The URL can be used to link to this page

99-749€3RtGt�A�. Presented Referred To Council File # qg - �yq Green Sheet # 63279 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 Appeals for the following addresses: • �.- • �.-. -. � ..- � ' � � '�.� � ♦-�► -• � - C. � � • �- � •- ••'-• " --- :- '- -:._ ��' � � . ` i� � f , � � , .�.- �� • " • .I 1 • " 1 1 � . " �� '' �.i�nn�l�i�um��iai�n�11P � - � If . 7 417 Sherburne Avenue 8 Decision: Appeal denied. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -�� '� ��__ ��__ ��__ : - . . �__ ��__ :• � �__ ��__ _�� Rahena Holtor Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: 16 17 18 Adopted by Council: Date: Q 19 � 20 Adoption Certified b Council Secretary 21 By:-� � 22 23 24 i�m�� - �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� aq-'1�t9 DEPARTMENT/OFFICNCOUNCIL DATE WmATEO �' City Council Offices 7-29-99 GREEN SHEET No 632'79 ODP7rACT PERSON & PHONE MXhYDaN InM1a11Date Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 ,,,,,,,,,�,,,�,,,, p,,.�,,,, MUST BE ON CWNCIL AGENM BY (Q4T� August 4, 1999 "'�" MUYB9iFdf CIIYAiTOR1EY UIYCLENK XOUTNIG OROER ❑ RNNORLiFRNCFiOYt iM�MCYLiFAV/<CCTG ❑MTORI�AA9l�MR) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N REQUES7ID Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for the July 20, 1999, meeting regarding the following addresses: 847 Hudson Road, and 417 Sherburne Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or RejeM (R) VERSONALSERVICE CONTRACfS MUSTANSWERTXE FOLLOV/ING QUESTIONS: 1. Hasfhispe�soMGanevervmfkeduMeraco�Gacftwthisdepa�tmeM? PLANNINGCOMMISSION VES NO CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Has Mis per�rm ever heen a cily empbyee4 CNILSERVICECAMMISSION VES t� 3. Does this peisaM�m possess a s1611 not �rormallypossessed by any curteM city employee? YES NO 4. Is this persoNfirm a targeted veMoR - YES NO - E�lain all yes answers on sepa2te sheet and attach W green shee[ INITIATMG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR'fUNI7V (Who, Whet, When, Whefe, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED Cgun�# Rsse�rch Cant2r JUL 2 9 1999 DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ON� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMAiION (IXPWt� Qq -149 �l9 - Gq°I July 22, 1999 � The Honorable Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall 15 W. KeTlogg 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 attorney) about my home at 417 Sherburne Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103. I rent my home from Jeffrey Cody who lives at 5449 West Bald Eagle Blvd.. White Bear Lake. MN 55110. This property is a duplex; I have lived in the top half with my five children since September 12, 1998. 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. On 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: a1°1-�Z9 • 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, affordable. 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 Holton ��'�St�_��-.�� 417 Sherburne Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 � SAINT PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL :\'oim Colemon, Ala}:or June 29. 1999 Ms. Raliena Holton � 17 Sherbume A� enue Saint Paul. Minnesota ii10; Re: Rahena Holton ��. Jefl're� Cod� Case A-3408 Dear Ms. Holton: DEPARTMENT OF HLTMAN RIGHTS �'�Vq W. H. T�TOneTerrill, Director qQ -�q9 900CiryHa11 Telephone: 6]?-?G6-89GG I.i bY. Ke!loggBovlei�ard Facsim�le: 61?-266-89G? Saint Paul, M,'V S.i102-1681 TDD: 61?-266-8977 Tl�e above<apuoned charge alleging a�io]ation of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance l�as been flioroughlyinvestigatedandcarefullyconsidered. Basedon��ritnesstestimonyanddocumentsgadieredduring . the investigation, a determination has been made that tliere is probable cause to believe that a violation of the Ordinance has occurred. Pursuant to Section 183.20 of Uie Ordinance, I have tlie autliority to facilitate a resolmion of the Probable CausedetemunationtYuonghconciliation. Theconciliationprocessisdesignedtopro�ideaforumwhereboth parties may reach agreement on ternis that n ould settle tUe matter and dms avoid litigation. A meeting for tlus purpose tias been scheduled for 9:30 AM Tliursday, July 22 1999. Tl�e meeting �iill be held at 900 Ciry HalUCourt House. It is imperati�•e ihai cou be present at this meeling. Endosed is a copy of tl�e Memorandum of Findings. Upon receipt of this letter, please contact Mr.Rich Nymoen at (651) 266-8971, tl�e Human Righis Specialist handling }•our case, and inform him what damages you are seeking to setUe this matter. � For Equalih� and Justice for all. C,� � --�� . W. H. T}•rone Terrill Director WHTTYrev Enclosure CERTIFIED LETTER cr. Diane Marie Dube. Attomey for Complainant An Aifirniaure qction, Lyual Op�wrtunity Lmploycr CITY OF SAINT PAUL h'onn Coleman, .44ayor June 29, 1999 MEMORANDZTM OF FINDIlVGS Re: Rahena Holton v. Jeffrey Cody Case A-3408 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS W. H. T}TOne Terrill, Director °lg-G99 900CityHa[! Telephane:612-266-89G� IS YI'. Kellogg Boulevard Facsrmile: 611-266-8961 SarntPaul, MIVSSIO?-1687 TDD.• 611-166-8977 Pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance, a full and impartial investi�ation of 2he aileeations in the above-referenced char�e was conducted by this Department. Based on the resuIts of that investi�ation which are stated beIow, this Department has made a determination that probable cause exists to believe that Respondent unlawfully discriminated asainst Complainant: I. Complainant's AIle�ations 1. The unit was very messy when Complainant viewed it, but Respondent said that he was going 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 maggots o��er the food. There were no li�hts when Complainant moved in and roaches were crawiin� all over. There were — and continue to be — mice. Since the tenant in the other unit has a cat, the mice favored Complainant's unit. 2. On September I3, 1998, Respondent was moving in another tenant. Complainant told him about the mice and roaches and that the debris remaining in the house was infested. He said he didn't understand how Complainant could complain because it was the best place she had ever Iived in. "You people make the property values go down," he said. CompiainanYs sister Monique Holton, Complainant's daughter DanielleHolton and one ofher school friends were present when he said this. Monique told, "Wait a minute. That's not right." 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 ]ike: a. "You're black ass should be out of here." b. "I'm ?oing to �ive you a U.D." c. "1 should have known better than to rent to people like you." d. "I'll have your black ass out of here." e. "Fuck them ni�gers," referring to Complainant's daughter and her friend. \J . .'4�:\17imiativt Action. Equal Opponunit�•-Lnploycr . � aa-�yq � h4emorandum of Findinss Case A-340S v 9� �G� - Pa�e Two • f. Complainant's nephew could not be in the unit because "he dresses like a drug dealer." (The tenant in the other unit heard this.) g. Constantly refemng to Complainant as "you people." . h. He would ask CompIainant what she was comptaining about, that she should be used to living like this, and "you never had anythin� better than this anyway °' 4. Respondent has made it Irno«°n that it is his house and he can come in anytime he wants to. Complainant has to keep the second ]ock on her door locked to keep him out. Complainant now tries to make sure someone is always there. When Complainant firsi moved in and would be gone, she'd come back and find thin�s had been moved around. Complainant can't prove it was him, but now she has someone there if she is �one. �. Respondent brought over some bu� 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 bein� racist to �ive the white tenant bu� bombs and the basement, and not for Comp]ainant's unit. Respondent said, "I'm fucking two black women. I'm not racist. Pussy a11 the same color to me." Then he said, "I'm UD-in� your biack ass." The other tenant gave Complainant two ofherbug bombs. The roaches came up because it wasn't bombed properiy. 6. On September 30, Respondent came over with notice to leave in 30 days. He said he was � trying to se11 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 th2 bugs or eliminated the mice. It was aboui October 10 now. His response was, " I don't have any fucking money. How ihe 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 housing inspector on me." 7. Respondent lefr and came back on about October 12. Complainant had just come back from the hospital, having suffered a miscarria2e. He wouldn't let Complainant go upstairs; every time Complainant moved to so 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 retumed from the hospital. Respondent said, "Ifyou �o upstairs, I'm not fiiling this out and I'm leavin�," referrin� to the ]andlord 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 ]tim that he hadn't done the work and he said, "You let her in and you're fucking ass is out." 8. The housing inspector carne October l3. Complainant explained to her and the man with her that she couldn't ]et her in and �vhy. She explained that Complainant couldn't �et in trouble for lettin� her in so Complainant let her in. 9. On the evenin� 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 � "we'll work out the housin� problems," and "you should think ahout it" Respondent kept interrupting her and telling her to be quiet. 7he jud�e told him to be quiet so Complainant could talk. The other tenant grabbed her hand and led her out of the courtroom. The 1n.\Ilinn:ai�. Aclion. Lqu:J Op�wnunn� I�.mpinccr Memorandum ofFindin�s Case A-340S 9°l -C� Page Three courtroom door closed. Respondent grabbed her by the shoutders, palling her ioward 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. Respondent's Position 1. Complainant is correct about the property bein� "messy." However, she was responsib]e for removing the debris in exchange for a hundred dollar reduction in rent. 2. On September 13, debris was stiil in the house, but she �vas responsible for removing it. He never said "This is the best place you ever lived," because he did not know what conditions she had lived in before and he wouid not make those statements to anyone. If he had addressed Complainant's sister, he wou]d have said, "Who are you?" not "Who the fuck are you?" He stated he ��as rentin� to Complainant and her children and not to her sister, boyfriend and do�. 3. Respondent did not say: "You're black ass should be out ofhere." b. Respondent did say he was giving her notice to ]eave based on her boyfriend and . do� stayin� there, which was not in the rental agreement. He did say he would give her a UD if he had to. c. He did say "I shouid have known better than to rent to people like you." He was talkin? abouT people who do noT comply wiTh what is discussed and agreed upon. d. Respondent told Complainant that if she did not remove the do� and live in boyfriend, he ��ould "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 Complainant that ifhe needed to come into her apartment, he would first knock, say he was the landlord and then v.�ait far a response. Respondent further stated that if she did not respond, he could enter the apartment to do repairs. 5. Respondent brought over "roach bombs" to do the enFire buildin�: 4 for the basement, 4 for the first floor apartment, and 4 for Complainant's apartment. Respondent gave the downstairs tenant all 12 bombs and instructed her to give Complainant four of them for the upstairs apartment. Respondent then to]d the downstairs 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 �uomen, nor did he say pussy was all the same color. Respondent is offended by these accusations and considers them defamatory. The downstairs tenant si�outd have given Complainant all four bombs per Respondent's instructions and Respondent did not do the bombin� because they needed to do it together and vacate the building for a few hours. :1n :111irnmtiee:5�yion. Pqual Qp(xmunity 1)nplo�ir 9q-'1y1 Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 V Pa�e Four q`l-`q°1 � - 6. On September 30, Respondent did give Complainant a 30 day written notice on notebook paper. Twenty minutes afrer givin� Complainant and the downstairs tenant written notice, Respondent met with a real estate broker at the building. They discussed the property should be available for sale and possession on or before October 30. Respondent introduced the � realtorto Complainant and the downstairs tenant 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 Complainant about the rent for October 1. Complainant responded with her concerns about mice 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 Housing Court, Complainant said she was not given written notice. 7. On or about October 13, Respondent did return with the realtor who had a show>ing with a prospective buyer. At this time, Respondent had his tools to complete some repairs. When they knocked on Complainant's door, a man answered the door and stated that Complainant was in the hospita] and would not be back. Respondent told him he was the land]ord and that he wanted to come in to do repairs and lez the realtor show the layout of the apartment to his client. Respondent �a�as denied access by the man in Complainant's apartment. This entrance denial came after Complainant had given Respondent pennission the prior day. � 3. Complainant's statement resarding this event and the Housin� Inspector is incorrect because he did not even see her on that day. He does not know what happened between Complainant and the inspector because he did noT see her that day. 9. Respondent denies ever touchin� Complainant in housing court. III. Complainant s Rebuttai ]. Respondent to]d Complainant if she cleaned the apartment, he wou]d take $100 off of her rent. He �vas going to remove all the debris from the apanment and the hall closet. He never did; Complainant paid some people to remove the debris from her apartment. Complainant would never have a�reed to remove the debris because she would not know how and where to dispose it. 2. Complainant is afraid ofRespondent for her safety and her children's safety. She has a restrainin� order a�ainst him, but Complainant sti11 has had people stay over because she was afraid ofhim. Complainant told Respondent many times that her boyfriend does not live there. Respondent would not accept documentation such as where his mail is delivered and his le�al papers. Instead lie said that Complainant could not have any over ni�=ht �=uests at ali and that her "biack ass" v.�ouid be out ofthere if she did. There's nothing in the lease prohibiting over ni�ht guests. � 3. An a�davit from a community or�;anizer who was dealing with Respondent on Co�nplainant's behalf confirms Respondent's name calling and verbal abuse. :1n:'117imueivz:\uunt. Pyual Oppurtunitc I:mpinecr r4emorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Five ��L�� 4. Respondent did not do any repairs in her house until he was made to by the housing inspector. 5. Complainant made no rebuttal on this alle�ation. 6. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. 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 bo}�friend to not let anyone in her home until 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 tu�o after she let the inspectors in. 8. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. IV. Issue Did Respondent discriminate a�ainst Complainant in the terms and conditions ofrentin� the property because of her race? V. Evidence Alle�ation �I. a. Respondent provided a swom statement that he had an agreement that if Complainant removed the little bit of stufffrom her porch and mop the floors there would, he believes, be some money knocked offher security deposit. There were a couple bags of toys and a chair }eft on the porch. These units were month to month, so there was no Iease and this agreement was not in writing. She had said she had help to move these irems. She was accusin� Respondent of prejudice for havin� help to move stuff out of the lower unit. There was more stuffin the lower unit. Respondent may have heiped the tenant in the lower 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 bag�ed up some �arbage, so he did not provide a whole lot of help. b. Respondent's friend provided a sworn statement that when Comp]ainant moved into the Sherbume 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 lefr behind but he doesn't recall exactly whaT: When the building was vacant, there was one night when Respondent's friend ��as 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 ofits condition, but becavse she was crying, he said she could move in if she cleaned it up. She had heard abont it by word of mouth in the neis3�borhood. Respondent's friend was at the building about l0 or 15 times helping fix thin�s up. � � � An :111im�a0ce A 1inn. F.yual Opp�tluntl) limpinyer aq.'14°l Memorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Six '`1 "� l l � - c. The downstairs tenant provided a swom statement that the roof of Complainant's unit was leakin�, window screens were missing, there were roaches, and her kitchen sink - was leaking all over the floor. There was old furniture and garbage from the previous tenants ofComp]ainanYs 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 a11 from her rent. He c]aimed 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. ?here were maggots in the refrigerator, fi]th and roaches. Complainant's family all helped her clean up. There were chairs, wood, and clothes around when the witness �ot 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 was just nasty. This witness was not completely aware of the exact agreement between Complainant and Respondent. She knows that Comp]ainant had said Respondent had said she was supposed to clean up the place in exchan�e for taking some offthe rent. Complainant was upset about him not holding up his part ofthe bargain, but this witness is not sure exactly what she was upset about. e. Complainant's dau_hter provided a sworn statement that when they first moved in, there were roaches everywhere that would drop from the ceiling. There were mice and the sink ]eaked. This writness was not there when Complainant was first there removing stuff, but she knows Complainant was very tired afterward Allegations # 2 & 3. a. Complainant's sister testified that around September 13, she was worried about Complainant and when she approached her place she heard them arguin,�. Respondent and Complainant were on the porch and Respondent was in a rage. Respondent was cussin� and very disrespectful. "Nigger" feil out his mouth more than anythin�. 