairs tenant was a nigger Iover, too. Respondent's vioient anger frightened this witness and it seemed like he was on drugs or something. There was an incident where he was yeliing at the downstairs tenant about him not being able to pay the IRS because she was not payin� the rent. So he was puttin� ail his problems on her. This witness made comments under her breath about this but she didn't talk to him directly about this because she was trying to stay out of it. Then they were arguing about him not fixing up the place, which he said he couldn't do because of his leg. This witness dosn't recall if he was limping or had a cast. But after the court ordered him, he came around trying to make repairs. This witness dosn't recall him cailin� the downstair tenant or Complainant any names. But the witness doesn't remember the details of that day. The downstairs tenant told the witness about Respondent calling herawhite bitch and Complainant a biack bitch, but the witness doesn't recall witnessing that. It may have happened when they were outside or when they were inside and the witness went out to get away from them. Allegations � 7 & 8. a. Respondent testified that around October l2 or 13 the only conversation l�e had with Complainant was about a showin� and she said fine. He never blocked her way upstairs. b. The downstairs tenant testified that Respondent was not there when the inspector first came to the property, but when he got the orders he went to Complainant and said if she let the inspector in a�ain, he would evict thern. The wimess wasn't there at the time, but when she got home Complainant came runnin� down in tears to teil her what he had said. The witness told her he couldn't kick them out because it wou{d be retaliation An TOimiab�c Action. liyual Opponunny b�npluy7 llfemorandum ofFindin�s Case A-3408 Pa�e Eleven �1`t-6� c. Respondent�s friend testified that he started making repairs from a list from an inspector. The witness was the one doing the repairs usually but Respondent would be with him. There was not much yelling at that time. This witness may have been there when they argued about them calline the inspector, but the lvitness did not pay much attention to exactly what they were arguin� about. The witness doesri t recall Respondent saying, °You bitches called the hovsing inspector on me." :�lleaation ± 9. a. Respondent testified that in mid—October he had his friend serve unlawful detainers on Complainant and the downstairs tenant. In Housing Court around October 22, the referee said Respondent did not win his case because he couid not prove he gave them written 30 day notice at the end of September, ] 998. The referee sug�ested he get an attorney. Respondent is not sure if he talked to Complainant about her dropping her discrimination suit at that time, but he never grabbed her arm. b. The downstairs tenant testified that they were served with an eviction notice after they called the inspector again in mid-October. In housing court around October 22, Cody pulled out a �reen piece of note book paper and told thejudge that this was what he wrote the written notice on at the end of September. But he was lying. Respondent became loud and agitated, so extra bailiffs had to be called up. As they were walking out of court, Respondent pulled Com�lainant by her coat to talk to her about her droppin� the discrimination lawsuit in exchange for him fixing up the property. The downstairs tenant pulled her away from him. A bailiff escorted him out afrer that and made him jo down the elevator first. c. Respondent's friend testified that after the court groceedings, Complainant and Respondent were talking about what needed to be fixed. It was a caim conversation. Respondent did not mention anything about the discrimination suit then. Respondent didn't understa�zd �uhat the discrimination suit was about and neither does the witness. Respondent never �rabbed her by the shoulder durin� that conversation. VI Analysis The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs who have direct evidence of discriminatory intent may prove their case without resort to the McDonnel Douglas burden- shifring analysis. Fe�es v. Perkins Restaurants Inc. 483 N.VJ. 2d i01, 770 n.4 (Minn. 1992); State bYCooper v. Hennepin Countv. 441 N.W2d 106, I 10 n.l(sanle). In the instant case, there are four sworn statements, one from a community or�anizer with no re)ationship to Complainant or her interests, attestin� to Respondent's extremely hostile use on several different occasions of raciai slurs when speaking to and about Complainant. These sworn statements constitute a preponderance of direct evidence to show that Respondent created a racialty hastile housing environment that was both pervasive and severe for Complainant and her family. They aiso are sufficient to show that the difference in treatment that Complainant received from Respondent in terms improvin� her apartment was racialiy motivated, as were his efforts to evict her. M.10innal��: Acvon. liqu:d Oppununily 1'.inpiu�cr Memorandum of Findings Case A-3408 Pa�e Twelve qq-6q9 In view ofthe fore�oing, this Department concludes that there is probable cause to show that Respondent violated the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance as Comp3ainant had alle�ed. �� W. H. Tyr Terr� Dir ct r WHTT(rev K-J Date �an Ailimiativc F1n�on. Byual Oppofluniiy 1Zmploycr NOTES OF TFiE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, 3uly 20, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 130 p.m. � �`'l�i �� STAFF PRESENT: David Dickhut, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Deparhnent; Mike Urmann, Fire Department; Joe Yannarelly, Code Enforcement 1307 1309 1311 1313 1314 1315 1316 1318 1333 1335 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342� 1357.1359.1361,1363,1365.1377.1379.1381.1383.1385. Maynard Drive West; 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1312 1314 1316 1318 1320.1325,1327.1329.1349.1351.1352.1353.1354,1356,1358,1360,1378,1380 Maynard Drive East: Ro¢er W. Diestler for Sibley Manor, Inc. Roger Diestler, owner, appeazed and stated when he was here previously, he thought he was getting a variance for all the properties. This will be an ongoing, as needed replacement. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenvise be in compliance. 1642 Charles Avenue John Lapakko, owner, appeared and stated this appeal is about fire rated doars. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Departsnent has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West Mike Urmann reported he spoke to the owner regazding tkus property, and informed him that the Fire Department would not be opposed to the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following condifions: 1) when the nonconfomung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenuise be in compliance. �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETiNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 2 756 Curfew Street Gene Olson, owner, appeared and stated this appeal is about fire rated doors. This is an older building with wooden doors. In the front, ail the kitchen doors have been replaced with steel ones. Mr. Strathman asked is it understood that when the doors need to be replaced, they will have to be replaced with fire rated doors. Mr. Olson responded yes. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfonning doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confonniug fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1756 Grand Avenue No one appeared representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Deparhnent had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1667 Ames Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Departsnent had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doars with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be repiaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 3-16-49) Judy Tschida Martinez, owner, appeared and stated she installed an egress window in the basement. It has to be inspected. Eveiything has been completed except the steel window we11s need to be installed. Mike Urmann reported he has not reinspected because Ms. Martinez has not received zoning approval nor had permits signed off for the room and board situation. Ms. Martinez stated she is not going to turn this into a rooming house; just family will be living there. Wl�at are the outstanding orders, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded the room and board issue and an illegal sleeping room without escape windows. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMf'sNT NIEETiNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 `'1�i t.�� Page 3 Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the August 10 Property Code Enforcement meeting for the windows to be inspected. 1�22 Universitv Avenue West (Laid over from 6-15-99) David Ries, owner, and Matthew Mews, maintenance, appeared. Mr. Owens reported he met with the representatives of Ries Management and went through both apartments. One apartment is large, takes up half of the space, and has two doors. It does not have a compliant egress window. The other apartment is an e�ciency; it does not have a compliant egress window either, and has one door which leads into the corridor. They agreed to the following for the large apartment: if a fire rated partition was constnxcted in the corridor, the fue department wouid accept the two existing doors leading into separate atmospheres as being compliant with the requirement for the windows. The efficiency is more di�cult, stated Mr. Owens. One window an the efficiency is glass block, which basically makes it a wa1L The other window is too small and the rise on the sill is too high. Mr. Strathman asked if the window size was enlarged, is there an egress to the ouYSide. Mr. Owens responded there is. (Mr. Mews showed Mr. Strathman a diagram indicating their plans.) Mr. Strathman stated everyone is in agreement about how to take care of the fire requirement in the large apartment. The rest of the discussion will be on the efficiency. Mr. Ries stated the people that normally rent this $200 efficiency are younger, more agile people. It is usually a student. It is explained to the tenant how to use the ladder and open the window in the case of an emergency. The window is always clear. There is a 30 foot walkway between that window and the building next door. Mr. Mews indicated that the size of the window is 31 X 35. Mr. Owens added that is the closed dimension and not the openable space. Mr. Strathman asked how the window opens. Mr. Ries responded it is an Anderson window and it cranks up. It is not a great situation, stated Iv1r. Strathman. A person would have to break the glass to get out. Mr. Owens added that at the fime of the inspection, the window would not go out to a fuil horizontal. The standazd Anderson window would open to 90 degrees, but this window will not. Also, there was no ladder or device to access the sill at the time of the inspection. Mr. Strathman stated the weight of the glass would work against a person. He asked could a window