02-269Council Fffe # a a- aG g
Green Sheet # � UC: `-ll�
RESOLUTION
OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOT
. „`
Referred To �
Committee
Accepting Council Research's Report "Chronic Problem Properties in Saznt Paul:
Case Study Lessons."
1 WHEREAS, on December 1, 1999, the Saint Paul City Council directed Council Research to prepaze a report on
2 problem properties in Council resolution 99-1152; and
3 Wf�EREAS, Council Research, in the ensuing rime, conducted field reseazch and compiled extensive case studies for
4 32 properties over a 24-month time period; and
5 WIIEREAS, Council Research prepared a report with findings on the development, complexity and unique
6 challenges of problem properties that continue over many years; now therefore be it
7 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council accepts Council Research's Report titled "Chronic Problem Properties
8 in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons."
Requested by Department o£
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Adopted by Council: Date (� ��7 a o o a--_
--� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�
Appra
�
o a - a-�-�
Chronic Problem
Properties in Saint Paul:
Case Study Lessons
FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH R�PORT.•
oa a.ie9
� ; Saint� Paul City Coancil .
Council Research Report
March 2002
Chronic probiem properties are properties which cause major problems
for the City and its neighborhoods. They aze characterized by nuisance,
property and violent crime and numerous code enforcement violations
— such as broken windows, garbage and junk vehicles. This study _
examines the causes of chronic problem properties in Saint Paul, as
well as how they tnanifest themselves in our neighborhoods, and what
seems to work to solve or mitigate the problems they present. In order
to address these important issues, 32 case studies were deve�oped using
extensive information from City and County records and interviews
with some of the key people involved with these_properties.
:_ KEY FINDINGS ABOUT HOW CHRONIC PROBLEM PROPERTIES COME INTO BEING .
0 Ghronic problem ptopeRies can be distinguished from "regulai"
problem properties in that their prohlems remain unresolyed for How It Works:
extet�ded periods of time. This often means the original problems • Owaer-Land�ord-Manager musi Be Unwiiting or
� � � aze.complicated and �xaoerliated by additional problems. '' Unable to Effectbely Address the Problem(s) �.
�' ❑ In-all of tha case studies, tioth�the owner and the government were '- Goverament.Husc se Unwilling or Unabte �o �
�. � � unable or unwillittgta effectivel}� address tfie pioblem(s). � Ef£ectiveLy Adlress the Pro6tem(s) �•
��� � •- � Tenants, Neighbors and Neighborhoods Mav Be
D Peedis�osing,conditions foa ohronic problem propertq development , �nwilling or Unafile to Effectively Address the
iilelude: �� ' _ °� Pioblem(s) � �
- " - ■ Poverty Of H4usehaYd; ' , _ : _ - - . - • - � '(���e Are Probablv Predisposing Cbnditiot�s �
"�,� _ � - ' ■ � Old Age, PoorConstnictiori & Maintenance of Building;
�` Geographic Concentration of B7ight;. � _ �_ � . , -
` � , � � �ersanal and�Behavioral�Faotors— Violence, D'isorderly � � � � �
- ` Youth, Mental Itlness, Drugs and Aldohol Abuse�_� � � � - � � '
■ Lack of�Ie�ghborhood Colleative Efficacy & Social Capital'
�ICEYFIIVDINGSABOUT LIl�liTGWITA�THEFROBLE�YIS � � �_ � � � � �
0�Chronie problem propeities can be characterized by bottc �
� -Physic_alDisorder=brokenwindows,boazdedvacant
bm`ldings, aliandoned bm'ldings, dilapidated huildiTrgs, �
gatbage(trash/litter tall grasslweeds, jtiiik cars, `vandalism, -
-_ abandoned vehicles, dumping bars and�graffiti. ,
�. Social Disorder— prostitution, public drinking,
unpredictable,people, panhandlers, mentally dishubed,
� fiarassment/h�araiiguing, school dasruption, gang violence,
rowdy teens, sezual harassmeni on the street,:domestic " -
disputes tfiat spi1F into public spaces, pubtic iusults, -.,
vagraney, diug dealing auto theft, azguing/fghting among
neighbors, lack of traffic enforcement; robbery, loitering, _'
��gunfire, weapons curfe.v yiolations dog fighUng,truancy -
and gambling.-
O_ Chronic problem properties in Saint_Paul exhibit magy of `
these signs of h sical and social disordeY whi h h
Of-our 32 Cases Studied in 24 months: -
,• - 88%had Domestic " `. 44%had Broken
� Violence ; -� - � - �WindoivslScfeens& -
i � 66%,had Disorderly � , -�Junk Yehictes -- " .