4Vhen this witness first arrived, she was just trying to calm Complainant down at first so she could keep the apartment Then this witness tried ta]king to Cody and he was sayin�, " I just want the nieger out of my place." He then asked ofthe witness, "Who are you. You don't have an}nhing to � do with it. I don't have to talk to you." The oldest niece ofthe witness and 6er friend were coming home for school. The friend was comin� to her home for the first time. They haven't seen that little girl since. The witness sent them away because Cody was out ofcontrol, saying "F them ni�gers, referrin� to the girls. " He was saying that Complainant wasn't taking care of her property right. Complainant was asking why he was helpin� the girl downstairs, :1n AOinn:�tivt A�1ion. Cyual OpMatunih h:mplo)'u Memorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Seven q°I -691 but not doin� the thines he was supposed to do for her apartment. The situation eventually • calmed down when the witness realized that she would not be able to have a conversation. She had Complainant �o upstairs. In order to work things out, the witness went into to the downstair tenant's apartment where Respondent had gone. Respondent was saying how he was goin� to evict Complainant ri�ht away because "they" always screw things up. The witness left after a few minutes and the conversation did not last very lon� at all. It was like he was on acid or somethin�, he was in such a rage. This witness has heard Respondent say several different things to her on different occasions and cannot identify exactly when they were said, but she does recall him saying things to Comp3ainant like, "I don't see how you could complain. It's the best place you ever lived in. You people make the property values �o down." He would say smart remarks and look over smirking. This witness was there several times a��eek and she saw him there on four occasions in confrontations with Complainant. b. Comp]ainant's teen age dau�hter testified that in mid-September, she and her friend were coming home from schoot and she heard Complainant telling Respondent that she wanted help gettin� the roaches ont ofthe house and The mice. He was yellin� at her, sa}dng, "You F_ ni��ers. 1'ou don't deserve this." The friend of this witness was ]ooking off trying not to notice. The witness asked Complainant ifthey could go and he said, "Well F that ni��er too," referring to the w•itness. The aunt of the witness said she and her friend shoutd �o because she didn't want them hearing that. So ihey went to the show. That was � the only incident this ��itness heard because when ever he came over after that they would go to their rooms or leave because she has youn�er sisters and brothers that are scared of him. c. 7he dow��siairs tenant, who hasfiled a sex discrimination charge a�ainst Respondent, testified that .a�hen she Qot ready to move into the Sherbume property in September, 1998, Complainant came dov.�n to introduce herself and talk to Respondent. Respondent said that he didn't see how she could complain and that she should be grateful she could �et a place like that. He said all you �uys are "un�rateful nig�ers" They were screaming at each other. Complainant was saying, "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 sisterwas screamin� at him. The witness started screaming at him too because he was bein� rude and trying to drag her into somethin�. The witness doesn't remember what Respondent said to Complainant's sister. Complainant's daughter heard him call her these racial slurs too. After Complainant ��ent back upstairs, Respondent told the witness that she had to watch Complainant's unit because there was dru,� dealin� goin' on. He said there N�ere too many "niggers' soing in and out of the premises. The next day, Respondent came out again and he said he felt better havin2 her on the property because she was white, and she could watch the premises for him. That same day he called the police on his cetl pl�one beeause Complainant's relatives had just pulled up and parked. He to]d the police that they were smoking drugs on his property. d. A community organizer provided a sworn a�davit dated December 22, ] 998 that � in her professiona� capacity she had been working with Compiainant on her housing probtems at 4l 7 Sherbume Avenue, Saint Pau1, MN 55103. In her work with Complainant, the witness has had several conversations wiYh Respondent. As ofthe November 30, 1998, Respondent \n , U}7nnaiicr :lctks�. F.q¢a7 ( ��ntunin_ 7>nplmtT r4emorandum ofFindines � �� Case A-3408 � q� � �9� Pa�e Ei�ht � had never seen the witness, and to the best of her knowledge Respondent did not know she is African American. On Novembet 30, 1998, the witness responded to a telephone messa�e from Respondent. The witness telephoned him and they discussed the continuing need for repairs at ComplainanYs 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 ]eff this specific messa�e to taik to the witness because he wanted to see if the downstairs tenant had moved out. The witness toId Respondent that he needed to �et the repairs done in order to start collectin� the rent and that Complainant had paid for the exterminator to spray the building. The witness also advised Respondent that if he were to file an unlawful detainer against Complainani at this time that would be deemed retaliation. At that point, IZespondent 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 witness pointed out that no matter whether the tenants were there or not, he still had the obligation to make the repairs ordered by the city and asked why they jusc could not ne�otiate a stay for them until the first ofFebruary. y Respondent repiied that he wanted "them out of my place; ' that his brother was going to move into the building; that "I don't want no niegers livin� upstairs or downstairs;" and that " I don't want no nis�ers around." The brother said the word "nig�ers" first, Respondent � repeated it. The witness told him that he shou]dn't move into Saint Paul because prejudice isn't weicome 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 progress 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 drug traffickin� out of Complainant's unit but the downstair's lenant said she thoueht there was dru� trafficking upstairs because there was a lot oftraffic at a11 hours of the ni�ht. She said this within the first couple days she was in the property. Respondent and the downstairs tenant actually called the police afrer ta]king about it and she met the officer in the street and introduced herselfas the new tenant downstairs. Respondent did not use the word "nig�ers' in these com�ersations 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 does not recall why he was threatening him. Respondent does not recall having an argument with Complainant about the condition of her apartment or the debris tliat was in it. Respondent never used any racial slurs durin�= an ar�ument with Complainant. Respondent testified he never used any racial slurs when talkin� to or about Complainant or her family. He may have taiked to a community oreanizer about repairs for Complainant's unit in the fall of 1998. Respondent has a brother, but he doesn't recall a phone conversation with an or�anizer when his brother was present also. Respondent � may have said to the or�anizer that his brother was moving into the property. Respondent testified he never said "1 don't want no ni��ers livin� upstairs or downstairs," and that "I don't want no ni��ers around." Respondent's brother never said anythin� ]ike that when Respondent was around. 1n 4tlimiairvr.l�lwn. i'.quai c)p�wnunit� Emplo�s 1�lemorandum of Findings Case A-3408 Pa�e Nine q°l -�9� � f. Respondent's friend testified that Compiainant and the downstair's tenant were ar�uin� with Respondent a lot about rent and other problems. This witness never heard Respondent call them any names. If it was the case, it went both ways. This witness never heard Respondent make any racial slurs to or about Comglainant. 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 kids or to the buitding. She was afraid of him entering her apartment when she was �one just based on his comments and how crazy he seemed. The w spent the ni�ht a lot there on the weekends when they started �oin� to court because she was worried about Complainant and her kids. This witness is not sure ifComptainant's boyfiiend was tiving there or not then because he was livin� with his mom. But he would spend the night several times a week. This witness wasn't living there then but she is livin� there with Complainant now. Atte�ation # 5. a. The downstair's tenant testified that Respondent had been helping her with her unit and Complainant asked if he could repair some thin�s in her unit. Both of their units had a • mice and roach probtem. Complainant had bought Raid and a couple bombs. The downstairs tenant provided Complainant with bombs and Raid and bleach. They wanted to bomb to�ether w•hile the witness was still cleaning downstairs before she moved in. Complainant did not want to move in any of her kid's furniture until the bombs had been set off a couple times. Respondent gave this �+�itness three bombs, they come in a three pack, and he did not say anythin� about giving any to Complainant. In front of this witness, Respondent told Complainant to �et her own bombs and take it off her rent. On her own, this witness save 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 ihe cost off the 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 w�as 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 �arage. This witness did not know how many thou�h. Allegation # 6. a. The downstairs tenant testified that on October l, 1998, Respondent 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 giving you one more chance to pay the the rent. An AOimunic.:leiimt Fyu:�l Op�wnunih' Fmplo��ar q9 -�v� Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Pa�e Ten � °I°l -��9 How am I supposed to make any repairs ifyou don't pay rent. I owe the IItS $60,000 and iYs because ofyou. Cindy you're a no eood white bitch. You're a no �ood 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 all your �uy�s fuckin� fault. You and the ni�ger bitch upstairs." The witness's friend was sittin� on my couch as he was yellin� this. She said, "So it's their fault you can't pay the IRS and their fines" He stopped, looked at her, and said, "What the fuck" and walked out and slammed the door. b. Respondent testified that he Qave 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 Complainant was a no �ood black bitch. He doesn't recall a friend of the downstairs tenant being there that said anything 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 ni�ht there, so she was there quite a bit. She was there when Respondent was there on tv.�o or three occasions. She never heard him make any racial remarks, but the downstairs tenant told her � that he ca]led Complainant, a ni�ger. She thinks she said he said the downstairs tenant was a ni��er lover, toa V Respondent's �°iolent anger fri�htened this witness and it seemed ]ike he was on dru�s or somethin�. 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 putting al] his problems on her. This N�itness 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 ar�uing abovt him not fixing up the place, ��hich he said he couldn't do because of his le�. This witness dosn't recall if he was limpin� or had a cast. But after the court ordered him, he came around trying to make repairs. This witness dosn't recall him callin� the downstair tenant or Complainant any names. But the witness doesn't remember the details of that day. The downstairs fenant told the witness about Respondent calling her a white bitch and Complainant a black bitch, but the witness doesn't recall u�itnessing that. It may have happened when they were outside or when they were inside and the witness went out to get away from them. Alle�ations # 7 & S. a. Respondent testified that around October l2 or 13 the only conversation he had with Complainant was about a showing and she said fine. He never blocked her w�ay upstairs. � b. The downstairs tenant testified that Respondent was not there when the inspector first came to the property, but when he �ot the orders he went to Complainant and said if she let the inspector in a�ain, he wou]d evict them. ?he wimess wasn't there at the time, but when she �ot home Complainant came runnin� down in tears to tell her what he had said. The witness told her he couldn't kick them out because it would be retaliation. :1n.11limia�i�'e:�clinn. I{yual Oppcmmiiiy Lmplaotr Alemorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Eleven qq -t9°I • c. Respondent's friend testified that he started making repairs from a list from an inspector. The witness was the one doing the repaits usually but Respondent would be ��iih him. There was not much yellin� at that time. This witness may have been there when they argued about them calling the inspector, but the witness did not pay much attention to exactly what they were arguin� abovt. The uritness doesn'Y recall Resgondent sayin�, "Yov bitches called the housing inspector on me." Allegation � 9. a. Respondent testified that in mid-0ctober he had his friend serve unIawful detainers on ComplainanT and the downsTairs tenant. Ia Housing Court around October 22, the referee said Respondent did not win his case because he could not prove he �ave them written 30 day notice at the end of September, 1995. The referee su�gested he get an attorney. Respondent is not sure ifhe Talked to Complainant about her dropping her discrimination suit at that time, but he never �rabbed her arm. b. The downstairs tenant testified That they were served with an eviction notice afrer they called the inspector a�ain in mid-October. In housin� court around October 22, Cody pulled out a green piece of note book paper and told the jud�e that this was what he wrote the written notice on at the end of September. BuT he was lyin�. RespondenT became loud and � agitated, so extra bailiffs had to be called up. As they were walking out of cout Respondent pulled Complainant by her coat to talk to her about her droppin� the discrimination lawsuit in exchanee for him fixin� up the property. The downstairs tenant pulled her away from him. A bailiff escorted him out after that and made him go down the elevator first. c. Respondent's friend testified that after the court proceedings, Complainant and Respondent were talkin� about what needed to be fixed. It was a calm conversation. Respondent did not mention anythin2 about the discrimination suit then. Respondent didn't understand what the discrimination suit was about and neither does the witness. Respondent never arabbed her by the shoulder during 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 Dou�las burden- shiftin� analysis. Feses v. Perkins Restaurants. Inc. 483 N.W. 2d 701, 710 n.4 (Minn. 1992); State bv C000er v. Henneoin Countv. 441 N.W.2d I06, I 10 n.l(same). In the instant case, there are four swom statements, one from a community organizer with no relationship to Complainant or her interests, attesting to Respondent's extremely hostile use on several different occasions of racial slurs when speaking to and about Complainant. These sworn statements constitute a preponderance of direct evidence to show that Respondent created a � raciaily hostile housing environmeni ihat was both pervasive and severe for Complainant and her family. They also are sufficient to show that the difference in treatment that Complainant received from Respondent in terms improvin� her apartment was racially motivated, as were his efforts to evict her. 1n :Utimunn'e :\amn. Ps�unl Qprymunit�� Yinptnccr 99 -'►Y9 � � • Memorandum of Findings qq -6q1 Case A-3408 Page Twelve In view of the fore�oin�, this Department concludes that there is probable cause to show that Respondent vio]ated the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance as Complainant had alle�ed. W. H. Tyr Tern Dir c r WHTT/rev � Date An:111imunivc.4Minn. Lyual (��munity ISmploy.r . • NOTES OF 'THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday,July 20,1999 Room 330 Courthouse Crerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. �� °t . �g_'14.q STAFF PRESENT: Dauid Dickhut, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fue Department; Mike Urmann, Fire Department; Joe Yannazelly, 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: Roger 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 nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: . 