be installed that would fully open. Mr. Ries responded they would be willing to install a window that would open fully. He wiil attach the ladder in such a way that it cannot be removed. ��l- ��1� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETINCs NOTES OF 7-20-49 Page 4 Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the window in the efficiency apartment on the following conditions: i) a ladder or suitable device must be present at all times in order to reach the window, 2) the window has to be replaced with a comparably sized window that can be opened to the full ea�tent. b89 Orleans Street (T.aid over from 6-15-99) Nancy Roussopoulos, owner, appeazed. Joe Yannazelly reported the number of cats has been reduced to three. The owner is warking with the Humane Society. She has ananged for a loan to patch up her foundation. At this time, he recommends liffing the condemnation and rechecking the properry in two months. (Code Enforcement is wiliing to laft the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 299 ArlinEton Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) The following appeared: Richazd Spreigl, owner of 299 Arlington Avenue East; Robert Spreigl, owner of 333 Arlington Avenue East; and Jerome Ritter, their attorney. (A letter was submitted to Gerry Strathman from Jerome Ritter.) Mr. Ritter stated the houses at 299 Arlington Avenue East and 333 Arlington Avenue East have septic systems. There has been an order that they connect to the city sewer. The code requires that if a sewer is auailable in the street, then the connection will be made. Mr. Ritter is here asking for an exception on a hardship basis. He spoke to Tom Leclair who acknowledged both septic systems do not create a health and safety hazard. If a hardship basis is found, Mr. Ritter is asking for 3 conditions: 1) they cannot increase the burden on the present system, 2) the systems would have to pass the required inspection to make sure they are not a threat to the ground water, 3) when the owners no longer live at these properties, the variances or exceptions will end. This land has been part of the Spreigl family since about 1900. Mr. Strathman asked do the Spreigl brothers' circumstances satisfy Mr. Ritter's definition of haxdship. 1vIr. Ritter responded absolutely. They both receive assistance, and both are on fixed income. David Dickhut reported the public sewer was constructed in 1962. Under defuution of the state code, the drywell system is defined as illegal. As far as he knows, the system is operated properly at each address, but at 333 Arlington, the tank should be pumped according to the 1996 inspection. Mr. Ritter responded it was puxnped in 1996. How did this matter go on for 35 yeazs, asked NIr. Stratiunan. Mr. Dickhut responded it is City policy not to enforce the connection until there is a change in status of the active system in the form of failure or redefinition. A diywell is an illegal system for at least two years, but Mr. Dickhut is not sure how long that has been a law. There has been a legal change in ownership, PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 � �� Page 5 added Mr. Ritter. One of the Spreigls died a few yeazs ago; that property was not sold, but is owned between the children. This may have triggered the change. Mr. Strathman asked were there any other conditions proposed other than the ones Mr. Ritter pzoposed. Mr. Dickhut responded variances have been grauted on those basis before. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the existing septic system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system; therefore, there will be no more than one person living at this address, 2) ttie owner will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imminent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the properry is sold ar transfened to another pariy. 333 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) (See above notes on 299 Arlington Avenue East.) Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the existing sep6c system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system; therefore, there will be no more than two petsons living at this address, 2) the oumer will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imminent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is sold or transfened to another parry. 924 Forest Street #1 Gerry Strathman stated he has been advised that the condexnnation has been lifted and the case is closed.) 847 Hudson Road Phillip Owens reported Michaei Bartelmy wants more time to complete repairs. This was a gazage repair and towing business. There was a fire in the western section and the building was condemned for structural defect. Mr. Qwens allowed Mr. Bartelmy to use the eastern portion of the garage for the continuation of the towing operaflon, i.e. parking their wrecker there. No repairs were made to the building and no permits were pulled. The building has no heat, no piumbing, and limited electricai service. Some repairs were done without a permit; however, Mr. Bartelmy has since obtained pernuts. The work is not compiete and the pernuts have not been signed off. On June 21, the condemnation was extended to the eastem portion. LIEP has revoked the repait garage license through adverse action, stated Mr. Owens. That license cannot be reapplied for up to one year. There are mulfiple exterior violations. There were 1$ vehicles parked on the property, none of which aze properly licensed. Towed vehicles should not be brought to the property, but this has been occurring. (Mr. Owens presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. These photographs were later returned) � ��1� PROPERTX CODE ENFORCEMEI3T MEETING I30TES OF 7-20-99 Page 6 Michael Bartelmy, owner, appeazed and stated he fixed the roof by installing beams to support it. He added a retaiuing wall. The fire was in one room and took a wall with it, but it did not take the supporting wa11. The building is structuraily sound. He adtnits he has too many cazs. Mr. Strathman staxed the issue is that the building is currently condemned. Mr. Bartelmy can enter the building to repair it. The only thing the condemnation does is prevent use of it as a commercial operation. He does not have a license to do repair work anyway. Mr. Bartelmy stated he has a tow truck, caz starter, air pump, etc., that he would like to keep closed in the part of the building that did not bum. He would also like to finish his repairs. No other business will be done there. Is it a probiem to aliow Mr. Bartelxny to keep some of his equipment there, asked NIr. Strathman. Mr. Owens answered he would not have an objection to the undamaged portion of the building being used for cold storage during off hours. Gerry Strathxnan stated the condemnarion will be lifted on the eastern portion of the building only, and there can be cold storage of the towing vehicle in the eastern portion of the buiiding during off hours. 853 Randol�h Avenue Richard Lemke, owner, appeared and stated there was a condemnation on the building and orders to fix it. The lower unit was built up last year and he did not get a certificate of occupancy for it, but Mr. Lemke did not know he needed one. Since then, all the items for the certificate of occupancy have been dealt with except for the requirement of having an escape window in the bedroom. The window is too smali, but the person that lives there is sma11. It is the only window in the bedroom. There is an entrance door and a fire alatm next to it. There is another bedroom eight feet away with two big windows that exit to the porch. If there is a fire, that would be the way a person would exit. Mike Urmann reported the window is positioned in a dormer. There may not be a way to instail a full size escape window within that sleeping azea. The window there is much less than an openable azea of 24 inches. There is no way to make this window compliant for escape or firefighting access. Gerry Strathman asked how big it is. Mr. Urmann guessed that it would be about 30" X 20". Mr. Lemke stated it is a sash window ihat goes up and down. Should a person get out, they would be on the second floor anyway. Also, it is cost prohibitive, and it is uvlalown if it can be done. Could there be another use for the room, asked NIr. Stratlunan. Mr. Urmann responded that was his suggestion. It was previously used as another type of room, which is why it was not cited in the past. Mr. Strathxnan stated he is concemed that a person could get trapped in tlus room in case of a fire. He understands it is on the second floor, but the fire deparhnent could help someone out a second floor window if it is possibie to get out the window. �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEfiTING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 7 Mr. Lemke asked is there anything else he can do with it. Mr. Stzathtuan responded he is wiiling to grant additional time to see if something can be figured out, but he is reluctant to talk about a variance because the window is not lazge enough to be a fire egress. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the Augvst 17 Properry Code Enforcement meeting in order for the owner to see if another window can be installed. 1881 Mechanic Avenue Ron Martinson, representing the Azure Properties, appeared and stated he is requesting additional time to install lighting. Due to the occupancy load of 100 or more, reported Mike Urmann, the building is required to have emergency lighting with battery backup. It is an exiting situation. There aze 47 units. Mr. Stratlunail asked why tlus requirement is being brought up now. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot find anything in the recards about why it was not cited before, but it should have been. When was it built, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Martinson responded around 1970. Gerry Strathman granted an extension to January 2Q, 1949, to install emergency lighting. 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 Henrietta Birkholz, tenant, appeared. Gerry Strathman asked why the apartment has been condemned. Mr. Birkholz responded she was told it is not sanitary enough. She is in the process of getting a townhouse if her loan goes through. The landlord refused to take a check far July. (Mike Urtnann presented photographs to Mr. Strathman. They were later returned.) Mr. Strathman asked has she thought about moving items to storage. Ms. Birkholz responded she cannot afford it, and knows the apartment is messy. The situation looks dangerous, stated Mr. Strathman. Ms. Birkholz stated she cannot leave the apartment unril she gets her loan approved. The apartment just needs a good vacuuming; it is not unsanitary. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 417 Sherbume Avenue Rahena Holtor, tenant, appeared and stated her house was raided by the police department. Dick Lippert condemned her house and gaue her until July 4, 1999, to move, but she cannot move until August 15. She just paid the water bill today. She did all the repairs to get it off of condemnation a previous time. Ms. Holtor has five children. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETIIVG NOTES OF 7-20-99 (Dick Lippert presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later returned.) ��'1� Page 8 Dick Lippert reported many attempts ha�e been made to get the owner to make necessary repairs. Code Enforcement has been to the properry 30 times since October and written a dozen tags. Mr. Lippert became involved in tlus by the Nazcotics Unit of the Police Deparknent. He told Ms. Holtor that he would give her an extension of two weeks because of her children. That was amenable to hez at the time. Mr. Lippert was called to this address on July 16 by a squad because there was a report that the electricity and water were off. The people agreed to leave that night. Mr. Lippert was there at noon today and there appeazed to be people at this house. He also saw a dog in the house. He posted `keep ouY signs. Mr_ Lippert called the water department and NSP, and they aze not going to turn the utilifies back on until full payment is received. This hause is not close to being habitable. A room upstairs and the backyazd is full of trash. Ms. Holtor stated it took everything she had to get the gas, electricity, and water turned on. There is a hallway closet full of items, but she is not responsible for it because it is outside her apariment. Her children are not there. The outside of the properry is bad, but not life threatening. The outside is the owner's responsibility. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal saying there is asnple basis for the condemnation order. The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. rrn �rt�e��e�, _ S�.\ �..fc, ��1`�"� RESOLU�ON GITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Preseated Referred To Council File # qq � �g� Green Sheet # 63555 � Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 20, 1999, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeais for the foilowing addresses: 3 Propertv Appealed ApDellant 4 1307 1309 1311 1313 1314 1315 1316 1318 1333 1335 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1357 1359 5 1361, 1363. 1365, 1377, 1379, 1381, 1383, 1385, Maynard Drive West: 1291, 1292, 1293. 1294, 1295, 1296, 6 12R7 1298 1249 1300 1301 1312 1314 1316 1318 132Q 1325 1327 1329 1349 1351 1352 1353 1354 7 1356, 1358, 1360, 1378, 1380 Mavnazd Drive East Roger W. Diestler for Sibley Manor, Inc. 8 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 9 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 10 building must otherwise be in compliance. ll 1642 Charies Avenue John Lapakko 12 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 13 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 14 building must otherwise be in compliance. I S 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West James Hayden 16 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 17 nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they wili be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 18 building must othenuise be in compliance. 19 756 Curfew Sizeet Gene Olson 20 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornvng doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 21 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wili be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 22 building must otherwise be in compliance. 23 1756 Crrand Avenue Michael Kampmeyer 24 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doars with the foliowing conditions: 1) when the 25 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the 26 building must otherwise be in compliance. 27 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum 28 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 29 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 30 building must otherwise be in compliance. Crreen Sheet 63555 1 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over $om 3-16-99) Judy Tschida Martinez 9 � `G 9 2 Decision: Laid over to the August 10 Property Code Enforcement meeting. 3 1722 University Avenue West (Laid over from 6-15-99) Matthew Mews for Ries Management 4 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the window in the efficiency apartment on the following conditions: 5 1) a Tadder or suitable device must be present at all times in order to reach the window, 2) the window has to be 6 replaced with a compazably sized window that can be opened to the full ea�tent. 7 8 689 Orleans Street (Laid over from 6-15-99) Nancy Roussopoulos 9(Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 299 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) Richazd Spreigl Decision: Variance granted on the existing septic system with the foilowing conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system, therefore, there will be no more than one person living at this address, 2) the owner will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imuiinent health and safety hazard as defined in the state stahxtes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is sold ar transferred to another pariy. 333 Arlineton Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) Robert Spreigl Decision: Variance granted on the existing septic system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system, therefore, there will be no more than two persons living at this address, 2) the owner will a11ow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imxninent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is soid or transferred to another party. 23 924 Forest Street #1 Jill Machado 24 (Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) �� ay `r +a 7� y 1rc5 25 847 Hudson Road Mike Bartelmy for Mike's Towing �'� c��( 26 Decision: The condemnation is lifted on the eastern portion of the building only, and there can be cold storage ��' 27 of the towing vehicle in that eastern portion of the building during off hours. 28 853 Randolnh Avenue Richard Lemke 29 Decision: Laid over to the August 17 Property Code Enforcement meeting. 30 1881 Mechanic Avenue Anne Dresser far Azure Properties, Inc. 31 Decision: Ezttension granted to January 20, 1999, to install emergency lighting. 32 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 33 Decision: Appeal denied. 34 417 Sherburne Avenue 35 Decision: Appeal denied. Henrietta Birkholz Rahena Holtor�j f 1-..4�4 Ov�r '�"o A "�. �-i �\90.`l C: C-o�,k. � 'h� } q � v 2 Green Sheet 63555 q� -Ggq 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman ✓ Harris ✓ Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom ✓ Lantry ,� t 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date: 9 11 12 Adopti Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: ��,--��Q =,�-_.r-�"` 14 Approved by ay � t �� 15 Date: —�� 16 By: ✓� r�ly� 3 Requested by Department o£ : Form Appxoved by City Attorney I: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : 9g -�q9 City Council Offices 7-21-49 GREEN SHEET No 63555 Strathman, 266-8575 28• 1 a 'T'.� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES oFnui,ren owKroR arvcau¢i ❑ CffYAiTOpEY ❑ CfIYttEAI( � ❑ FMiNCMLiEiNICC3M. ❑ RION[{K]E0.V/AtCi6 ❑ WYORI�/�8alf1Y1�� ❑ (CLP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 7-20-99 decision of the Legislative Hearing Of£icer on Property Code En£orcem appeals for the following addresses: 1642 Charles Avenue, 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West, 756 Curfew Street, 1756 Grand Avenue, 1667 Ames Avenue, 2252 Falcon Avenue, 1722 University Avenue West, 6S9 Orleans Street, 299 Arlington Avenue East, 333 Arli.ngton Avenue East, 924 Forest Street �fl, 847 Hudson Road, 853 Randolph Avenue, 1881 Mechanic Avenue, 2046 Wilson Avenue 9i7, 417 Sherburne Avenue, and various addresses on Maynard Drive East and Maynard Drive West. �. COMMENDATIONApprove(A aReject R) PERSONALSERVICECONTRACTSMUSTANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESiIDNS: PIANNING CAMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION Flas this persoM�m eHer vrorked uMer a conhaU for fhis departmeM? YES NO Has this werso�rm ever been a ciry empbyee? YES NO Ooesihis Oe«Mrm pos5ess a sldU not normallYP��ssed M7 anY current citY emWoYee? YES NO Is this peBONfirm a targeted ventlorl YES NO �lain all ves answers on seoarate sheet and attach to areen sheet Cous� Ressarch Gsnter .: .; . OF TRANSACTION COSTIREVQIUE BUDGETED (GRCLE ONE) YE$ NO SOURCE ACTNISYHUMBER 9,`l - Gq°1 July 22 1999 The Honorable Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102-1681 Copy to Hearing Officer Gerry Strathman Dear Council Member Blakey: I am writing to you (with the assistance of my 417 Sherburne Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55163. Cody who lives at 5449 West Bald Eagle Blvd., This property is a duplex; I have lived in the children since September 12, 1998. attorney) about my home at I rent my home from Jeffrey White Bear Lake, MN 55110. top half with my five In October, I filed a discrimination complaint with the Saint Paul Human Rights Department against Mr. Cody. I believed Mr. Cody was discriminating against me because of my race and sex. I sent you a copy of this complaint at the time I filed it. Basically, Mr. Cody was harassing me and my children, including calling us the "N" word, and refusing to make repairs to the property. �n June 29, the Department of Human Rights determined that there is probable cause to believe I was discriminated against. I have attached a copy of the memorandum from the department. (The department also issued a probably cause determination against Mr. Cody for his conduct towards my former downstairs neighbor.) The next step is for us to try to conciliate this matter. In fact, our meeting is set for this morning. I don't think this will be settled because Mr. Cody has continued to harass me and my children, and has taken steps to make our living conditions even worse. Even though I took him to court last fall to get the repairs done, he has not done them to the satisfaction of the building inspector, and, more recently, failed to pay the water bill and terminated garbage collection services. I believe it was the shutting off of the water that forced the building department to condemn the duplex. I ask that I be allowed to remain in my home while I continue to make repairs to it for several reasons: qq ��q� • Much of the work has already been done and none of the remaining items are life threatening. • I have arranged to pay the water bill so that it is turned back on. • My five children and I(ages 9 thorugh 16) have no place else to go. Housing is extremely tight; affordable housing for six people is even harder to find. • My children witnessed the discriminatory treatment and at times were the victims of Mr. Cody's vile rantings. They are suffering because of this and we need to stay together as a family unit for support and strength. • I will be exploring other court actions I can take to get Mr. Cody to take responsibility for his property. • I believe his refusal to make the necessary repairs is part of his continuing campaign to get rid of the "f*ing N*s" in his property, as he has called us. If we are forced to go, he will have won. • This building has two living units in it and isn't in bad shape at all. These two three-bedroom units will provide decent, affiordable, family housing once fixed up. The rents from these two units will be more than enough to pay for the work that needs to be done. I'm willing to contribute my time to help make that happen. • If I don't make this happen, this property will be boarded up and become an eyesore to the neighborhood. Mr. Cody does not appear to care about the condition of this property. I do. On behalf of my five children and myself, I thank you for considering my request. Sincerely, Ms . Rahena Hol ton �o��9.r��--�..