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1642 Charles Avenue John Lapakko, owner, appeazed and stated this appeal is about fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with the following condifions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1541 Minuehaha Avenue West Mike Urmann reported he spoke to the owner regarding this property, and informed him that the Fire Department would not be opposed to the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfortning doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforniing fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise 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, a11 the kitchen doors have been replaced with steel ones. Mr. Strathman asked is it understood that when the doors need to be replaced, they wil] have to be replaced with fire rated doors. Mr. Olson responded yes. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with fihe following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1756 Grand Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfomiing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1667 Ames Avenue No one appeared representing the properry. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department had no obj ection 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 otherwise be in compliance. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 3-16-99} Judy Tschida Martinez, owner, appeared and stated she installed an egress window in the basement. It has to be inspected. Everything has been completed except the steel window wells need to be installed. Mike Urmann reparted he has not reinspected because Ms. Martinez has not received zoning approvat nor had permits signed off for the room and board situation. Ms. Martinez stated she is not going to tum this into a rooming house; just family will be living there. • , • What aze the outstanding orders, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded the room and boazd issue and an illegal sleeping room without escape windows. • `�i� �`=l� PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETTNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 3 '• Gerry Stratlunan laid over this matter to the August LO Property Code Enforcement meeting for -�,1 � a �-� the windows to be inspected. a- 1'722 University Avenue R'est (Laid over from 6-15-99) David I�ies, 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 lazge, takes up half of the space, and has two doors. It does not have a compliant egress window. The other apartment is an efficiency; 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 constructed in the corridor, the fire department would accept the two existing doors leading into separate atmospheres as being compliant with the requirement for the windows. The efficiency is more difficult, stazed Mr. Owens. One window in the efficiency is glass block, which basically makes it a wall. The other window is too small and the rise on the sill is too high. Mr. Strathman asked if the window size was enlazged, is there an egress to the outside. 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 caze of the fire requirement in the lazge apartment. The rest of the discussion will be on the efficiency. Mr. Ries stated the peopie that normally rent this $200 efficiency aze 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 nea�t 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 Mr. Strathman. A person wouid haue to break the glass io get out. Mr. Owens added that at the time of the inspection, the window would not go out to a full 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 instalied that would fully open. Mr. Ries responded they would be willing to install a window that would open fully. He will attach the ladder in such a way that it cannot be removed. n LJ �� cl� , PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 4 Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the window in the efficiency aparfinent on the following conditions: 1) 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 e�ent. 689 Orleans Street (Laid over from 6-25-99) Nancy Roussopoulos, owner, appeared. Joe Yannazelly reported the number of cats has been reduced to three. The owner is working with the Humane Society. She has azranged for a loan to patch up her foundation. At this time, he recommends lifting the condemnation and rechecking the property in two months. (Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 299 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) The following appeazed: 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 available in the street, then the connection will be made. Mr. Ritter is here asking for an exception on a hazdship basis. He spoke to Tom Leclair who aclaiowledged both septic systems do not create a heaith and safety hazard. If a hazdsiup 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 aze not a threat to the ground water, 3) when the owners no longer live at these properties, the variances or exceptions will end. Tlus 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 hazdstup. Mr. Ritter responded absolutely. They both receive assistance, and both aze on fixed income. David Dickhut reported the public sewer was constructed in 1962. Under defuurion of Yhe state code, the drywell system is defined as illegal. As far as he l�ows, 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 pumged in 1996. How did this matter go on for 35 yeazs, asked Mr. Strathman. 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 drywell 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 qq � �� 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 proposed. Mr. Dickhut responded variances have been granted on those basis before. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the e�sting 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) the owner will allow the required insgection to assure the system does not pose an�mm;nent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the properry is sold or transfened to another parry. 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 persons living at this address, 2) the 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 or transferred to another party. • 924 Forest Street #1 Gerry Strathman stated he has been advised that the condemnation has been lifted and the case is closed.) 847 Hudson Road Phillip Owens reported Michael 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. Owens aliowed Mr. Bartelmy to use the eastern portion of the gazage for the continuation of the towing operation, i.e. pazking their wrecker there. No repairs were made to the building and no permits were pulled. The building has no heat, no plumbing, and limited electrical service. Some repairs were done without a pernut; however, Mr. Bartelmy has since obtained permits. The work is not complete and the permits have not been signed off. On 3une 21, the condemnation was extended to the eastern portion. LIEP has revoked the repair garage license through adverse action, staxed Mr. Owens. That license cannot be reapplied for up to one year. T'here aze multiple eacterior violations. There were 18 vehicles parked on the property, none of which aze propetly 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) � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 6 Michael Bartelmy, owner, appeared and stated he fuced the roof by installing beams Yo support iT. •� He added a retaining wall. The fire was in one room and took a wall with it, but it did not take the supporting wall. The building is structurally sound. He admits he has too many cazs. Mr. Strathman stated 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 lruck, car starter, air pump, etc., that he would Tike 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 problem to allow Mr. Bartelmy to keep some of his equipment there, asked Mr. 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 Strathman stated the condemnation wi12 be lifted on the eastern portion of tlie building only, and there can be cold storage of the towing vehicle in the eastern portion of the building during off hours. 853 Randolph Avenue Richard Lemke, owner, appeazed 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 I�ow 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 small, but the person that lives there is small. It is the only window in the bedroom. There is an entrance door and a fire alann next to it. There is another bedroom eight feet away with two big windows that eaiit to the porch. If there is a fire, that would be the way a person would e�t. Mike Urmann reported the window is positioned in a dormer. There may not be a way to install 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 SiratUman asked how big it is. Mr. Urmann guessed that it would be about 30" X 20". Mr. Lemke stated it is a sash window that 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 unl�own if it can be done. Could there be another use for the room, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded that was his suggestion, It was previously used as another type of room, wluch is why it was not cited in ttie past. Mr. Strathman stated he is concemed tt�at a person could get trapped in tius room in case of a fire. He understands it is on the second floor, but the fire department could help someone out a second floor window if it is possible to get out the window. • �� b�� PROPERT'Y CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 7 • Mr. Lemke asked is there anything else he can do with it. Mr. Strathman responded he is willing L��' to grant additional time to see if something can be figured out, but he is reluctant to tallc about a, variance because the window is not large enough to be a fire egress. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the August 17 Properly 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 haue emergency lighting with battery backup. It is an e�ting siivation. There aze 47 units. Mr. Strathman asked why this requirement is being brought up now. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot find anything in the records 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 3anuary 20, 1999, to install emergency lighting. ` 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 Henrietta Birkholz, tenant, appeazed. Gerry Strathman asked why the apartment has been condemned. Mr. Birkholz responded she was toid 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 for July. (Mike Urmann presented photographs to Mr. Strathman. They were later retumed.) 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 until she gets her loan approved. The apartment just needs a good vacuumiug; it is not unsanitary. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 417 Sherbume Avenue Rahena Holtor, tenant, appeazed and stated her house was raided by the police department. Dick Lippert condemned her house and gave 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. ��1�1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 8 (Dick Ligpert presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later returned.) • Dick Lippert reported many attempts have been made to get the owner to make necessary repairs. Code Enforcement has been to the property 30 times since October and wtitten a dozen tags. Mr. Lippert became involved in this by the Nazcotics Unit of the Police Depat[ment. He told Ms. Holtor t.�at he would give her an ea�tension of two weeks because of her children. That was amenable to her 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 out' signs. Mr. Lippert called the water department and NSP, and they aze not going to turn the utilities back on until full payment is received. This house 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 apartment. Her children aze not there. The outside of the property is bad, but not life threatening. The outside is the owner's responsibility. Gerry Sirathman denied the appeal saying there is ample basis for the condemnation order. The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. r�x� • • €3RtGt�A�. Presented Referred To Council File # qg - �yq Green Sheet # 63279 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 Appeals for the following addresses: • �.- • �.-. -. � ..- � ' � � '�.� � ♦-�► -• � - C. � � • �- � •- ••'-• " --- :- '- -:._ ��' � � . ` i� � f , � � , .�.- �� • " • .I 1 • " 1 1 � . " �� '' �.i�nn�l�i�um��iai�n�11P � - � If . 7 417 Sherburne Avenue 8 Decision: Appeal denied. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -�� '� ��__ ��__ ��__ : - . . �__ ��__ :• � �__ ��__ _�� Rahena Holtor Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: 16 17 18 Adopted by Council: Date: Q 19 � 20 Adoption Certified b Council Secretary 21 By:-� � 22 23 24 i�m�� - �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� aq-'1�t9 DEPARTMENT/OFFICNCOUNCIL DATE WmATEO �' City Council Offices 7-29-99 GREEN SHEET No 632'79 ODP7rACT PERSON & PHONE MXhYDaN InM1a11Date Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 ,,,,,,,,,�,,,�,,,, p,,.�,,,, MUST BE ON CWNCIL AGENM BY (Q4T� August 4, 1999 "'�" MUYB9iFdf CIIYAiTOR1EY UIYCLENK XOUTNIG OROER ❑ RNNORLiFRNCFiOYt iM�MCYLiFAV/<CCTG ❑MTORI�AA9l�MR) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N REQUES7ID Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for the July 20, 1999, meeting regarding the following addresses: 847 Hudson Road, and 417 Sherburne Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or RejeM (R) VERSONALSERVICE CONTRACfS MUSTANSWERTXE FOLLOV/ING QUESTIONS: 1. Hasfhispe�soMGanevervmfkeduMeraco�Gacftwthisdepa�tmeM? PLANNINGCOMMISSION VES NO CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Has Mis per�rm ever heen a cily empbyee4 CNILSERVICECAMMISSION VES t� 3. Does this peisaM�m possess a s1611 not �rormallypossessed by any curteM city employee? YES NO 4. Is this persoNfirm a targeted veMoR - YES NO - E�lain all yes answers on sepa2te sheet and attach W green shee[ INITIATMG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR'fUNI7V (Who, Whet, When, Whefe, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED Cgun�# Rsse�rch Cant2r JUL 2 9 1999 DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ON� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMAiION (IXPWt� Qq -149 �l9 - Gq°I July 22, 1999 � The Honorable Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall 15 W. KeTlogg 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 attorney) about my home at 417 Sherburne Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103. I rent my home from Jeffrey Cody who lives at 5449 West Bald Eagle Blvd.. White Bear Lake. MN 55110. This property is a duplex; I have lived in the top half with my five children since September 12, 1998. 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. On 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: a1°1-�Z9 • 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, affordable. 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 Holton ��'�St�_��-.�� 417 Sherburne Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 � SAINT PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL :\'oim Colemon, Ala}:or June 29. 1999 Ms. Raliena Holton � 17 Sherbume A� enue Saint Paul. Minnesota ii10; Re: Rahena Holton ��. Jefl're� Cod� Case A-3408 Dear Ms. Holton: DEPARTMENT OF HLTMAN RIGHTS �'�Vq W. H. T�TOneTerrill, Director qQ -�q9 900CiryHa11 Telephone: 6]?-?G6-89GG I.i bY. Ke!loggBovlei�ard Facsim�le: 61?-266-89G? Saint Paul, M,'V S.i102-1681 TDD: 61?-266-8977 Tl�e above<apuoned charge alleging a�io]ation of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance l�as been flioroughlyinvestigatedandcarefullyconsidered. Basedon��ritnesstestimonyanddocumentsgadieredduring . the investigation, a determination has been made that tliere is probable cause to believe that a violation of the Ordinance has occurred. Pursuant to Section 183.20 of Uie Ordinance, I have tlie autliority to facilitate a resolmion of the Probable CausedetemunationtYuonghconciliation. Theconciliationprocessisdesignedtopro�ideaforumwhereboth parties may reach agreement on ternis that n ould settle tUe matter and dms avoid litigation. A meeting for tlus purpose tias been scheduled for 9:30 AM Tliursday, July 22 1999. Tl�e meeting �iill be held at 900 Ciry HalUCourt House. It is imperati�•e ihai cou be present at this meeling. Endosed is a copy of tl�e Memorandum of Findings. Upon receipt of this letter, please contact Mr.Rich Nymoen at (651) 266-8971, tl�e Human Righis Specialist handling }•our case, and inform him what damages you are seeking to setUe this matter. � For Equalih� and Justice for all. C,� � --�� . W. H. T}•rone Terrill Director WHTTYrev Enclosure CERTIFIED LETTER cr. Diane Marie Dube. Attomey for Complainant An Aifirniaure qction, Lyual Op�wrtunity Lmploycr CITY OF SAINT PAUL h'onn Coleman, .44ayor June 29, 1999 MEMORANDZTM OF FINDIlVGS Re: Rahena Holton v. Jeffrey Cody Case A-3408 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS W. H. T}TOne Terrill, Director °lg-G99 900CityHa[! Telephane:612-266-89G� IS YI'. Kellogg Boulevard Facsrmile: 611-266-8961 SarntPaul, MIVSSIO?-1687 TDD.• 611-166-8977 Pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance, a full and impartial investi�ation of 2he aileeations in the above-referenced char�e was conducted by this Department. Based on the resuIts of that investi�ation which are stated beIow, this Department has made a determination that probable cause exists to believe that Respondent unlawfully discriminated asainst Complainant: I. Complainant's AIle�ations 1. The unit was very messy when Complainant viewed it, but Respondent said that he was going 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 maggots o��er the food. There were no li�hts when Complainant moved in and roaches were crawiin� all over. There were — and continue to be — mice. Since the tenant in the other unit has a cat, the mice favored Complainant's unit. 2. On September I3, 1998, Respondent was moving in another tenant. Complainant told him about the mice and roaches and that the debris remaining in the house was infested. He said he didn't understand how Complainant could complain because it was the best place she had ever Iived in. "You people make the property values go down," he said. CompiainanYs sister Monique Holton, Complainant's daughter DanielleHolton and one ofher school friends were present when he said this. Monique told, "Wait a minute. That's not right." 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 ]ike: a. "You're black ass should be out of here." b. "I'm ?oing to �ive you a U.D." c. "1 should have known better than to rent to people like you." d. "I'll have your black ass out of here." e. "Fuck them ni�gers," referring to Complainant's daughter and her friend. \J . .'4�:\17imiativt Action. Equal Opponunit�•-Lnploycr . � aa-�yq � h4emorandum of Findinss Case A-340S v 9� �G� - Pa�e Two • f. Complainant's nephew could not be in the unit because "he dresses like a drug dealer." (The tenant in the other unit heard this.) g. Constantly refemng to Complainant as "you people." . h. He would ask CompIainant what she was comptaining about, that she should be used to living like this, and "you never had anythin� better than this anyway °' 4. Respondent has made it Irno«°n that it is his house and he can come in anytime he wants to. Complainant has to keep the second ]ock on her door locked to keep him out. Complainant now tries to make sure someone is always there. When Complainant firsi moved in and would be gone, she'd come back and find thin�s had been moved around. Complainant can't prove it was him, but now she has someone there if she is �one. �. Respondent brought over some bu� 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 bein� racist to �ive the white tenant bu� bombs and the basement, and not for Comp]ainant's unit. Respondent said, "I'm fucking two black women. I'm not racist. Pussy a11 the same color to me." Then he said, "I'm UD-in� your biack ass." The other tenant gave Complainant two ofherbug bombs. The roaches came up because it wasn't bombed properiy. 6. On September 30, Respondent came over with notice to leave in 30 days. He said he was � trying to se11 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 th2 bugs or eliminated the mice. It was aboui October 10 now. His response was, " I don't have any fucking money. How ihe 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 housing inspector on me." 7. Respondent lefr and came back on about October 12. Complainant had just come back from the hospital, having suffered a miscarria2e. He wouldn't let Complainant go upstairs; every time Complainant moved to so 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 retumed from the hospital. Respondent said, "Ifyou �o upstairs, I'm not fiiling this out and I'm leavin�," referrin� to the ]andlord 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 ]tim that he hadn't done the work and he said, "You let her in and you're fucking ass is out." 8. The housing inspector carne October l3. Complainant explained to her and the man with her that she couldn't ]et her in and �vhy. She explained that Complainant couldn't �et in trouble for lettin� her in so Complainant let her in. 9. On the evenin� 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 � "we'll work out the housin� problems," and "you should think ahout it" Respondent kept interrupting her and telling her to be quiet. 7he jud�e told him to be quiet so Complainant could talk. The other tenant grabbed her hand and led her out of the courtroom. The 1n.\Ilinn:ai�. Aclion. Lqu:J Op�wnunn� I�.mpinccr Memorandum ofFindin�s Case A-340S 9°l -C� Page Three courtroom door closed. Respondent grabbed her by the shoutders, palling her ioward 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. Respondent's Position 1. Complainant is correct about the property bein� "messy." However, she was responsib]e for removing the debris in exchange for a hundred dollar reduction in rent. 2. On September 13, debris was stiil in the house, but she �vas responsible for removing it. He never said "This is the best place you ever lived," because he did not know what conditions she had lived in before and he wouid not make those statements to anyone. If he had addressed Complainant's sister, he wou]d have said, "Who are you?" not "Who the fuck are you?" He stated he ��as rentin� to Complainant and her children and not to her sister, boyfriend and do�. 3. Respondent did not say: "You're black ass should be out ofhere." b. Respondent did say he was giving her notice to ]eave based on her boyfriend and . do� stayin� there, which was not in the rental agreement. He did say he would give her a UD if he had to. c. He did say "I shouid have known better than to rent to people like you." He was talkin? abouT people who do noT comply wiTh what is discussed and agreed upon. d. Respondent told Complainant that if she did not remove the do� and live in boyfriend, he ��ould "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 Complainant that ifhe needed to come into her apartment, he would first knock, say he was the landlord and then v.�ait far a response. Respondent further stated that if she did not respond, he could enter the apartment to do repairs. 5. Respondent brought over "roach bombs" to do the enFire buildin�: 4 for the basement, 4 for the first floor apartment, and 4 for Complainant's apartment. Respondent gave the downstairs tenant all 12 bombs and instructed her to give Complainant four of them for the upstairs apartment. Respondent then to]d the downstairs 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 �uomen, nor did he say pussy was all the same color. Respondent is offended by these accusations and considers them defamatory. The downstairs tenant si�outd have given Complainant all four bombs per Respondent's instructions and Respondent did not do the bombin� because they needed to do it together and vacate the building for a few hours. :1n :111irnmtiee:5�yion. Pqual Qp(xmunity 1)nplo�ir 9q-'1y1 Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 V Pa�e Four q`l-`q°1 � - 6. On September 30, Respondent did give Complainant a 30 day written notice on notebook paper. Twenty minutes afrer givin� Complainant and the downstairs tenant written notice, Respondent met with a real estate broker at the building. They discussed the property should be available for sale and possession on or before October 30. Respondent introduced the � realtorto Complainant and the downstairs tenant 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 Complainant about the rent for October 1. Complainant responded with her concerns about mice 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 Housing Court, Complainant said she was not given written notice. 7. On or about October 13, Respondent did return with the realtor who had a show>ing with a prospective buyer. At this time, Respondent had his tools to complete some repairs. When they knocked on Complainant's door, a man answered the door and stated that Complainant was in the hospita] and would not be back. Respondent told him he was the land]ord and that he wanted to come in to do repairs and lez the realtor show the layout of the apartment to his client. Respondent �a�as denied access by the man in Complainant's apartment. This entrance denial came after Complainant had given Respondent pennission the prior day. � 3. Complainant's statement resarding this event and the Housin� Inspector is incorrect because he did not even see her on that day. He does not know what happened between Complainant and the inspector because he did noT see her that day. 9. Respondent denies ever touchin� Complainant in housing court. III. Complainant s Rebuttai ]. Respondent to]d Complainant if she cleaned the apartment, he wou]d take $100 off of her rent. He �vas going to remove all the debris from the apanment and the hall closet. He never did; Complainant paid some people to remove the debris from her apartment. Complainant would never have a�reed to remove the debris because she would not know how and where to dispose it. 2. Complainant is afraid ofRespondent for her safety and her children's safety. She has a restrainin� order a�ainst him, but Complainant sti11 has had people stay over because she was afraid ofhim. Complainant told Respondent many times that her boyfriend does not live there. Respondent would not accept documentation such as where his mail is delivered and his le�al papers. Instead lie said that Complainant could not have any over ni�=ht �=uests at ali and that her "biack ass" v.�ouid be out ofthere if she did. There's nothing in the lease prohibiting over ni�ht guests. � 3. An a�davit from a community or�;anizer who was dealing with Respondent on Co�nplainant's behalf confirms Respondent's name calling and verbal abuse. :1n:'117imueivz:\uunt. Pyual Oppurtunitc I:mpinecr r4emorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Five ��L�� 4. Respondent did not do any repairs in her house until he was made to by the housing inspector. 5. Complainant made no rebuttal on this alle�ation. 6. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. 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 bo}�friend to not let anyone in her home until 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 tu�o after she let the inspectors in. 8. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. IV. Issue Did Respondent discriminate a�ainst Complainant in the terms and conditions ofrentin� the property because of her race? V. Evidence Alle�ation �I. a. Respondent provided a swom statement that he had an agreement that if Complainant removed the little bit of stufffrom her porch and mop the floors there would, he believes, be some money knocked offher security deposit. There were a couple bags of toys and a chair }eft on the porch. These units were month to month, so there was no Iease and this agreement was not in writing. She had said she had help to move these irems. She was accusin� Respondent of prejudice for havin� help to move stuff out of the lower unit. There was more stuffin the lower unit. Respondent may have heiped the tenant in the lower 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 bag�ed up some �arbage, so he did not provide a whole lot of help. b. Respondent's friend provided a sworn statement that when Comp]ainant moved into the Sherbume 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 lefr behind but he doesn't recall exactly whaT: When the building was vacant, there was one night when Respondent's friend ��as 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 ofits condition, but becavse she was crying, he said she could move in if she cleaned it up. She had heard abont it by word of mouth in the neis3�borhood. Respondent's friend was at the building about l0 or 15 times helping fix thin�s up. � � � An :111im�a0ce A 1inn. F.yual Opp�tluntl) limpinyer aq.'14°l Memorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Six '`1 "� l l � - c. The downstairs tenant provided a swom statement that the roof of Complainant's unit was leakin�, window screens were missing, there were roaches, and her kitchen sink - was leaking all over the floor. There was old furniture and garbage from the previous tenants ofComp]ainanYs 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 a11 from her rent. He c]aimed 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. ?here were maggots in the refrigerator, fi]th and roaches. Complainant's family all helped her clean up. There were chairs, wood, and clothes around when the witness �ot 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 was just nasty. This witness was not completely aware of the exact agreement between Complainant and Respondent. She knows that Comp]ainant had said Respondent had said she was supposed to clean up the place in exchan�e for taking some offthe rent. Complainant was upset about him not holding up his part ofthe bargain, but this witness is not sure exactly what she was upset about. e. Complainant's dau_hter provided a sworn statement that when they first moved in, there were roaches everywhere that would drop from the ceiling. There were mice and the sink ]eaked. This writness was not there when Complainant was first there removing stuff, but she knows Complainant was very tired afterward Allegations # 2 & 3. a. Complainant's sister testified that around September 13, she was worried about Complainant and when she approached her place she heard them arguin,�. Respondent and Complainant were on the porch and Respondent was in a rage. Respondent was cussin� and very disrespectful. "Nigger" feil out his mouth more than anythin�. 4Vhen this witness first arrived, she was just trying to calm Complainant down at first so she could keep the apartment Then this witness tried ta]king to Cody and he was sayin�, " I just want the nieger out of my place." He then asked ofthe witness, "Who are you. You don't have an}nhing to � do with it. I don't have to talk to you." The oldest niece ofthe witness and 6er friend were coming home for school. The friend was comin� to her home for the first time. They haven't seen that little girl since. The witness sent them away because Cody was out ofcontrol, saying "F them ni�gers, referrin� to the girls. " He was saying that Complainant wasn't taking care of her property right. Complainant was asking why he was helpin� the girl downstairs, :1n AOinn:�tivt A�1ion. Cyual OpMatunih h:mplo)'u Memorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Seven q°I -691 but not doin� the thines he was supposed to do for her apartment. The situation eventually • calmed down when the witness realized that she would not be able to have a conversation. She had Complainant �o upstairs. In order to work things out, the witness went into to the downstair tenant's apartment where Respondent had gone. Respondent was saying how he was goin� to evict Complainant ri�ht away because "they" always screw things up. The witness left after a few minutes and the conversation did not last very lon� at all. It was like he was on acid or somethin�, he was in such a rage. This witness has heard Respondent say several different things to her on different occasions and cannot identify exactly when they were said, but she does recall him saying things to Comp3ainant like, "I don't see how you could complain. It's the best place you ever lived in. You people make the property values �o down." He would say smart remarks and look over smirking. This witness was there several times a��eek and she saw him there on four occasions in confrontations with Complainant. b. Comp]ainant's teen age dau�hter testified that in mid-September, she and her friend were coming home from schoot and she heard Complainant telling Respondent that she wanted help gettin� the roaches ont ofthe house and The mice. He was yellin� at her, sa}dng, "You F_ ni��ers. 1'ou don't deserve this." The friend of this witness was ]ooking off trying not to notice. The witness asked Complainant ifthey could go and he said, "Well F that ni��er too," referring to the w•itness. The aunt of the witness said she and her friend shoutd �o because she didn't want them hearing that. So ihey went to the show. That was � the only incident this ��itness heard because when ever he came over after that they would go to their rooms or leave because she has youn�er sisters and brothers that are scared of him. c. 7he dow��siairs tenant, who hasfiled a sex discrimination charge a�ainst Respondent, testified that .a�hen she Qot ready to move into the Sherbume property in September, 1998, Complainant came dov.