� 417 Sherburne Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 CITY OF SAINT PALTL 3�orm Colen�an. 1layor June 29, 1999 Ms. 12aliena Holton 417 Sherburne A�enue Saint Pau1. Minnesota i?10: Re. Ral�ena Holton c. Jeffrer Codc Case A-3408 DearMs. Ho]ton: DEPARTMEIVT OF HUMAN RIGHTS W. H. Tyrone Terrill, Dimctor qq ��9q 900CitvHall Telephone: 612-?66-896G 1� I�! Kel(oggBoulei�ard Facsimi/e: 6J2-266-89G2 Saint Paul, ,i�fti .i� 102-1681 TDD: 613-266-8977 The above-capdoned charge alleging a�iolation of the Salnt Paul Human Riglus Ordinance has been thoroughly im esugated and carefullc considered. Based on witness testimony and documents gati�ered during the investigation, a detennination has been made that there is pzobab3e cause to believe that a viola�ion of the Ordinance has occurred. Pursuant to Section 183.20 of tlie Ordinance I lia�e tl�e autliority io facilitate a resolution of the Probable Causedeterminationthroughconciliation. Theconciliatlonprocessisdesignedtopro�ideaforumwhereboth parties may reach agreement on tern�s that �could settle tI�e matter and thus avoid litigation. A meeling for ilus purpose has been scl�eduled for 9:30 AM Tlmrsday. July 22, 1999. The meeting �r�ill be lield at 900 Ciry Ha1UCourt House. It is imperati��e ihat you be present at this meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum of Findings. Upon receipt of this lettec, please contaci Mr.Rich N}anoen at (651) 266-8971 tlie Human Rights Specialist handiing cour case, and infosm him what damages you are seeking to settle this matier. For Equalih� and Justice for all. C,� � --�� . W. H. T�•rone Terriil Director WHTT/rev Enclosure CERTIFIED LETTER cc: Diane Marie Dube. Atlorncy for Complainant An AOinnativ< Actio�y Gqual Opgortunity Hmpioycr DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CITX OP SALrI�T PAUL ?�'orn� Colenvan, .1lavor 7une 29, 1999 MEMORA.NDUM OF FINDINGS Re: Rahena Holton v_ Jeffrey Cody Case A-3408 W. H. T}'rone Terrill. Director 9�1-�99 900 City Hall Telephone: 6I?-266-89G6 1S l�i%, KelloggBoulevard Facsimile: 672-266-896? SaintPaul,NlN�.iIOZ-1681 TDD: 61?-266-8977 Pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance, a full and impartial investigation of the alle�ations in the above-referenced charge was conducted by this Department. Based on the results of that investigation which are stated below, this Department has made a determination that probable cause exists to be3ieve that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Complainant: I. Complaanant's Allegations 1. The unit was very messy when Complainant viewed it, but Respondent said that he was �oing to remove all the debris, mostly furniture, boxes and food left by the last tenant. Complainant was to clean it after he moved the stuffin exchange for a$100 reduction in renT. There were mag�ots over the food. There were no lights when Complainant moved in and roaches were crawling a11 over. There were — and continue to be — mice. Since the tenant in the other unit has a cat, the mice favored ComplainanYs unit. 2. On September 13, 1998, Respondent was moving in another tenant. Complainant to]d him about the mice and roaches and that the debris remainin� in the house was infested. He said he didn't understand how Complainant could complain because it was the best place she had ever lived an. "You people make the property values �o down," he said. Complainant's sister Monique Holton, Complainant's dau�hter Danielie Ho]ton and one of her school friends were present �vhen he said this. Nlonique told, "Wait a minute. That's not ri�ht." Respondent said to Monique, "Who the fuck are you?" He told her to leave and that he rented to Complainant and her children and no one else. 3. He also said things like: a. "You're black ass should be out of here." b. "I'm �oing to �ive you a U.D." c. "I shou3d have known better than to rent to people like you." d. "I']I have your black ass out of here." e. "Fuck them nig�ers," referring to Complainant's daughter and her friend. �n ,lqinnali��e Action. Hyu:d Op�wrtunity L''mployar Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-340s V 9� '�� Page Two f. ComplainanYs nephew could not be in the unit because "he dresses like a dru� dealer." (The tenant in the other unit heard this.) �. ConstantIy referring to Complainant as "you people." h. He would ask Complainant what she was complaining about, that she should be used to Iiving Iike this, and "you never had anything better than this anyway." 4. Respondent has made it known that it is his house and he can come in anytime he wants to. Complainant has to keep the second lock on her door locked to keep him out. Complainant now tries to make sure someone is always there. When Complainant first moved in and wouSd be Qone, she'd come hack and find thin�s had been moved around. Complainant can't prove it was him, but now she has someone there if she is gone. �. Respondent brou�ht over some bug bombs — but he only bombed the white tenant's apartment and the basement. Complainant asked for a bu� bomb, tellin� him he thought he was beine racist to give the white tenant bu� bombs and the basement, and not for ComplaSnant's unit. Respondent said, "1'm fucking two black women. Pm not racist. Pussy all the same color to me." Then he said, "Pm UD-ing }rour biack ass." The other tenant gave Complainant two ofher bug bombs. The roaches came up because it wasn't bombed properly. 6. On September 30, Respondent came over with notice to leave in 30 days. He said he was trying to sell the building, "you'll have to move.° He lefr, but came back again asking for rent money. Complainant pointed out that he hadn't bombed for the bues ot eliminated the mice. It was about October 10 now. His response v.-as, " I don't have any fucking money. How the hell am I supposed to do anythin� without any fucking money? I should have known better than rent to you bitches. You bitches called the housin� inspector on me." 7 Respondent left and came back on about October 12. Complainant had just come back from the hospital, having suffered a miscarriage. He wouldn't let Complainant go upstairs; every time Complainant moved to eo upstairs, he wouldn't let her move. Complainant's boyfriend was with her. He and the other tenant tried to tell Respondent that Complainant had just returned from the hospital. Respondent said, "Ii you �o upstairs, I'm not fillin� this out and I'm leaving," referring to the landlord statement Complainant needed for rental assistance. He also said, "If you let that "Pauly bitch" in — the housing inspector —"your ass will be out of here." Complainant started to remind him that he hadn't done the work and he said, "You let her in and you're fuckin� ass is out" 8. The housing inspector came October l3. Complainant explained to her and the man with her that she couldn't let her in and �vl�y. She explained that Complainant couldn't get in trouble for lettin� her in so Complainant let her in. 9. On the evening of October 13, Respondent had his friend serve Complainant with U.D's. After court on October 22, Respondent told Complainant she should drop the racism suit and "��e'Il work out the housing problems," and "you shouid think about it." Respondent kept interruptin� her and teliin<� her to be quiet. The jud�e told him to be quiet so Comp]ainant couid taik. The other tenant grabbed her hand and led her out ofthe courtroom The in Ail'mnnb�t l��tion. i'.<pui Oppununtl� i.mplo�cr Memorandum of Findings Case A-3408 q9 -Cq`I Pa�e Three courtroom door closed. Respondent �rabbed her by the shoulders, pullin� her toward him. The other tenant had her by the other hand and was pullin� her away from him. They were right there by the information desk. II_ RespondenrsPosition 1. Complainant is correct about the property bein� "messy." However, she was responsible for removing the debris in exchange for a hundred dollar reduction in rent. Z. On September 13, debris was still in the house, but she was responsible for removin� it. He never said "This is the best place you everlived,° because he did not know what conditions she had lived in before and he would not make those statements to anyone. If he had addressed Compiaitiant's sister, he wouid have said, "Who are you?" not "Who the fuci: are }�ou?" He stated he was renting to Complainant and her children and not to her sister, boyfriend and dog. Respondent did not say "You're black ass should be out of here." b. Respondent did say he was givin� her notice to ]eave based on her boyfriend and do� stayin� there, which was not in the rental a�reement. He did say he would �ive her a UD if he had to. c. He did say "I should have known better than to rent to people like you." He was taikin� about people who do not comply with what is discussed and aereed upon. d. Respondent told Complainant that if she did not remove the do� and live in boyFriend, he would "have your ass out of here." e& f Respondent did not say "Fuck them niggers" or that her nephew dresses like a drug dealer. 4. Respondent told Compiainant that if he needed to come into her apartment, he would first knock, say he was ihe landlord and then wait for a response. Respondent further stated that if she did not respond, he could enter tlte apartment to do repairs. 5. Respondent hrought over "roach bombs" to do the entire building: 4 for the basement, 4 for the first floor apartment, and 4 fur Complainant's apartment. Respondem �ave the downstairs tenant all 12 bombs and instructed her to �ive Complainant four of them for the upstairs apartment. Respondent then told the downsiairs tenant they needed to do the bombin� procedure at the same time in order for it to be effective. Respondent never said he was fucking two black women, nor did he say pussy was ail the same color. Respondent is offended by these accusations and considers them defamatory. The downstairs tenant should have given Complainant all four bombs per Respondent's instructions and Respondent did not do the bombing because they needed to do it together and vacate the buiiding for a few hours. An �n��„�:n«�� n«�„��. rA��:a c��,n«„n� c�„i,i�,>�« Memorandum of Findings q Case A-340S � `� � Page Four 6. On September 30, Respondent did Qive Complainant a 30 day written notice on notebook paper. Twenty minutes after givin� Complainant and the downstairs tenant written notice, Respondent met with a real estate broker at the buildin_. They discussed the property should be available for sale and possession on or hefore October 30. Respondent introduced the rea]torto Complainant and the downstairs fenant and let them know the realtor would be contacting them to gain access to the property to show prospective buyers. Also at this time Respondent asked Comp]ainant about the rent for October ]. Complainant responded with her concerns about mica and roaches. Respondent told her that he needed rent payment to pay for the exterminator because at this time he didn't have the money needed to pay the exterminator. In Housin� Court, Complainant said she was not given written notice. 