�n to introduce herself and talk to Respondent. Respondent said that he didn't see how she could complain and that she should be grateful she could �et a place like that. He said all you �uys are "un�rateful nig�ers" They were screaming at each other. Complainant was saying, "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 sisterwas screamin� at him. The witness started screaming at him too because he was bein� rude and trying to drag her into somethin�. The witness doesn't remember what Respondent said to Complainant's sister. Complainant's daughter heard him call her these racial slurs too. After Complainant ��ent back upstairs, Respondent told the witness that she had to watch Complainant's unit because there was dru,� dealin� goin' on. He said there N�ere too many "niggers' soing in and out of the premises. The next day, Respondent came out again and he said he felt better havin2 her on the property because she was white, and she could watch the premises for him. That same day he called the police on his cetl pl�one beeause Complainant's relatives had just pulled up and parked. He to]d the police that they were smoking drugs on his property. d. A community organizer provided a sworn a�davit dated December 22, ] 998 that � in her professiona� capacity she had been working with Compiainant on her housing probtems at 4l 7 Sherbume Avenue, Saint Pau1, MN 55103. In her work with Complainant, the witness has had several conversations wiYh Respondent. As ofthe November 30, 1998, Respondent \n , U}7nnaiicr :lctks�. F.q¢a7 ( ��ntunin_ 7>nplmtT r4emorandum ofFindines � �� Case A-3408 � q� � �9� Pa�e Ei�ht � had never seen the witness, and to the best of her knowledge Respondent did not know she is African American. On Novembet 30, 1998, the witness responded to a telephone messa�e from Respondent. The witness telephoned him and they discussed the continuing need for repairs at ComplainanYs 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 ]eff this specific messa�e to taik to the witness because he wanted to see if the downstairs tenant had moved out. The witness toId Respondent that he needed to �et the repairs done in order to start collectin� the rent and that Complainant had paid for the exterminator to spray the building. The witness also advised Respondent that if he were to file an unlawful detainer against Complainani at this time that would be deemed retaliation. At that point, IZespondent 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 witness pointed out that no matter whether the tenants were there or not, he still had the obligation to make the repairs ordered by the city and asked why they jusc could not ne�otiate a stay for them until the first ofFebruary. y Respondent repiied that he wanted "them out of my place; ' that his brother was going to move into the building; that "I don't want no niegers livin� upstairs or downstairs;" and that " I don't want no nis�ers around." The brother said the word "nig�ers" first, Respondent � repeated it. The witness told him that he shou]dn't move into Saint Paul because prejudice isn't weicome 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 progress 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 drug traffickin� out of Complainant's unit but the downstair's lenant said she thoueht there was dru� trafficking upstairs because there was a lot oftraffic at a11 hours of the ni�ht. She said this within the first couple days she was in the property. Respondent and the downstairs tenant actually called the police afrer ta]king about it and she met the officer in the street and introduced herselfas the new tenant downstairs. Respondent did not use the word "nig�ers' in these com�ersations 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 does not recall why he was threatening him. Respondent does not recall having an argument with Complainant about the condition of her apartment or the debris tliat was in it. Respondent never used any racial slurs durin�= an ar�ument with Complainant. Respondent testified he never used any racial slurs when talkin� to or about Complainant or her family. He may have taiked to a community oreanizer about repairs for Complainant's unit in the fall of 1998. Respondent has a brother, but he doesn't recall a phone conversation with an or�anizer when his brother was present also. Respondent � may have said to the or�anizer that his brother was moving into the property. Respondent testified he never said "1 don't want no ni��ers livin� upstairs or downstairs," and that "I don't want no ni��ers around." Respondent's brother never said anythin� ]ike that when Respondent was around. 1n 4tlimiairvr.l�lwn. i'.quai c)p�wnunit� Emplo�s 1�lemorandum of Findings Case A-3408 Pa�e Nine q°l -�9� � f. Respondent's friend testified that Compiainant and the downstair's tenant were ar�uin� with Respondent a lot about rent and other problems. This witness never heard Respondent call them any names. If it was the case, it went both ways. This witness never heard Respondent make any racial slurs to or about Comglainant. 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 kids or to the buitding. She was afraid of him entering her apartment when she was �one just based on his comments and how crazy he seemed. The w spent the ni�ht a lot there on the weekends when they started �oin� to court because she was worried about Complainant and her kids. This witness is not sure ifComptainant's boyfiiend was tiving there or not then because he was livin� with his mom. But he would spend the night several times a week. This witness wasn't living there then but she is livin� there with Complainant now. Atte�ation # 5. a. The downstair's tenant testified that Respondent had been helping her with her unit and Complainant asked if he could repair some thin�s in her unit. Both of their units had a • mice and roach probtem. Complainant had bought Raid and a couple bombs. The downstairs tenant provided Complainant with bombs and Raid and bleach. They wanted to bomb to�ether w•hile the witness was still cleaning downstairs before she moved in. Complainant did not want to move in any of her kid's furniture until the bombs had been set off a couple times. Respondent gave this �+�itness three bombs, they come in a three pack, and he did not say anythin� about giving any to Complainant. In front of this witness, Respondent told Complainant to �et her own bombs and take it off her rent. On her own, this witness save 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 ihe cost off the 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 w�as 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 �arage. This witness did not know how many thou�h. Allegation # 6. a. The downstairs tenant testified that on October l, 1998, Respondent 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 giving you one more chance to pay the the rent. An AOimunic.:leiimt Fyu:�l Op�wnunih' Fmplo��ar q9 -�v� Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Pa�e Ten � °I°l -��9 How am I supposed to make any repairs ifyou don't pay rent. I owe the IItS $60,000 and iYs because ofyou. Cindy you're a no eood white bitch. You're a no �ood 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 all your �uy�s fuckin� fault. You and the ni�ger bitch upstairs." The witness's friend was sittin� on my couch as he was yellin� this. She said, "So it's their fault you can't pay the IRS and their fines" He stopped, looked at her, and said, "What the fuck" and walked out and slammed the door. b. Respondent testified that he Qave 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 Complainant was a no �ood black bitch. He doesn't recall a friend of the downstairs tenant being there that said anything 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 ni�ht there, so she was there quite a bit. She was there when Respondent was there on tv.�o or three occasions. She never heard him make any racial remarks, but the downstairs tenant told her � that he ca]led Complainant, a ni�ger. She thinks she said he said the downstairs tenant was a ni��er lover, toa V Respondent's �°iolent anger fri�htened this witness and it seemed ]ike he was on dru�s or somethin�. 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 putting al] his problems on her. This N�itness 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 ar�uing abovt him not fixing up the place, ��hich he said he couldn't do because of his le�. This witness dosn't recall if he was limpin� or had a cast. But after the court ordered him, he came around trying to make repairs. This witness dosn't recall him callin� the downstair tenant or Complainant any names. But the witness doesn't remember the details of that day. The downstairs fenant told the witness about Respondent calling her a white bitch and Complainant a black bitch, but the witness doesn't recall u�itnessing that. It may have happened when they were outside or when they were inside and the witness went out to get away from them. Alle�ations # 7 & S. a. Respondent testified that around October l2 or 13 the only conversation he had with Complainant was about a showing and she said fine. He never blocked her w�ay upstairs. � b. The downstairs tenant testified that Respondent was not there when the inspector first came to the property, but when he �ot the orders he went to Complainant and said if she let the inspector in a�ain, he wou]d evict them. ?he wimess wasn't there at the time, but when she �ot home Complainant came runnin� down in tears to tell her what he had said. The witness told her he couldn't kick them out because it would be retaliation. :1n.11limia�i�'e:�clinn. I{yual Oppcmmiiiy Lmplaotr Alemorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Eleven qq -t9°I • c. Respondent's friend testified that he started making repairs from a list from an inspector. The witness was the one doing the repaits usually but Respondent would be ��iih him. There was not much yellin� at that time. This witness may have been there when they argued about them calling the inspector, but the witness did not pay much attention to exactly what they were arguin� abovt. The uritness doesn'Y recall Resgondent sayin�, "Yov bitches called the housing inspector on me." Allegation � 9. a. Respondent testified that in mid-0ctober he had his friend serve unIawful detainers on ComplainanT and the downsTairs tenant. Ia Housing Court around October 22, the referee said Respondent did not win his case because he could not prove he �ave them written 30 day notice at the end of September, 1995. The referee su�gested he get an attorney. Respondent is not sure ifhe Talked to Complainant about her dropping her discrimination suit at that time, but he never �rabbed her arm. b. The downstairs tenant testified That they were served with an eviction notice afrer they called the inspector a�ain in mid-October. In housin� court around October 22, Cody pulled out a green piece of note book paper and told the jud�e that this was what he wrote the written notice on at the end of September. BuT he was lyin�. RespondenT became loud and � agitated, so extra bailiffs had to be called up. As they were walking out of cout Respondent pulled Complainant by her coat to talk to her about her droppin� the discrimination lawsuit in exchanee for him fixin� up the property. The downstairs tenant pulled her away from him. A bailiff escorted him out after that and made him go down the elevator first. c. Respondent's friend testified that after the court proceedings, Complainant and Respondent were talkin� about what needed to be fixed. It was a calm conversation. Respondent did not mention anythin2 about the discrimination suit then. Respondent didn't understand what the discrimination suit was about and neither does the witness. Respondent never arabbed her by the shoulder during 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 Dou�las burden- shiftin� analysis. Feses v. Perkins Restaurants. Inc. 483 N.W. 2d 701, 710 n.4 (Minn. 1992); State bv C000er v. Henneoin Countv. 441 N.W.2d I06, I 10 n.l(same). In the instant case, there are four swom statements, one from a community organizer with no relationship to Complainant or her interests, attesting to Respondent's extremely hostile use on several different occasions of racial slurs when speaking to and about Complainant. These sworn statements constitute a preponderance of direct evidence to show that Respondent created a � raciaily hostile housing environmeni ihat was both pervasive and severe for Complainant and her family. They also are sufficient to show that the difference in treatment that Complainant received from Respondent in terms improvin� her apartment was racially motivated, as were his efforts to evict her. 1n :Utimunn'e :\amn. Ps�unl Qprymunit�� Yinptnccr 99 -'►Y9 � � • Memorandum of Findings qq -6q1 Case A-3408 Page Twelve In view of the fore�oin�, this Department concludes that there is probable cause to show that Respondent vio]ated the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance as Complainant had alle�ed. W. H. Tyr Tern Dir c r WHTT/rev � Date An:111imunivc.4Minn. Lyual (��munity ISmploy.r . • NOTES OF 'THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday,July 20,1999 Room 330 Courthouse Crerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. �� °t . �g_'14.q STAFF PRESENT: Dauid Dickhut, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fue Department; Mike Urmann, Fire Department; Joe Yannazelly, 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: Roger 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 nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: . 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1642 Charles Avenue John Lapakko, owner, appeazed and stated this appeal is about fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with the following condifions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1541 Minuehaha Avenue West Mike Urmann reported he spoke to the owner regarding this property, and informed him that the Fire Department would not be opposed to the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfortning doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforniing fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise 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, a11 the kitchen doors have been replaced with steel ones. Mr. Strathman asked is it understood that when the doors need to be replaced, they wil] have to be replaced with fire rated doors. Mr. Olson responded yes. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with fihe following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1756 Grand Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfomiing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1667 Ames Avenue No one appeared representing the properry. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department had no obj ection 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 otherwise be in compliance. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 3-16-99} Judy Tschida Martinez, owner, appeared and stated she installed an egress window in the basement. It has to be inspected. Everything has been completed except the steel window wells need to be installed. Mike Urmann reparted he has not reinspected because Ms. Martinez has not received zoning approvat nor had permits signed off for the room and board situation. Ms. Martinez stated she is not going to tum this into a rooming house; just family will be living there. • , • What aze the outstanding orders, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded the room and boazd issue and an illegal sleeping room without escape windows. • `�i� �`=l� PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETTNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 3 '• Gerry Stratlunan laid over this matter to the August LO Property Code Enforcement meeting for -�,1 � a �-� the windows to be inspected. a- 1'722 University Avenue R'est (Laid over from 6-15-99) David I�ies, 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 lazge, takes up half of the space, and has two doors. It does not have a compliant egress window. The other apartment is an efficiency; 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 constructed in the corridor, the fire department would accept the two existing doors leading into separate atmospheres as being compliant with the requirement for the windows. The efficiency is more difficult, stazed Mr. Owens. One window in the efficiency is glass block, which basically makes it a wall. The other window is too small and the rise on the sill is too high. Mr. Strathman asked if the window size was enlazged, is there an egress to the outside. 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 caze of the fire requirement in the lazge apartment. The rest of the discussion will be on the efficiency. Mr. Ries stated the peopie that normally rent this $200 efficiency aze 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 nea�t 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 Mr. Strathman. A person wouid haue to break the glass io get out. Mr. Owens added that at the time of the inspection, the window would not go out to a full 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 instalied that would fully open. Mr. Ries responded they would be willing to install a window that would open fully. He will attach the ladder in such a way that it cannot be removed. n LJ �� cl� , PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 4 Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the window in the efficiency aparfinent on the following conditions: 1) 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 e�ent. 689 Orleans Street (Laid over from 6-25-99) Nancy Roussopoulos, owner, appeared. Joe Yannazelly reported the number of cats has been reduced to three. The owner is working with the Humane Society. She has azranged for a loan to patch up her foundation. At this time, he recommends lifting the condemnation and rechecking the property in two months. (Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 299 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) The following appeazed: 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 available in the street, then the connection will be made. Mr. Ritter is here asking for an exception on a hazdship basis. He spoke to Tom Leclair who aclaiowledged both septic systems do not create a heaith and safety hazard. If a hazdsiup 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 aze not a threat to the ground water, 3) when the owners no longer live at these properties, the variances or exceptions will end. Tlus 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 hazdstup. Mr. Ritter responded absolutely. They both receive assistance, and both aze on fixed income. David Dickhut reported the public sewer was constructed in 1962. Under defuurion of Yhe state code, the drywell system is defined as illegal. As far as he l�ows, 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 pumged in 1996. How did this matter go on for 35 yeazs, asked Mr. Strathman. 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 drywell 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 qq � �� 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 proposed. Mr. Dickhut responded variances have been granted on those basis before. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the e�sting 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) the owner will allow the required insgection to assure the system does not pose an�mm;nent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the properry is sold or transfened to another parry. 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 persons living at this address, 2) the 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 or transferred to another party. • 924 Forest Street #1 Gerry Strathman stated he has been advised that the condemnation has been lifted and the case is closed.) 847 Hudson Road Phillip Owens reported Michael 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. Owens aliowed Mr. Bartelmy to use the eastern portion of the gazage for the continuation of the towing operation, i.e. pazking their wrecker there. No repairs were made to the building and no permits were pulled. The building has no heat, no plumbing, and limited electrical service. Some repairs were done without a pernut; however, Mr. Bartelmy has since obtained permits. The work is not complete and the permits have not been signed off. On 3une 21, the condemnation was extended to the eastern portion. LIEP has revoked the repair garage license through adverse action, staxed Mr. Owens. That license cannot be reapplied for up to one year. T'here aze multiple eacterior violations. There were 18 vehicles parked on the property, none of which aze propetly 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) � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 6 Michael Bartelmy, owner, appeared and stated he fuced the roof by installing beams Yo support iT. •� He added a retaining wall. The fire was in one room and took a wall with it, but it did not take the supporting wall. The building is structurally sound. He admits he has too many cazs. Mr. Strathman stated 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 lruck, car starter, air pump, etc., that he would Tike 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 problem to allow Mr. Bartelmy to keep some of his equipment there, asked Mr. 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 Strathman stated the condemnation wi12 be lifted on the eastern portion of tlie building only, and there can be cold storage of the towing vehicle in the eastern portion of the building during off hours. 853 Randolph Avenue Richard Lemke, owner, appeazed 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 I�ow 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 small, but the person that lives there is small. It is the only window in the bedroom. There is an entrance door and a fire alann next to it. There is another bedroom eight feet away with two big windows that eaiit to the porch. If there is a fire, that would be the way a person would e�t. Mike Urmann reported the window is positioned in a dormer. There may not be a way to install 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 SiratUman asked how big it is. Mr. Urmann guessed that it would be about 30" X 20". Mr. Lemke stated it is a sash window that 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 unl�own if it can be done. Could there be another use for the room, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded that was his suggestion, It was previously used as another type of room, wluch is why it was not cited in ttie past. Mr. Strathman stated he is concemed tt�at a person could get trapped in tius room in case of a fire. He understands it is on the second floor, but the fire department could help someone out a second floor window if it is possible to get out the window. • �� b�� PROPERT'Y CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 7 • Mr. Lemke asked is there anything else he can do with it. Mr. Strathman responded he is willing L��' to grant additional time to see if something can be figured out, but he is reluctant to tallc about a, variance because the window is not large enough to be a fire egress. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the August 17 Properly 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 haue emergency lighting with battery backup. It is an e�ting siivation. There aze 47 units. Mr. Strathman asked why this requirement is being brought up now. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot find anything in the records 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 3anuary 20, 1999, to install emergency lighting. ` 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 Henrietta Birkholz, tenant, appeazed. Gerry Strathman asked why the apartment has been condemned. Mr. Birkholz responded she was toid 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 for July. (Mike Urmann presented photographs to Mr. Strathman. They were later retumed.) 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 until she gets her loan approved. The apartment just needs a good vacuumiug; it is not unsanitary. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 417 Sherbume Avenue Rahena Holtor, tenant, appeazed and stated her house was raided by the police department. Dick Lippert condemned her house and gave 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. ��1�1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 8 (Dick Ligpert presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later returned.) • Dick Lippert reported many attempts have been made to get the owner to make necessary repairs. Code Enforcement has been to the property 30 times since October and wtitten a dozen tags. Mr. Lippert became involved in this by the Nazcotics Unit of the Police Depat[ment. He told Ms. Holtor t.�at he would give her an ea�tension of two weeks because of her children. That was amenable to her 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 out' signs. Mr. Lippert called the water department and NSP, and they aze not going to turn the utilities back on until full payment is received. This house 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 apartment. Her children aze not there. The outside of the property is bad, but not life threatening. The outside is the owner's responsibility. Gerry Sirathman denied the appeal saying there is ample basis for the condemnation order. The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. r�x� • • €3RtGt�A�. Presented Referred To Council File # qg - �yq Green Sheet # 63279 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 Appeals for the following addresses: • �.- • �.-. -. � ..- � ' � � '�.� � ♦-�► -• � - C. � � • �- � •- ••'-• " --- :- '- -:._ ��' � � . ` i� � f , � � , .�.- �� • " • .I 1 • " 1 1 � . " �� '' �.i�nn�l�i�um��iai�n�11P � - � If . 7 417 Sherburne Avenue 8 Decision: Appeal denied. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -�� '� ��__ ��__ ��__ : - . . �__ ��__ :• � �__ ��__ _�� Rahena Holtor Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: 16 17 18 Adopted by Council: Date: Q 19 � 20 Adoption Certified b Council Secretary 21 By:-� � 22 23 24 i�m�� - �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� aq-'1�t9 DEPARTMENT/OFFICNCOUNCIL DATE WmATEO �' City Council Offices 7-29-99 GREEN SHEET No 632'79 ODP7rACT PERSON & PHONE MXhYDaN InM1a11Date Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 ,,,,,,,,,�,,,�,,,, p,,.�,,,, MUST BE ON CWNCIL AGENM BY (Q4T� August 4, 1999 "'�" MUYB9iFdf CIIYAiTOR1EY UIYCLENK XOUTNIG OROER ❑ RNNORLiFRNCFiOYt iM�MCYLiFAV/<CCTG ❑MTORI�AA9l�MR) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N REQUES7ID Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for the July 20, 1999, meeting regarding the following addresses: 847 Hudson Road, and 417 Sherburne Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or RejeM (R) VERSONALSERVICE CONTRACfS MUSTANSWERTXE FOLLOV/ING QUESTIONS: 1. Hasfhispe�soMGanevervmfkeduMeraco�Gacftwthisdepa�tmeM? PLANNINGCOMMISSION VES NO CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Has Mis per�rm ever heen a cily empbyee4 CNILSERVICECAMMISSION VES t� 3. Does this peisaM�m possess a s1611 not �rormallypossessed by any curteM city employee? YES NO 4. Is this persoNfirm a targeted veMoR - YES NO - E�lain all yes answers on sepa2te sheet and attach W green shee[ INITIATMG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR'fUNI7V (Who, Whet, When, Whefe, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED Cgun�# Rsse�rch Cant2r JUL 2 9 1999 DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ON� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMAiION (IXPWt� Qq -149 �l9 - Gq°I July 22, 1999 � The Honorable Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall 15 W. KeTlogg 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 attorney) about my home at 417 Sherburne Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103. I rent my home from Jeffrey Cody who lives at 5449 West Bald Eagle Blvd.. White Bear Lake. MN 55110. This property is a duplex; I have lived in the top half with my five children since September 12, 1998. 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. On 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: a1°1-�Z9 • 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, affordable. 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 Holton ��'�St�_��-.�� 417 Sherburne Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 � SAINT PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL :\'oim Colemon, Ala}:or June 29. 1999 Ms. Raliena Holton � 17 Sherbume A� enue Saint Paul. Minnesota ii10; Re: Rahena Holton ��. Jefl're� Cod� Case A-3408 Dear Ms. Holton: DEPARTMENT OF HLTMAN RIGHTS �'�Vq W. H. T�TOneTerrill, Director qQ -�q9 900CiryHa11 Telephone: 6]?-?G6-89GG I.i bY. Ke!loggBovlei�ard Facsim�le: 61?-266-89G? Saint Paul, M,'V S.i102-1681 TDD: 61?-266-8977 Tl�e above<apuoned charge alleging a�io]ation of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance l�as been flioroughlyinvestigatedandcarefullyconsidered. Basedon��ritnesstestimonyanddocumentsgadieredduring . the investigation, a determination has been made that tliere is probable cause to believe that a violation of the Ordinance has occurred. Pursuant to Section 183.20 of Uie Ordinance, I have tlie autliority to facilitate a resolmion of the Probable CausedetemunationtYuonghconciliation. Theconciliationprocessisdesignedtopro�ideaforumwhereboth parties may reach agreement on ternis that n ould settle tUe matter and dms avoid litigation. A meeting for tlus purpose tias been scheduled for 9:30 AM Tliursday, July 22 1999. Tl�e meeting �iill be held at 900 Ciry HalUCourt House. It is imperati�•e ihai cou be present at this meeling. Endosed is a copy of tl�e Memorandum of Findings. Upon receipt of this letter, please contact Mr.Rich Nymoen at (651) 266-8971, tl�e Human Righis Specialist handling }•our case, and inform him what damages you are seeking to setUe this matter. � For Equalih� and Justice for all. C,� � --�� . W. H. T}•rone Terrill Director WHTTYrev Enclosure CERTIFIED LETTER cr. Diane Marie Dube. Attomey for Complainant An Aifirniaure qction, Lyual Op�wrtunity Lmploycr CITY OF SAINT PAUL h'onn Coleman, .44ayor June 29, 1999 MEMORANDZTM OF FINDIlVGS Re: Rahena Holton v. Jeffrey Cody Case A-3408 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS W. H. T}TOne Terrill, Director °lg-G99 900CityHa[! Telephane:612-266-89G� IS YI'. Kellogg Boulevard Facsrmile: 611-266-8961 SarntPaul, MIVSSIO?-1687 TDD.• 611-166-8977 Pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance, a full and impartial investi�ation of 2he aileeations in the above-referenced char�e was conducted by this Department. Based on the resuIts of that investi�ation which are stated beIow, this Department has made a determination that probable cause exists to believe that Respondent unlawfully discriminated asainst Complainant: I. Complainant's AIle�ations 1. The unit was very messy when Complainant viewed it, but Respondent said that he was going 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 maggots o��er the food. There were no li�hts when Complainant moved in and roaches were crawiin� all over. There were — and continue to be — mice. Since the tenant in the other unit has a cat, the mice favored Complainant's unit. 2. On September I3, 1998, Respondent was moving in another tenant. Complainant told him about the mice and roaches and that the debris remaining in the house was infested. He said he didn't understand how Complainant could complain because it was the best place she had ever Iived in. "You people make the property values go down," he said. CompiainanYs sister Monique Holton, Complainant's daughter DanielleHolton and one ofher school friends were present when he said this. Monique told, "Wait a minute. That's not right." 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 ]ike: a. "You're black ass should be out of here." b. "I'm ?oing to �ive you a U.D." c. "1 should have known better than to rent to people like you." d. "I'll have your black ass out of here." e. "Fuck them ni�gers," referring to Complainant's daughter and her friend. \J . .'4�:\17imiativt Action. Equal Opponunit�•-Lnploycr . � aa-�yq � h4emorandum of Findinss Case A-340S v 9� �G� - Pa�e Two • f. Complainant's nephew could not be in the unit because "he dresses like a drug dealer." (The tenant in the other unit heard this.) g. Constantly refemng to Complainant as "you people." . h. He would ask CompIainant what she was comptaining about, that she should be used to living like this, and "you never had anythin� better than this anyway °' 4. Respondent has made it Irno«°n that it is his house and he can come in anytime he wants to. Complainant has to keep the second ]ock on her door locked to keep him out. Complainant now tries to make sure someone is always there. When Complainant firsi moved in and would be gone, she'd come back and find thin�s had been moved around. Complainant can't prove it was him, but now she has someone there if she is �one. �. Respondent brought over some bu� 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 bein� racist to �ive the white tenant bu� bombs and the basement, and not for Comp]ainant's unit. Respondent said, "I'm fucking two black women. I'm not racist. Pussy a11 the same color to me." Then he said, "I'm UD-in� your biack ass." The other tenant gave Complainant two ofherbug bombs. The roaches came up because it wasn't bombed properiy. 6. On September 30, Respondent came over with notice to leave in 30 days. He said he was � trying to se11 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 th2 bugs or eliminated the mice. It was aboui October 10 now. His response was, " I don't have any fucking money. How ihe 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 housing inspector on me." 7. Respondent lefr and came back on about October 12. Complainant had just come back from the hospital, having suffered a miscarria2e. He wouldn't let Complainant go upstairs; every time Complainant moved to so 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 retumed from the hospital. Respondent said, "Ifyou �o upstairs, I'm not fiiling this out and I'm leavin�," referrin� to the ]andlord 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 ]tim that he hadn't done the work and he said, "You let her in and you're fucking ass is out." 8. The housing inspector carne October l3. Complainant explained to her and the man with her that she couldn't ]et her in and �vhy. She explained that Complainant couldn't �et in trouble for lettin� her in so Complainant let her in. 9. On the evenin� 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 � "we'll work out the housin� problems," and "you should think ahout it" Respondent kept interrupting her and telling her to be quiet. 7he jud�e told him to be quiet so Complainant could talk. The other tenant grabbed her hand and led her out of the courtroom. The 1n.\Ilinn:ai�. Aclion. Lqu:J Op�wnunn� I�.mpinccr Memorandum ofFindin�s Case A-340S 9°l -C� Page Three courtroom door closed. Respondent grabbed her by the shoutders, palling her ioward 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. Respondent's Position 1. Complainant is correct about the property bein� "messy." However, she was responsib]e for removing the debris in exchange for a hundred dollar reduction in rent. 2. On September 13, debris was stiil in the house, but she �vas responsible for removing it. He never said "This is the best place you ever lived," because he did not know what conditions she had lived in before and he wouid not make those statements to anyone. If he had addressed Complainant's sister, he wou]d have said, "Who are you?" not "Who the fuck are you?" He stated he ��as rentin� to Complainant and her children and not to her sister, boyfriend and do�. 3. Respondent did not say: "You're black ass should be out ofhere." b. Respondent did say he was giving her notice to ]eave based on her boyfriend and . do� stayin� there, which was not in the rental agreement. He did say he would give her a UD if he had to. c. He did say "I shouid have known better than to rent to people like you." He was talkin? abouT people who do noT comply wiTh what is discussed and agreed upon. d. Respondent told Complainant that if she did not remove the do� and live in boyfriend, he ��ould "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 Complainant that ifhe needed to come into her apartment, he would first knock, say he was the landlord and then v.�ait far a response. Respondent further stated that if she did not respond, he could enter the apartment to do repairs. 