7. On or about October 13, Respondent did return with the realtor who had a showing with a prospective buyer. At this time, Respondent had his tools to complete some repairs. When they knocked on Comp]ainanYs door, a man answered the door and stated that Complainant was in the hospital and would not be back. Respondent told him he was ihe landlord and that he wanted to come in to do repairs and let the realtor show the layout of the apartment to his client. Respondent �uas denied access hy the man in Complainant's apartment. This entrance denial came afrer Complainant had given Respondent permission the prior day 8. Complainant's statement re�arding this event and the Housin� Inspector is incorrect because he did not even see her on that day. He does not know what happened betuveen Complainant and the inspector because he did not see her that day. 9. Respondent denies ever touchin� Complainant in housing court. III. Compiainant`s Rebuttal ]. Respondent told Complainant if she cleaned the apartment, he would take $100 off of her rent. He was going to remove all the debris from the apartment and the hall doset. He never did; Complainant paid some people to remove the debris from her apartment. Complainant would never have agreed to remove the debris because she would not know how and where to dispose it. 2. Complainant is afraid of Respondent for her safety and her cliildren's safety She has a restraining order against him, but Complainant still has had people stay over because she was afraid ofhim. Complainant told Respondent many times that her boyfriend does not ]i�°e there. Respondent would not accept documentation such as where his mail is delivered and his iega] papers. lnstead he said that Complainant could not have any over night guests at all and that her "black ass" wouid be out of there if she did. There's nothin« in the lease prohibitin� over night guests. 3. An affidavit from a community organizer wfio was dealing with Respondent on Complainant's behatf confinns Respondent's name callin� and verbal abuse. :1n.11limialirzArl�on. Gyual O�eportunii� Y.inpinv.r � Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Five ��-4g� 4. Respondent did not do any repairs in her house until he was made to hy the housing inspector. 5. Complainant made no rebuttal on this alle�ation. 6. Complainant made no rebuttal on this aliegation. 7. On October 13, Complainant was not home. Her boyfriend was there, and he knew that Respondent was only there to show the apartment and not to make any repairs. Complainant had instructed her boyfriend to not ]et anyone in her home umil Complainant was there. Respondent told Complainant if she let the housing inspector back in, she would be evicted. She was served the UD a night or two afrer she let the inspectors in. S. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. IV. Issue Did Respondent discriminate a�ainst Complainant in tl�e terms and conditions of renting the property because of her race? V. Evidence Alle�ation # I . a. Respondent provided a sworn statement that he had an agreement that if Complainant removed the little bit of stufffrom her porcl� and mop the floors there would, he believes, be some money knocked offher security deposit. There were a couple bags oftoys and a cl�air 1eft on the porch. These units were month to month, so there was no tease and this agreement was not in writing. She had said she had help to move these items. She was accusing Respondent of pre}udice for having heip to move stuf� out of the lower unit. 7here was more stuffin tl�e ]ower w1it. Respondent may have helped the tenant in the ]ower unit. Respondent's friend was there, and the friend of the downstair's tenant was helping in the lower unit There was a dead cat in the basement that Respondent removed and he bagged up some garbage, so he did not provide a whole tot of help. b. Respondent's friend provided a sworn statement that when Complainant moved into the Sherburne apartment, it was a mess that had been ransacked and needed to be cleaned up. The upstairs apartment was in better shape and junk was probably left behind but he doesn't recall exactly what. 1�'hen the building was vacant, there was one night when Respondent's friend was there when Complainant was there in tears because she had no place to live. Respondent told her he did not want to rent it to her because of its condition, but because she was cryin�, l�e said she could move in if she cleaned it up. She had heard about it by word of mouth in the neighborhood. Respondent's friend was at the building about 10 or 1 � times helping fix thin�s up. �ln .111imtulnc 4ei�nn. F,qu:d OppnYiuml� l:mploacf Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Six -`� "b f l c. The downstairs tenant provided a sworn statement that the toof of Complainant's unit was leal:in�, window screens were missing, there were roaches, and her kitchen sink was leakin� ail over the floor. There was old furniture and garba�e from the previous tenants of Complainant's unit. Complainant had moved this debris onto her back porch. The downstairs unit was in much worse condition. When Complainant moved in, Respondent had said she could not move into the downstairs unit because it was unfit for human habitation. There was an agreement between Complainant and Respondent about the debris that was lefr behind. Respondent had said that if Complainant cleaned it, he would knock some rent off. The downstairs tenant knew about that agreement because when Complainant came down to confront him about the roaches and �etting bombs for the roaches, Respondent said that if she finished cleanin� the unit and went out to obtain her own bombs, she could deduct it all from hes rent. He claimed he was broke and could not afford it. d. Complainant's sister provided a sworn statement that she saw the condition of Complainant's apartment when she moved in. There were maegots in the refrigerator, filth and roaches. Complainant's family all helped her ciean up. There were chairs, wood, and ciothes around when the witness got there. She doesn't know what Complainant had moved out before she got there. Stuffwas in the apartment like when someone destroys an apartment. For the most part, what this witness helped move wasn't difficult to move. It wasjust nasty. This witness was not completely aware of the exact a�reement between Complainant and Respondent. She knows that Complainant had said Respondent had said she was supposed to c]ean up the piace in exchange for taking some offthe rent. Complainant was upset about him not holding up his pan ofthe bargain, but this witness is not sure exactly what sl�e was upset about. e. Complainant's dau�htet provided a sworn statement that when they first moved in, thete were roaches everywhere that would drop from the ceiling. There were mice and the sink leaked. T1�is witness was not there v.=hen Complainant was first tl�ere removin� stuff, but she knows Complainant was very tired afterward A]legations # 2 & 3. a. Complainant's sister testified that around September l3, she was worried about Complainant and when she approached her place she heard them ar�uing. Respondent and Complainant were on the porch and Respondent was in a ra�e. Respondent was cussin� and very disrespectful. "Ni�ger" fell out his mouth more than anything. When this witness first arrived, she was just trying to calm Complainant down at first so she could keep the apartment. Then this witness tried talking to Cody and he was sayinn„ " I just want the nie�er out of my place." He then asked of the witness, "Who are you. You don't have anything to do with it. I don't have to talk to you." The oldest niece of the witness and her friend were comin� home for school. The friend was coming to her home for the first time. They haven't seen that littie girl since. The witness sent them away because Cody was out ofcontrol, saying "F them ni��ers, referring to the �irls. " He was saying that Complainant wasn't takin� care of Iler propeny ri��ht. Complainant was asking w)ry he was helping the girl downstairs, :1n ,90 inn:ilicc :\c�ion. I(yual Opportunily l:mplo�•:r Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Page Seven q�-6�1 but not doing the thines he was supposed to do for her apartment. The simation eventuaily calmed down �-hen the witness realized that she would not be able to have a conversation_ She had Complainant �o upstairs. In order to wotk things out, the witness went into to the downstair tenant's apartment where Respondent had �one. Respondent was saying how he was goin� to erict Complainant ritrht away because "they' always screw thin�s up. The witness left after a few minutes and the conversation did not last very long at all. It was like he was on acid or something, he was in such a raoe. This witness has heard Respondent say several different things to her on different occasions and cannot identafy exact]y when they were said, but she does recaIl him sayin� things to Complainant like, "I don't see how you could complain. It's the best place you ever lived in. You people make the property va]ues go down." He would say smart remarks and look over smirking. This witness was there several times a week and she saw him there on four occasions in confrontations with Complainant. b. Complainant's teen age daughter testified that in mid-September, she and her friend were coming home from school and she heard Complainant tellin� Respondent that she wanted help getting the roaches out ofthe house and the mice. He was yelling at her, saying, "You F nig_ers. You don't deserve this." The friend of this wimess was lookin� off trying not to notice. The witness asked Complainant ifthey could �o and he said, "Well F that ni�ger too," referrin� to the witness. The aunt of the witness said she and her friend should �o because she didn't want them hearing that. So they went to the show. That was the only incident this wimess heard because when ever he came over after that they would go to their rooms or leave because she has younger sisters and brothers that are scared of him. c. The downstairstenant, who hasfiled a sex discrimination charge against Respondent, testified that when she ;ot ready to move into the Sherburne property in 5eptember, 1998, Complainant came do� n to introduce hezself and talk to Respondent. Respondent said that he didn't see how she could complain and that she should be�rateful she couid �et a piace like that. He said ali you �uys are "ungrateful nig�ers." They were screaming at each ather. Complainant was sayin�, "You're just racist." Respondent was saying about how much money he had put into the unit before people like them had come in and trashed it. Complainant's sister was screaming