5. Respondent brought over "roach bombs" to do the enFire buildin�: 4 for the basement, 4 for the first floor apartment, and 4 for Complainant's apartment. Respondent gave the downstairs tenant all 12 bombs and instructed her to give Complainant four of them for the upstairs apartment. Respondent then to]d the downstairs 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 �uomen, nor did he say pussy was all the same color. Respondent is offended by these accusations and considers them defamatory. The downstairs tenant si�outd have given Complainant all four bombs per Respondent's instructions and Respondent did not do the bombin� because they needed to do it together and vacate the building for a few hours. :1n :111irnmtiee:5�yion. Pqual Qp(xmunity 1)nplo�ir 9q-'1y1 Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 V Pa�e Four q`l-`q°1 � - 6. On September 30, Respondent did give Complainant a 30 day written notice on notebook paper. Twenty minutes afrer givin� Complainant and the downstairs tenant written notice, Respondent met with a real estate broker at the building. They discussed the property should be available for sale and possession on or before October 30. Respondent introduced the � realtorto Complainant and the downstairs tenant 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 Complainant about the rent for October 1. Complainant responded with her concerns about mice 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 Housing Court, Complainant said she was not given written notice. 7. On or about October 13, Respondent did return with the realtor who had a show>ing with a prospective buyer. At this time, Respondent had his tools to complete some repairs. When they knocked on Complainant's door, a man answered the door and stated that Complainant was in the hospita] and would not be back. Respondent told him he was the land]ord and that he wanted to come in to do repairs and lez the realtor show the layout of the apartment to his client. Respondent �a�as denied access by the man in Complainant's apartment. This entrance denial came after Complainant had given Respondent pennission the prior day. � 3. Complainant's statement resarding this event and the Housin� Inspector is incorrect because he did not even see her on that day. He does not know what happened between Complainant and the inspector because he did noT see her that day. 9. Respondent denies ever touchin� Complainant in housing court. III. Complainant s Rebuttai ]. Respondent to]d Complainant if she cleaned the apartment, he wou]d take $100 off of her rent. He �vas going to remove all the debris from the apanment and the hall closet. He never did; Complainant paid some people to remove the debris from her apartment. Complainant would never have a�reed to remove the debris because she would not know how and where to dispose it. 2. Complainant is afraid ofRespondent for her safety and her children's safety. She has a restrainin� order a�ainst him, but Complainant sti11 has had people stay over because she was afraid ofhim. Complainant told Respondent many times that her boyfriend does not live there. Respondent would not accept documentation such as where his mail is delivered and his le�al papers. Instead lie said that Complainant could not have any over ni�=ht �=uests at ali and that her "biack ass" v.�ouid be out ofthere if she did. There's nothing in the lease prohibiting over ni�ht guests. � 3. An a�davit from a community or�;anizer who was dealing with Respondent on Co�nplainant's behalf confirms Respondent's name calling and verbal abuse. :1n:'117imueivz:\uunt. Pyual Oppurtunitc I:mpinecr r4emorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Five ��L�� 4. Respondent did not do any repairs in her house until he was made to by the housing inspector. 5. Complainant made no rebuttal on this alle�ation. 6. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. 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 bo}�friend to not let anyone in her home until 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 tu�o after she let the inspectors in. 8. Complainant made no rebuttal on this allegation. IV. Issue Did Respondent discriminate a�ainst Complainant in the terms and conditions ofrentin� the property because of her race? V. Evidence Alle�ation �I. a. Respondent provided a swom statement that he had an agreement that if Complainant removed the little bit of stufffrom her porch and mop the floors there would, he believes, be some money knocked offher security deposit. There were a couple bags of toys and a chair }eft on the porch. These units were month to month, so there was no Iease and this agreement was not in writing. She had said she had help to move these irems. She was accusin� Respondent of prejudice for havin� help to move stuff out of the lower unit. There was more stuffin the lower unit. Respondent may have heiped the tenant in the lower 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 bag�ed up some �arbage, so he did not provide a whole lot of help. b. Respondent's friend provided a sworn statement that when Comp]ainant moved into the Sherbume 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 lefr behind but he doesn't recall exactly whaT: When the building was vacant, there was one night when Respondent's friend ��as 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 ofits condition, but becavse she was crying, he said she could move in if she cleaned it up. She had heard abont it by word of mouth in the neis3�borhood. Respondent's friend was at the building about l0 or 15 times helping fix thin�s up. � � � An :111im�a0ce A 1inn. F.yual Opp�tluntl) limpinyer aq.'14°l Memorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Six '`1 "� l l � - c. The downstairs tenant provided a swom statement that the roof of Complainant's unit was leakin�, window screens were missing, there were roaches, and her kitchen sink - was leaking all over the floor. There was old furniture and garbage from the previous tenants ofComp]ainanYs 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 a11 from her rent. He c]aimed 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. ?here were maggots in the refrigerator, fi]th and roaches. Complainant's family all helped her clean up. There were chairs, wood, and clothes around when the witness �ot 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 was just nasty. This witness was not completely aware of the exact agreement between Complainant and Respondent. She knows that Comp]ainant had said Respondent had said she was supposed to clean up the place in exchan�e for taking some offthe rent. Complainant was upset about him not holding up his part ofthe bargain, but this witness is not sure exactly what she was upset about. e. Complainant's dau_hter provided a sworn statement that when they first moved in, there were roaches everywhere that would drop from the ceiling. There were mice and the sink ]eaked. This writness was not there when Complainant was first there removing stuff, but she knows Complainant was very tired afterward Allegations # 2 & 3. a. Complainant's sister testified that around September 13, she was worried about Complainant and when she approached her place she heard them arguin,�. Respondent and Complainant were on the porch and Respondent was in a rage. Respondent was cussin� and very disrespectful. "Nigger" feil out his mouth more than anythin�. 4Vhen this witness first arrived, she was just trying to calm Complainant down at first so she could keep the apartment Then this witness tried ta]king to Cody and he was sayin�, " I just want the nieger out of my place." He then asked ofthe witness, "Who are you. You don't have an}nhing to � do with it. I don't have to talk to you." The oldest niece ofthe witness and 6er friend were coming home for school. The friend was comin� to her home for the first time. They haven't seen that little girl since. The witness sent them away because Cody was out ofcontrol, saying "F them ni�gers, referrin� to the girls. " He was saying that Complainant wasn't taking care of her property right. Complainant was asking why he was helpin� the girl downstairs, :1n AOinn:�tivt A�1ion. Cyual OpMatunih h:mplo)'u Memorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Seven q°I -691 but not doin� the thines he was supposed to do for her apartment. The situation eventually • calmed down when the witness realized that she would not be able to have a conversation. She had Complainant �o upstairs. In order to work things out, the witness went into to the downstair tenant's apartment where Respondent had gone. Respondent was saying how he was goin� to evict Complainant ri�ht away because "they" always screw things up. The witness left after a few minutes and the conversation did not last very lon� at all. It was like he was on acid or somethin�, he was in such a rage. This witness has heard Respondent say several different things to her on different occasions and cannot identify exactly when they were said, but she does recall him saying things to Comp3ainant like, "I don't see how you could complain. It's the best place you ever lived in. You people make the property values �o down." He would say smart remarks and look over smirking. This witness was there several times a��eek and she saw him there on four occasions in confrontations with Complainant. b. Comp]ainant's teen age dau�hter testified that in mid-September, she and her friend were coming home from schoot and she heard Complainant telling Respondent that she wanted help gettin� the roaches ont ofthe house and The mice. He was yellin� at her, sa}dng, "You F_ ni��ers. 1'ou don't deserve this." The friend of this witness was ]ooking off trying not to notice. The witness asked Complainant ifthey could go and he said, "Well F that ni��er too," referring to the w•itness. The aunt of the witness said she and her friend shoutd �o because she didn't want them hearing that. So ihey went to the show. That was � the only incident this ��itness heard because when ever he came over after that they would go to their rooms or leave because she has youn�er sisters and brothers that are scared of him. c. 7he dow��siairs tenant, who hasfiled a sex discrimination charge a�ainst Respondent, testified that .a�hen she Qot ready to move into the Sherbume property in September, 1998, Complainant came dov.�n to introduce herself and talk to Respondent. Respondent said that he didn't see how she could complain and that she should be grateful she could �et a place like that. He said all you �uys are "un�rateful nig�ers" They were screaming at each other. Complainant was saying, "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 sisterwas screamin� at him. The witness started screaming at him too because he was bein� rude and trying to drag her into somethin�. The witness doesn't remember what Respondent said to Complainant's sister. Complainant's daughter heard him call her these racial slurs too. After Complainant ��ent back upstairs, Respondent told the witness that she had to watch Complainant's unit because there was dru,� dealin� goin' on. He said there N�ere too many "niggers' soing in and out of the premises. The next day, Respondent came out again and he said he felt better havin2 her on the property because she was white, and she could watch the premises for him. That same day he called the police on his cetl pl�one beeause Complainant's relatives had just pulled up and parked. He to]d the police that they were smoking drugs on his property. d. A community organizer provided a sworn a�davit dated December 22, ] 998 that � in her professiona� capacity she had been working with Compiainant on her housing probtems at 4l 7 Sherbume Avenue, Saint Pau1, MN 55103. In her work with Complainant, the witness has had several conversations wiYh Respondent. As ofthe November 30, 1998, Respondent \n , U}7nnaiicr :lctks�. F.q¢a7 ( ��ntunin_ 7>nplmtT r4emorandum ofFindines � �� Case A-3408 � q� � �9� Pa�e Ei�ht � had never seen the witness, and to the best of her knowledge Respondent did not know she is African American. On Novembet 30, 1998, the witness responded to a telephone messa�e from Respondent. The witness telephoned him and they discussed the continuing need for repairs at ComplainanYs 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 ]eff this specific messa�e to taik to the witness because he wanted to see if the downstairs tenant had moved out. The witness toId Respondent that he needed to �et the repairs done in order to start collectin� the rent and that Complainant had paid for the exterminator to spray the building. The witness also advised Respondent that if he were to file an unlawful detainer against Complainani at this time that would be deemed retaliation. At that point, IZespondent 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 witness pointed out that no matter whether the tenants were there or not, he still had the obligation to make the repairs ordered by the city and asked why they jusc could not ne�otiate a stay for them until the first ofFebruary. y Respondent repiied that he wanted "them out of my place; ' that his brother was going to move into the building; that "I don't want no niegers livin� upstairs or downstairs;" and that " I don't want no nis�ers around." The brother said the word "nig�ers" first, Respondent � repeated it. The witness told him that he shou]dn't move into Saint Paul because prejudice isn't weicome 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 progress 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 drug traffickin� out of Complainant's unit but the downstair's lenant said she thoueht there was dru� trafficking upstairs because there was a lot oftraffic at a11 hours of the ni�ht. She said this within the first couple days she was in the property. Respondent and the downstairs tenant actually called the police afrer ta]king about it and she met the officer in the street and introduced herselfas the new tenant downstairs. Respondent did not use the word "nig�ers' in these com�ersations 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 does not recall why he was threatening him. Respondent does not recall having an argument with Complainant about the condition of her apartment or the debris tliat was in it. Respondent never used any racial slurs durin�= an ar�ument with Complainant. Respondent testified he never used any racial slurs when talkin� to or about Complainant or her family. He may have taiked to a community oreanizer about repairs for Complainant's unit in the fall of 1998. Respondent has a brother, but he doesn't recall a phone conversation with an or�anizer when his brother was present also. Respondent � may have said to the or�anizer that his brother was moving into the property. Respondent testified he never said "1 don't want no ni��ers livin� upstairs or downstairs," and that "I don't want no ni��ers around." Respondent's brother never said anythin� ]ike that when Respondent was around. 1n 4tlimiairvr.l�lwn. i'.quai c)p�wnunit� Emplo�s 1�lemorandum of Findings Case A-3408 Pa�e Nine q°l -�9� � f. Respondent's friend testified that Compiainant and the downstair's tenant were ar�uin� with Respondent a lot about rent and other problems. This witness never heard Respondent call them any names. If it was the case, it went both ways. This witness never heard Respondent make any racial slurs to or about Comglainant. 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 kids or to the buitding. She was afraid of him entering her apartment when she was �one just based on his comments and how crazy he seemed. The w spent the ni�ht a lot there on the weekends when they started �oin� to court because she was worried about Complainant and her kids. This witness is not sure ifComptainant's boyfiiend was tiving there or not then because he was livin� with his mom. But he would spend the night several times a week. This witness wasn't living there then but she is livin� there with Complainant now. Atte�ation # 5. a. The downstair's tenant testified that Respondent had been helping her with her unit and Complainant asked if he could repair some thin�s in her unit. Both of their units had a • mice and roach probtem. Complainant had bought Raid and a couple bombs. The downstairs tenant provided Complainant with bombs and Raid and bleach. They wanted to bomb to�ether w•hile the witness was still cleaning downstairs before she moved in. Complainant did not want to move in any of her kid's furniture until the bombs had been set off a couple times. Respondent gave this �+�itness three bombs, they come in a three pack, and he did not say anythin� about giving any to Complainant. In front of this witness, Respondent told Complainant to �et her own bombs and take it off her rent. On her own, this witness save 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 ihe cost off the 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 w�as 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 �arage. This witness did not know how many thou�h. Allegation # 6. a. The downstairs tenant testified that on October l, 1998, Respondent 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 giving you one more chance to pay the the rent. An AOimunic.:leiimt Fyu:�l Op�wnunih' Fmplo��ar q9 -�v� Memorandum of Findin�s Case A-3408 Pa�e Ten � °I°l -��9 How am I supposed to make any repairs ifyou don't pay rent. I owe the IItS $60,000 and iYs because ofyou. Cindy you're a no eood white bitch. You're a no �ood 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 all your �uy�s fuckin� fault. You and the ni�ger bitch upstairs." The witness's friend was sittin� on my couch as he was yellin� this. She said, "So it's their fault you can't pay the IRS and their fines" He stopped, looked at her, and said, "What the fuck" and walked out and slammed the door. b. Respondent testified that he Qave 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 Complainant was a no �ood black bitch. He doesn't recall a friend of the downstairs tenant being there that said anything 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 ni�ht there, so she was there quite a bit. She was there when Respondent was there on tv.�o or three occasions. She never heard him make any racial remarks, but the downstairs tenant told her � that he ca]led Complainant, a ni�ger. She thinks she said he said the downstairs tenant was a ni��er lover, toa V Respondent's �°iolent anger fri�htened this witness and it seemed ]ike he was on dru�s or somethin�. 