at him. The wimess started screamin� at him too because he was being rude and trying to dra� her into somethin�. The witness doesn't remember what Respondent said to Complainant's sister. Complainant's daughter heard him call her these raciai sIurs too. After Compiainant went back upstairs, Respondent told the witness that she had to watch ComplainanYs unit because there was drug dealing goin� on He said there were too many "ni�gers"' going in and out ofthe premises. The next day, Respondent came out a�ain and he said he felt better havin� her on the property because she was white, and she could watch the premises for him. That same day he cailed the police on his cetl plione because Complainant's relatives had just pulled up and parked. He told the poiice that they were smoking drugs on his groperty. d A community or�anizer provided a sworn a�davit dated December 2?, 7 998 that in her professional capacity she had been working with Complainant on her housing problems at 417 Siierbume Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103. In her work with Complainant, the witness has had several conversations with Respondent. As ofthe November 30, 1998, Respondent \n AOimiali�J:\.Ywn. L�prJ UpporiunilV I',mpluvti Memorandum ofFindines Case A-3408 v Page Eight �� ' �� had never seen the witness, and to the best of her knowled�e Respondent did not know she is African American. V - On November 30, 1998, the witness responded to a te3ephone message from Respondent. The witness telephoned him and they discussed the continuing need for repairs at Complainant's residence, a subject they had discussed several times in the past. Also in on the conversation was a man Respondent identified as his brother. Respondent said he had le8 this specific messa�e to talk to the witness because he wanted to see if the downstairs tenant had moved out. The witness told Respondent that he needed to jet the repairs done in order to start collectin� the rent and that Complainant had paid for the exterminator to spray the bui3ding. The witness also advised Respondent that if he were to file an unlawful detainer a�ainst Complainant at this time that would be deemed retaliation. At that point, Respondent expressed his desire that he wanted them (Complainant and the downstairs tenant} out ofthe building so he could fix it up and sell it. The wimess pointed out that no matter wt�ether the tenants were there or not, he still had the obligation to make the repairs otdered by the city and asked why they just could not negotiate a stay for them until the first of February. Respondent replied that he wanted "them out of nty place," that his brother was goin� to move into the building; that "I don't want no niggers living upstairs or downstairs;" and that " I don't want no niR�ers around." The brother said the word "nig�ers" first, Respoadent repeated it. The witness told him that he shouldn't move into Saint Paul because prejudice isn't we]come her. The witness told him she was African-American. e. Respondent provided a sworn statement that he does remember stopping in at the downstair tenant's unit to see how the pro�ress was comin� on the property around September 14, 1998. He doesn't recall talking to her about Complainant at that time. He did not mention dru� trafficking out of Complainant's unit but the downstair's tenant said she thought there was drug trafficking upstairs because there was a lot ofvaffic at all hours ofthe night. She said this within the first couple days she was in the property. Respondent and the dov✓nstairs tenant acmally called the police afrer talking about it and she met the officer in the street and introduced herselfas the new tenant downstairs. Respondent did not use the word "ni�gers' in these conversations with the downstair's tenant. There was a time around mid-September when Complainant's boyfriend came down to threaten to beat Respondent up. Respondent daes not recall why he was threatening him. Respondent does not recall having an ar�ument with Complainant about the condition ofher apartment or the debris that was in it. Respondent y�ever used any racial slurs during an argwnent with Complainant. Respondent testified he never used any racial slurs when talkin�n to or about Complainant or her family. He may Uave talked to a community organizer about repairs for Complainant's unit in the fall of l 998. Respondent has a brother, but he doesn't recall a phone conversation with an or�anizer when his brother was present a1so. Respondent may have said to the organizer ihat his btother was moving into the property. Respondent testified he never said "I don't want no ni�gers livin� upstairs or downstairs," and that "I don't want no ni��ers around_" Respondent's brother never said anything like that when Respondent was around. .\n.l0im�:ai�rAeUOn, liyual Upponunilv Lmplo)rr Memorandum ofFindin�s Case A-3408 v Page Nine q°1- `�t°� f. Respondent's friend testified that Complainant and the downstair's tenant were arguin� with Respondent a lot about rent and other problems. This witness never heard Respondent cali them any names. If it was the case, it went both ways. This witness never heard Respondent make any racial slurs to or about Complainant. Allegation � 4. Complainant's sister testified that Complainant does not normally back down from people but she was distrustful ofwhat Respondent might do to her, her I:ids or to the buildin�. She was afraid of him enterin� her apartment when she was gone just based on his comments and how crazy he seemed. The witness spent the night a lot there on the ��eekends when they started going to court because she was worried about Comp]ainant and her kids. This witness is not sure if Complainant's boyfriend was living there or not then because he was living with his mom. But he would spend the night several times a week. This witness wasn't living there then but she is living there with Complainant now. Alle�ation # 5. a. The downstair's tenant testified that Respondent had been helping her with her unit and CompIainant asked if he could repair some thin�s in her unit. Both of their units had a mice and roach problem. Complainant had bou�ht Raid and a couple bombs. The downstairs tenant provided Complainant with bombs and Raid and bleach. They wanted to bomb together while the witness was still c(eaning downstairs before she moved in. Complainant did not want to move in any of her kid's fumiture until the bombs had been set off a couple times. Respondent gave this witness three bombs, they come in a three pack, and he did not say anythin� about givin� any to Complainant. In front of this witness, Respondent told Complainant to eet her own bombs and take it off her rent. On her own, this wimess gave Complainant two ofthe one's Respondent eave to the witness and one the witness had bou�ht on her own. They set off eight total, with two being in the basement. b. Respondent festified he supplied the roach bombs for the whole house about three or four times. He did not tell Complainant to supply them and take the cost offthe rent or deposit. He had the bombs in his possession from previously so he did not have to buy them. c. Respondent's friend testified that there was a deal between the tenants and Respondent that they were to bomb the place Respondent did provide some bombs to the downstair's tenant on the day she was out there in Respondent's �ara�e. This witness did not know how many thou�h. Alle�ation N 6. a. The downstairs tenant testified that on October 7, 1998, Respandent came to ask us for their rent money. Complainant and the witness were to�ether on the front porch by their front doors. Respondent said, " I'm �iving you one mare chance to pay tt�e the rent. �\n.117innainc 4aion. Ifqual Oppniiuni111tn1plo�:r Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Fage Ten qg -`4� How am I supposed to make any repairs ifyou don't pay rent. I owe the IRS �60,000 and it s because ofyou. Cindy yau're a no good whiTe bitch. You're a no good black bitch. I'll evict you if you don't pay pay the rent" He was all red in the face, came into my unit and was saying, "It's a11 your guys fuckin� fault. You and the nigger bitch upstairs. ' The witness's friend was sittin� on my couch as he was yelting this. She said, "So it's their fault you can't pay the IRS and theirfines." He stopped, looked at her, and said, "What the fuck" and walked out and slammed the door. b. Respondent testified that he gave Complainant and the downstairs tenant a 30 day notice on September 30 because they had not made the repairs or paid the deposit. He didn't keep a copy of the notice. He did ask for rent money from Complainant and the downstairs tenant around that time and they may both have been there. He was in a financial bind and he may have mentioned the IRS but he did not say it was because of them. He never said that the downstairs tenant was a no �ood white bitch and Compiainant was a no good black bitch. He doesn't recal3 a friend of the downstairs tenant bein� there that said an}�thing to him. c. The friend of the downstairs tenant testified she was at the downstairs tenant's apartment on Sherburne almost every weekend. Some times she would stay over night there, so she was there quite a bit She was there when Respondent was there on two or three occasions. She never heard him make any racial remarks, but the downstairs tenant told her that he calied Complainant, a ni��er. She thinks she said he said the downstairs tenant was a nigger Iover, too. Respondent's vioient anger frightened this witness and it seemed like he was on drugs or something. There was an incident where he was yeliing at the downstairs tenant about him not being able to pay the IRS because she was not payin� the rent. So he was puttin� ail his problems on her. This witness made comments under her breath about this but she didn't talk to him directly about this because she was trying to stay out of it. Then they were arguing about him not fixing up the place, which he said he couldn't do because of his leg. This witness dosn't recall if he was limping or had a cast. But after the court ordered him, he came around trying to make repairs. This witness dosn't recall him cailin� the downstair tenant or Complainant any names. But the witness doesn't remember the details of that day. The downstairs tenant told the witness about Respondent calling herawhite bitch and Complainant a biack bitch, but the witness doesn't recall witnessing that. It may have happened when they were outside or when they were inside and the witness went out to get away from them. Allegations � 7 & 8. a. Respondent testified that around October l2 or 13 the only conversation l�e had with Complainant was about a showin� and she said fine. He never blocked her way upstairs. b. The downstairs tenant testified that Respondent was not there when the inspector first came to the property, but when he got the orders he went to Complainant and said if she let the inspector in a�ain, he would evict thern. The wimess wasn't there at the time, but when she got home Complainant came runnin� down in tears to teil her what he had said. The witness told her he couldn't kick them out because it wou{d be retaliation An TOimiab�c Action. liyual Opponunny b�npluy7 llfemorandum ofFindin�s Case A-3408 Pa�e Eleven �1`t-6� c. Respondent�s friend testified that he started making repairs from a list from an inspector. The witness was the one doing the repairs usually but Respondent would be with him. There was not much yelling at that time. This witness may have been there when they argued about them calline the inspector, but the lvitness did not pay much attention to exactly what they were arguin� about. The witness doesri t recall Respondent saying, °You bitches called the hovsing inspector on me." :�lleaation ± 9. a. Respondent testified that in mid—October he had his friend serve unlawful detainers on Complainant and the downstairs tenant. In Housing Court around October 22, the referee said Respondent did not win his case because he couid not prove he gave them written 30 day notice at the end of September, ] 998. The referee sug�ested he get an attorney. Respondent is not sure if he talked to Complainant about her dropping her discrimination suit at that time, but he never grabbed her arm. b. The downstairs tenant testified that they were served with an eviction notice after they called the inspector again in mid-October. In housing court around October 22, Cody pulled out a �reen piece of note book paper and told thejudge that this was what he wrote the written notice on at the end of September. But he was lying. Respondent became loud and agitated, so extra bailiffs had to be called up. As they were walking out of court, Respondent pulled Com�lainant by her coat to talk to her about her droppin� the discrimination lawsuit in exchange for him fixing up the property. The downstairs tenant pulled her away from him. A bailiff escorted him out afrer that and made him jo down the elevator first. c. Respondent's friend testified that after the court groceedings, Complainant and Respondent were talking about what needed to be fixed. It was a caim conversation. Respondent did not mention anything about the discrimination suit then. Respondent didn't understa�zd �uhat the discrimination suit was about and neither does the witness. Respondent never �rabbed her by the shoulder durin� that conversation. VI Analysis The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs who have direct evidence of discriminatory intent may prove their case without resort to the McDonnel Douglas burden- shifring analysis. Fe�es v. Perkins Restaurants Inc. 483 N.VJ. 2d i01, 770 n.4 (Minn. 1992); State bYCooper v. Hennepin Countv. 441 N.W2d 106, I 10 n.l(sanle). In the instant case, there are four sworn statements, one from a community or�anizer with no re)ationship to Complainant or her interests, attestin� to Respondent's extremely hostile use on several different occasions of raciai slurs when speaking to and about Complainant. These sworn statements constitute a preponderance of direct evidence to show that Respondent created a racialty hastile housing environment that was both pervasive and severe for Complainant and her family. They aiso are sufficient to show that the difference in treatment that Complainant received from Respondent in terms improvin� her apartment was racialiy motivated, as were his efforts to evict her. M.10innal��: Acvon. liqu:d Oppununily 1'.inpiu�cr Memorandum of Findings Case A-3408 Pa�e Twelve qq-6q9 In view ofthe fore�oing, this Department concludes that there is probable cause to show that Respondent violated the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance as Comp3ainant had alle�ed. �� W. H. Tyr Terr� Dir ct r WHTT(rev K-J Date �an Ailimiativc F1n�on. Byual Oppofluniiy 1Zmploycr NOTES OF TFiE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, 3uly 20, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 130 p.m. � �`'l�i �� STAFF PRESENT: David Dickhut, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Deparhnent; Mike Urmann, Fire Department; Joe Yannarelly, Code Enforcement 1307 1309 1311 1313 1314 1315 1316 1318 1333 1335 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342� 1357.1359.1361,1363,1365.1377.1379.1381.1383.1385. Maynard Drive West; 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1312 1314 1316 1318 1320.1325,1327.1329.1349.1351.1352.1353.1354,1356,1358,1360,1378,1380 Maynard Drive East: Ro¢er W. Diestler for Sibley Manor, Inc. Roger Diestler, owner, appeazed and stated when he was here previously, he thought he was getting a variance for all the properties. This will be an ongoing, as needed replacement. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenvise be in compliance. 1642 Charles Avenue John Lapakko, owner, appeared and stated this appeal is about fire rated doars. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Departsnent has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1541 Minnehaha Avenue West Mike Urmann reported he spoke to the owner regazding tkus property, and informed him that the Fire Department would not be opposed to the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following condifions: 1) when the nonconfomung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othenuise be in compliance. �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETiNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 2 756 Curfew Street Gene Olson, owner, appeared and stated this appeal is about fire rated doors. This is an older building with wooden doors. In the front, ail the kitchen doors have been replaced with steel ones. Mr. Strathman asked is it understood that when the doors need to be replaced, they will have to be replaced with fire rated doors. Mr. Olson responded yes. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfonning doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confonniug fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1756 Grand Avenue No one appeared representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Deparhnent had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1667 Ames Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Departsnent had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doars with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be repiaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 3-16-49) Judy Tschida Martinez, owner, appeared and stated she installed an egress window in the basement. It has to be inspected. Eveiything has been completed except the steel window we11s need to be installed. Mike Urmann reported he has not reinspected because Ms. Martinez has not received zoning approval nor had permits signed off for the room and board situation. Ms. Martinez stated she is not going to turn this into a rooming house; just family will be living there. Wl�at are the outstanding orders, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded the room and board issue and an illegal sleeping room without escape windows. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMf'sNT NIEETiNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 `'1�i t.�� Page 3 Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the August 10 Property Code Enforcement meeting for the windows to be inspected. 1�22 Universitv Avenue West (Laid over from 6-15-99) David Ries, owner, and Matthew Mews, maintenance, appeared. Mr. Owens reported he met with the representatives of Ries Management and went through both apartments. One apartment is large, takes up half of the space, and has two doors. It does not have a compliant egress window. The other apartment is an e�ciency; it does not have a compliant egress window either, and has one door which leads into the corridor. They agreed to the following for the large apartment: if a fire rated partition was constnxcted in the corridor, the fue department wouid accept the two existing doors leading into separate atmospheres as being compliant with the requirement for the windows. The efficiency is more di�cult, stated Mr. Owens. One window an the efficiency is glass block, which basically makes it a wa1L The other window is too small and the rise on the sill is too high. Mr. Strathman asked if the window size was enlarged, is there an egress to the ouYSide. Mr. Owens responded there is. (Mr. Mews showed Mr. Strathman a diagram indicating their plans.) Mr. Strathman stated everyone is in agreement about how to take care of the fire requirement in the large apartment. The rest of the discussion will be on the efficiency. Mr. Ries stated the people that normally rent this $200 efficiency are younger, more agile people. It is usually a student. It is explained to the tenant how to use the ladder and open the window in the case of an emergency. The window is always clear. There is a 30 foot walkway between that window and the building next door. Mr. Mews indicated that the size of the window is 31 X 35. Mr. Owens added that is the closed dimension and not the openable space. Mr. Strathman asked how the window opens. Mr. Ries responded it is an Anderson window and it cranks up. It is not a great situation, stated Iv1r. Strathman. A person would have to break the glass to get out. Mr. Owens added that at the fime of the inspection, the window would not go out to a fuil horizontal. The standazd Anderson window would open to 90 degrees, but this window will not. Also, there was no ladder or device to access the sill at the time of the inspection. Mr. Strathman stated the weight of the glass would work against a person. He asked could a window be installed that would fully open. Mr. Ries responded they would be willing to install a window that would open fully. He wiil attach the ladder in such a way that it cannot be removed. ��l- ��1� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETINCs NOTES OF 7-20-49 Page 4 Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the window in the efficiency apartment on the following conditions: i) a ladder or suitable device must be present at all times in order to reach the window, 2) the window has to be replaced with a comparably sized window that can be opened to the full ea�tent. b89 Orleans Street (T.aid over from 6-15-99) Nancy Roussopoulos, owner, appeazed. Joe Yannazelly reported the number of cats has been reduced to three. The owner is warking with the Humane Society. She has ananged for a loan to patch up her foundation. At this time, he recommends liffing the condemnation and rechecking the properry in two months. (Code Enforcement is wiliing to laft the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 299 ArlinEton Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) The following appeared: Richazd Spreigl, owner of 299 Arlington Avenue East; Robert Spreigl, owner of 333 Arlington Avenue East; and Jerome Ritter, their attorney. (A letter was submitted to Gerry Strathman from Jerome Ritter.) Mr. Ritter stated the houses at 299 Arlington Avenue East and 333 Arlington Avenue East have septic systems. There has been an order that they connect to the city sewer. The code requires that if a sewer is auailable in the street, then the connection will be made. Mr. Ritter is here asking for an exception on a hardship basis. He spoke to Tom Leclair who acknowledged both septic systems do not create a health and safety hazard. If a hardship basis is found, Mr. Ritter is asking for 3 conditions: 1) they cannot increase the burden on the present system, 2) the systems would have to pass the required inspection to make sure they are not a threat to the ground water, 3) when the owners no longer live at these properties, the variances or exceptions will end. This land has been part of the Spreigl family since about 1900. Mr. Strathman asked do the Spreigl brothers' circumstances satisfy Mr. Ritter's definition of haxdship. 