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 putting al] his problems on her. This N�itness 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 ar�uing abovt him not fixing up the place, ��hich he said he couldn't do because of his le�. This witness dosn't recall if he was limpin� or had a cast. But after the court ordered him, he came around trying to make repairs. This witness dosn't recall him callin� the downstair tenant or Complainant any names. But the witness doesn't remember the details of that day. The downstairs fenant told the witness about Respondent calling her a white bitch and Complainant a black bitch, but the witness doesn't recall u�itnessing that. It may have happened when they were outside or when they were inside and the witness went out to get away from them. Alle�ations # 7 & S. a. Respondent testified that around October l2 or 13 the only conversation he had with Complainant was about a showing and she said fine. He never blocked her w�ay upstairs. � b. The downstairs tenant testified that Respondent was not there when the inspector first came to the property, but when he �ot the orders he went to Complainant and said if she let the inspector in a�ain, he wou]d evict them. ?he wimess wasn't there at the time, but when she �ot home Complainant came runnin� down in tears to tell her what he had said. The witness told her he couldn't kick them out because it would be retaliation. :1n.11limia�i�'e:�clinn. I{yual Oppcmmiiiy Lmplaotr Alemorandum ofFindings Case A-3408 Pa�e Eleven qq -t9°I • c. Respondent's friend testified that he started making repairs from a list from an inspector. The witness was the one doing the repaits usually but Respondent would be ��iih him. There was not much yellin� at that time. This witness may have been there when they argued about them calling the inspector, but the witness did not pay much attention to exactly what they were arguin� abovt. The uritness doesn'Y recall Resgondent sayin�, "Yov bitches called the housing inspector on me." Allegation � 9. a. Respondent testified that in mid-0ctober he had his friend serve unIawful detainers on ComplainanT and the downsTairs tenant. Ia Housing Court around October 22, the referee said Respondent did not win his case because he could not prove he �ave them written 30 day notice at the end of September, 1995. The referee su�gested he get an attorney. Respondent is not sure ifhe Talked to Complainant about her dropping her discrimination suit at that time, but he never �rabbed her arm. b. The downstairs tenant testified That they were served with an eviction notice afrer they called the inspector a�ain in mid-October. In housin� court around October 22, Cody pulled out a green piece of note book paper and told the jud�e that this was what he wrote the written notice on at the end of September. BuT he was lyin�. RespondenT became loud and � agitated, so extra bailiffs had to be called up. As they were walking out of cout Respondent pulled Complainant by her coat to talk to her about her droppin� the discrimination lawsuit in exchanee for him fixin� up the property. The downstairs tenant pulled her away from him. A bailiff escorted him out after that and made him go down the elevator first. c. Respondent's friend testified that after the court proceedings, Complainant and Respondent were talkin� about what needed to be fixed. It was a calm conversation. Respondent did not mention anythin2 about the discrimination suit then. Respondent didn't understand what the discrimination suit was about and neither does the witness. Respondent never arabbed her by the shoulder during 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 Dou�las burden- shiftin� analysis. Feses v. Perkins Restaurants. Inc. 483 N.W. 2d 701, 710 n.4 (Minn. 1992); State bv C000er v. Henneoin Countv. 441 N.W.2d I06, I 10 n.l(same). In the instant case, there are four swom statements, one from a community organizer with no relationship to Complainant or her interests, attesting to Respondent's extremely hostile use on several different occasions of racial slurs when speaking to and about Complainant. These sworn statements constitute a preponderance of direct evidence to show that Respondent created a � raciaily hostile housing environmeni ihat was both pervasive and severe for Complainant and her family. They also are sufficient to show that the difference in treatment that Complainant received from Respondent in terms improvin� her apartment was racially motivated, as were his efforts to evict her. 1n :Utimunn'e :\amn. Ps�unl Qprymunit�� Yinptnccr 99 -'►Y9 � � • Memorandum of Findings qq -6q1 Case A-3408 Page Twelve In view of the fore�oin�, this Department concludes that there is probable cause to show that Respondent vio]ated the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance as Complainant had alle�ed. W. H. Tyr Tern Dir c r WHTT/rev � Date An:111imunivc.4Minn. Lyual (��munity ISmploy.r . • NOTES OF 'THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday,July 20,1999 Room 330 Courthouse Crerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. �� °t . �g_'14.q STAFF PRESENT: Dauid Dickhut, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fue Department; Mike Urmann, Fire Department; Joe Yannazelly, 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: Roger 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 nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: . 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1642 Charles Avenue John Lapakko, owner, appeazed and stated this appeal is about fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department has no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with the following condifions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1541 Minuehaha Avenue West Mike Urmann reported he spoke to the owner regarding this property, and informed him that the Fire Department would not be opposed to the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfortning doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforniing fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise 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, a11 the kitchen doors have been replaced with steel ones. Mr. Strathman asked is it understood that when the doors need to be replaced, they wil] have to be replaced with fire rated doors. Mr. Olson responded yes. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with fihe following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1756 Grand Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department had no objection to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfomiing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1667 Ames Avenue No one appeared representing the properry. Mike Urmann reported the Fire Department had no obj ection 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 otherwise be in compliance. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 3-16-99} Judy Tschida Martinez, owner, appeared and stated she installed an egress window in the basement. It has to be inspected. Everything has been completed except the steel window wells need to be installed. Mike Urmann reparted he has not reinspected because Ms. Martinez has not received zoning approvat nor had permits signed off for the room and board situation. Ms. Martinez stated she is not going to tum this into a rooming house; just family will be living there. • , • What aze the outstanding orders, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded the room and boazd issue and an illegal sleeping room without escape windows. • `�i� �`=l� PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETTNG NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 3 '• Gerry Stratlunan laid over this matter to the August LO Property Code Enforcement meeting for -�,1 � a �-� the windows to be inspected. a- 1'722 University Avenue R'est (Laid over from 6-15-99) David I�ies, 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 lazge, takes up half of the space, and has two doors. It does not have a compliant egress window. The other apartment is an efficiency; 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 constructed in the corridor, the fire department would accept the two existing doors leading into separate atmospheres as being compliant with the requirement for the windows. The efficiency is more difficult, stazed Mr. Owens. One window in the efficiency is glass block, which basically makes it a wall. The other window is too small and the rise on the sill is too high. Mr. Strathman asked if the window size was enlazged, is there an egress to the outside. 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 caze of the fire requirement in the lazge apartment. The rest of the discussion will be on the efficiency. Mr. Ries stated the peopie that normally rent this $200 efficiency aze 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 nea�t 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 Mr. Strathman. A person wouid haue to break the glass io get out. Mr. Owens added that at the time of the inspection, the window would not go out to a full 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 instalied that would fully open. Mr. Ries responded they would be willing to install a window that would open fully. He will attach the ladder in such a way that it cannot be removed. n LJ �� cl� , PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 4 Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the window in the efficiency aparfinent on the following conditions: 1) 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 e�ent. 689 Orleans Street (Laid over from 6-25-99) Nancy Roussopoulos, owner, appeared. Joe Yannazelly reported the number of cats has been reduced to three. The owner is working with the Humane Society. She has azranged for a loan to patch up her foundation. At this time, he recommends lifting the condemnation and rechecking the property in two months. (Code Enforcement is willing to lift the condemnation; the appeal is moot.) 299 Arlington Avenue East (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) The following appeazed: 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 available in the street, then the connection will be made. Mr. Ritter is here asking for an exception on a hazdship basis. He spoke to Tom Leclair who aclaiowledged both septic systems do not create a heaith and safety hazard. If a hazdsiup 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 aze not a threat to the ground water, 3) when the owners no longer live at these properties, the variances or exceptions will end. Tlus 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 hazdstup. Mr. Ritter responded absolutely. They both receive assistance, and both aze on fixed income. David Dickhut reported the public sewer was constructed in 1962. Under defuurion of Yhe state code, the drywell system is defined as illegal. As far as he l�ows, 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 pumged in 1996. How did this matter go on for 35 yeazs, asked Mr. Strathman. 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 drywell 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 qq � �� 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 proposed. Mr. Dickhut responded variances have been granted on those basis before. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the e�sting 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) the owner will allow the required insgection to assure the system does not pose an�mm;nent health and safety hazard as defined in the state statutes, 3) this variance will become void when the properry is sold or transfened to another parry. 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 persons living at this address, 2) the 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 or transferred to another party. • 924 Forest Street #1 Gerry Strathman stated he has been advised that the condemnation has been lifted and the case is closed.) 847 Hudson Road Phillip Owens reported Michael 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. Owens aliowed Mr. Bartelmy to use the eastern portion of the gazage for the continuation of the towing operation, i.e. pazking their wrecker there. No repairs were made to the building and no permits were pulled. The building has no heat, no plumbing, and limited electrical service. Some repairs were done without a pernut; however, Mr. Bartelmy has since obtained permits. The work is not complete and the permits have not been signed off. On 3une 21, the condemnation was extended to the eastern portion. LIEP has revoked the repair garage license through adverse action, staxed Mr. Owens. That license cannot be reapplied for up to one year. T'here aze multiple eacterior violations. There were 18 vehicles parked on the property, none of which aze propetly 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) � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 6 Michael Bartelmy, owner, appeared and stated he fuced the roof by installing beams Yo support iT. •� He added a retaining wall. The fire was in one room and took a wall with it, but it did not take the supporting wall. The building is structurally sound. He admits he has too many cazs. Mr. Strathman stated 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 lruck, car starter, air pump, etc., that he would Tike 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 problem to allow Mr. Bartelmy to keep some of his equipment there, asked Mr. 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 Strathman stated the condemnation wi12 be lifted on the eastern portion of tlie building only, and there can be cold storage of the towing vehicle in the eastern portion of the building during off hours. 853 Randolph Avenue Richard Lemke, owner, appeazed 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 I�ow 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 small, but the person that lives there is small. It is the only window in the bedroom. There is an entrance door and a fire alann next to it. There is another bedroom eight feet away with two big windows that eaiit to the porch. If there is a fire, that would be the way a person would e�t. Mike Urmann reported the window is positioned in a dormer. There may not be a way to install 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 SiratUman asked how big it is. Mr. Urmann guessed that it would be about 30" X 20". Mr. Lemke stated it is a sash window that 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 unl�own if it can be done. Could there be another use for the room, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Urmann responded that was his suggestion, It was previously used as another type of room, wluch is why it was not cited in ttie past. Mr. Strathman stated he is concemed tt�at a person could get trapped in tius room in case of a fire. He understands it is on the second floor, but the fire department could help someone out a second floor window if it is possible to get out the window. • �� b�� PROPERT'Y CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 7 • Mr. Lemke asked is there anything else he can do with it. Mr. Strathman responded he is willing L��' to grant additional time to see if something can be figured out, but he is reluctant to tallc about a, variance because the window is not large enough to be a fire egress. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the August 17 Properly 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 haue emergency lighting with battery backup. It is an e�ting siivation. There aze 47 units. Mr. Strathman asked why this requirement is being brought up now. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot find anything in the records 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 3anuary 20, 1999, to install emergency lighting. ` 2046 Wilson Avenue #7 Henrietta Birkholz, tenant, appeazed. Gerry Strathman asked why the apartment has been condemned. Mr. Birkholz responded she was toid 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 for July. (Mike Urmann presented photographs to Mr. Strathman. They were later retumed.) 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 until she gets her loan approved. The apartment just needs a good vacuumiug; it is not unsanitary. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 417 Sherbume Avenue Rahena Holtor, tenant, appeazed and stated her house was raided by the police department. Dick Lippert condemned her house and gave 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. ��1�1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 7-20-99 Page 8 (Dick Ligpert presented photographs to Gerry Strathman. They were later returned.) • Dick Lippert reported many attempts have been made to get the owner to make necessary repairs. Code Enforcement has been to the property 30 times since October and wtitten a dozen tags. Mr. Lippert became involved in this by the Nazcotics Unit of the Police Depat[ment. He told Ms. Holtor t.�at he would give her an ea�tension of two weeks because of her children. That was amenable to her 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 out' signs. Mr. Lippert called the water department and NSP, and they aze not going to turn the utilities back on until full payment is received. This house 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 apartment. Her children aze not there. The outside of the property is bad, but not life threatening. The outside is the owner's responsibility. Gerry Sirathman denied the appeal saying there is ample basis for the condemnation order. The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. r�x� • •