1vIr. Ritter responded absolutely. They both receive assistance, and both are on fixed income. David Dickhut reported the public sewer was constructed in 1962. Under defuution of the state code, the drywell system is defined as illegal. As far as he knows, the system is operated properly at each address, but at 333 Arlington, the tank should be pumped according to the 1996 inspection. Mr. Ritter responded it was puxnped in 1996. How did this matter go on for 35 yeazs, asked NIr. Stratiunan. Mr. Dickhut responded it is City policy not to enforce the connection until there is a change in status of the active system in the form of failure or redefinition. A diywell is an illegal system for at least two years, but Mr. Dickhut is not sure how long that has been a law. There has been a legal change in ownership, PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 � �� Page 5 added Mr. Ritter. One of the Spreigls died a few yeazs ago; that property was not sold, but is owned between the children. This may have triggered the change. Mr. Strathman asked were there any other conditions proposed other than the ones Mr. Ritter pzoposed. Mr. Dickhut responded variances have been grauted on those basis before. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the existing septic system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system; therefore, there will be no more than one person living at this address, 2) ttie owner will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imminent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the properry is sold ar transfened to another pariy. 333 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) (See above notes on 299 Arlington Avenue East.) Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the existing sep6c system with the following conditions: 1) the burden will not be increased on the present system; therefore, there will be no more than two petsons living at this address, 2) the oumer will allow the required inspection to assure the system does not pose an imminent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the property is sold or transfened to another parry. 924 Forest Street #1 Gerry Strathman stated he has been advised that the condexnnation has been lifted and the case is closed.) 847 Hudson Road Phillip Owens reported Michaei Bartelmy wants more time to complete repairs. This was a gazage repair and towing business. There was a fire in the western section and the building was condemned for structural defect. Mr. Qwens allowed Mr. Bartelmy to use the eastern portion of the garage for the continuation of the towing operaflon, i.e. parking their wrecker there. No repairs were made to the building and no permits were pulled. The building has no heat, no piumbing, and limited electricai service. Some repairs were done without a permit; however, Mr. Bartelmy has since obtained pernuts. The work is not compiete and the pernuts have not been signed off. On June 21, the condemnation was extended to the eastem portion. LIEP has revoked the repait garage license through adverse action, stated Mr. Owens. That license cannot be reapplied for up to one year. There are mulfiple exterior violations. There were 1$ vehicles parked on the property, none of which aze properly licensed. Towed vehicles should not be brought to the property, but this has been occurring. (Mr. Owens presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. These photographs were later returned) � ��1� PROPERTX CODE ENFORCEMEI3T MEETING I30TES OF 7-20-99 Page 6 Michael Bartelmy, owner, appeazed and stated he fixed the roof by installing beams to support it. He added a retaiuing wall. The fire was in one room and took a wall with it, but it did not take the supporting wa11. The building is structuraily sound. He adtnits he has too many cazs. Mr. Strathman staxed the issue is that the building is currently condemned. Mr. Bartelmy can enter the building to repair it. The only thing the condemnation does is prevent use of it as a commercial operation. He does not have a license to do repair work anyway. Mr. Bartelmy stated he has a tow truck, caz starter, air pump, etc., that he would like to keep closed in the part of the building that did not bum. He would also like to finish his repairs. No other business will be done there. Is it a probiem to aliow Mr. Bartelxny to keep some of his equipment there, asked NIr. Strathman. Mr. Owens answered he would not have an objection to the undamaged portion of the building being used for cold storage during off hours. Gerry Strathxnan stated the condemnarion will be lifted on the eastern portion of the building only, and there can be cold storage of the towing vehicle in the eastern portion of the buiiding during off hours. 853 Randol�h Avenue Richard Lemke, owner, appeared and stated there was a condemnation on the building and orders to fix it. The lower unit was built up last year and he did not get a certificate of occupancy for it, but Mr. Lemke did not know he needed one. Since then, all the items for the certificate of occupancy have been dealt with except for the requirement of having an escape window in the bedroom. The window is too smali, but the person that lives there is sma11. It is the only window in the bedroom. There is an entrance door and a fire alatm next to it. There is another bedroom eight feet away with two big windows that exit to the porch. If there is a fire, that would be the way a person would exit. Mike Urmann reported the window is positioned in a dormer. There may not be a way to instail a full size escape window within that sleeping azea. The window there is much less than an openable azea of 24 inches. There is no way to make this window compliant for escape or firefighting access. Gerry Strathman asked how big it is. Mr. Urmann guessed that it would be about 30" X 20". Mr. Lemke stated it is a sash window ihat goes up and down. Should a person get out, they would be on the second floor anyway. Also, it is cost prohibitive, and it is uvlalown if it can be done. Could there be another use for the room, asked NIr. Stratlunan. Mr. Urmann responded that was his suggestion. It was previously used as another type of room, which is why it was not cited in the past. Mr. Strathxnan stated he is concemed that a person could get trapped in tlus room in case of a fire. He understands it is on the second floor, but the fire deparhnent could help someone out a second floor window if it is possibie to get out the window. �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEfiTING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 7 Mr. Lemke asked is there anything else he can do with it. Mr. Stzathtuan responded he is wiiling to grant additional time to see if something can be figured out, but he is reluctant to talk about a variance because the window is not lazge enough to be a fire egress. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the Augvst 17 Properry Code Enforcement meeting in order for the owner to see if another window can be installed. 1881 Mechanic Avenue Ron Martinson, representing the Azure Properties, appeared and stated he is requesting additional time to install lighting. Due to the occupancy load of 100 or more, reported Mike Urmann, the building is required to have emergency lighting with battery backup. It is an exiting situation. There aze 47 units. Mr. Stratlunail asked why tlus requirement is being brought up now. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot find anything in the recards about why it was not cited before, but it should have been. When was it built, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Martinson responded around 1970. Gerry Strathman granted an extension to January 2Q, 1949, to install emergency lighting. 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 Henrietta Birkholz, tenant, appeared. Gerry Strathman asked why the apartment has been condemned. Mr. Birkholz responded she was told it is not sanitary enough. She is in the process of getting a townhouse if her loan goes through. The landlord refused to take a check far July. (Mike Urtnann presented photographs to Mr. Strathman. They were later returned.) Mr. Strathman asked has she thought about moving items to storage. Ms. Birkholz responded she cannot afford it, and knows the apartment is messy. The situation looks dangerous, stated Mr. Strathman. Ms. Birkholz stated she cannot leave the apartment unril she gets her loan approved. The apartment just needs a good vacuuming; it is not unsanitary. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 417 Sherbume Avenue Rahena Holtor, tenant, appeared and stated her house was raided by the police department. Dick Lippert condemned her house and gaue her until July 4, 1999, to move, but she cannot move until August 15. She just paid the water bill today. She did all the repairs to get it off of condemnation a previous time. Ms. Holtor has five children. PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETIIVG NOTES OF 7-20-99 (Dick Lippert presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later returned.) ��'1� Page 8 Dick Lippert reported many attempts ha�e been made to get the owner to make necessary repairs. Code Enforcement has been to the properry 30 times since October and written a dozen tags. Mr. Lippert became involved in tlus by the Nazcotics Unit of the Police Deparknent. He told Ms. Holtor that he would give her an extension of two weeks because of her children. That was amenable to hez at the time. Mr. Lippert was called to this address on July 16 by a squad because there was a report that the electricity and water were off. The people agreed to leave that night. Mr. Lippert was there at noon today and there appeazed to be people at this house. He also saw a dog in the house. He posted `keep ouY signs. Mr_ Lippert called the water department and NSP, and they aze not going to turn the utilifies back on until full payment is received. This hause is not close to being habitable. A room upstairs and the backyazd is full of trash. Ms. Holtor stated it took everything she had to get the gas, electricity, and water turned on. There is a hallway closet full of items, but she is not responsible for it because it is outside her apariment. Her children are not there. The outside of the properry is bad, but not life threatening. The outside is the owner's responsibility. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal saying there is asnple basis for the condemnation order. The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. rrn