Youth & Other ' • 41% had Tall Grass and
wolence . .- Weeds & Auto Theft� -
• - 63%.had .` ' � ' 38%had Public �-
' Garbage/Trash Build- -= - Drinking ; Ftoor . �
� � - �Up - Eacterior - . Coverings & Fights �
' S9% I�ad � ,' '"= 34°/a had Aggavated �
_ Na�corics/Drugs � _ � - Assault, �-- �
• 56% had Disturbances - , Broken/Missing Door �
& Vandalism ' Locks, Junk Fwniture ,
• 50%had Theft � • 31°!o had Eaterior Paint ,
� 47°/a had Brirgtary- -Proble�es " _ ,
_ p y c researc ers _
� indicafe lead to neighborhood and communiry declir�e. - '" � : � � � � �_
� O� We �stimate that roughiy 220-280 af the City's 79;000 properties �- _ � �
are ohroRic��SrobFem properties, � ' � � _ - � _
Chronic Problem Praperties are
properties with violatio�s which are
' srrious— founded and substantial; -
'_ repetitive- at least 3 instances of problems in
18 months; - -- -
•- enduring— aotive as a problem property for at
least 18 months; and which � .
• adverse/y aJJ`ect their neighbors and/or the
� community as a whole. �
"' KE%FINDINGSABOUT:
: , . DEACItXG WITH TIfE-RR�BLEMS
Code E�forcemgn�_Animal.Cpntrol, .
�- 't�icensing, Zoning, R:otic� Fire.an� .�
` EMS3ervices Cost E�e City for our 32
� Case SYudies cost#he Eity: _.: _ - _ -
- -' _$2 ° - . �
.. � •� - $10;0U0l,Yeaz on Aeecage - -- � - -
. "' � ''- $35,�00 / I=eaz fo� NCe-MosF "Expens'rve" � �
� . to $2.5 Miltion a Year for 220 —28Q CPPs' _. �
Of the`32 Case St�siies: ," r
r �100%shaBPuliceCallsPorService: - . �� 30%hadCitarions.withan9veragegf
, Average26GaIIsPecUni[(2yeazs1,7- '� 2 . 4 per,P�oP�'. - - -
. and� 2-Unit Aortses Averege 36 Ca11s - .`.47°loLad FORCE Buys& Survellance �
- :PerUnrt. - --� - _ _ �. _ , .�wittianaverage�of3.Ipecpcoperty , -
.� _ 75%�had Aireteinrnts, witF� an average .. - 44%� had FORCE Kn«k& Talks; with
� -of 3.Spa property .; , _ . � _ , �n-ayerageof 2.3 per prope�ty. -
�• ��69%hadCorrectionNorites�forcode� - • �: 94%IiadCofORevocarions .
`�violarions, with an average of 2."7 ��- 4�1%Lad-FORCE Arrests,with an" , �
� �P�-P�oPe�Y.. - _ - averageofF. 9 ,P�ProPeRY� - -
-�. -67°7oofthe'�asesiudieshad = _ . ,- 34
. Emergeucy Medical with an-' .- - aver"age of 1 A perpwpecty� - � -�
. averageqfl.4perproperty, � � � .�- '34%�had FORCESearch�Warrants ,
.: Si� ofthecas�studiestiadF've- -, i� 28%tiad FOKCE9earch Warrents .�
:Suppressiay witfi.an a�erage of0.7 �, . Problem Piuperties Task Foree .
_ P� ProP . ' , - - " - - - - '
KEY FINDINGS�4BOUT CiIRI1VG T�IE PRQBLEMS '
-❑ GovernmeeiY needs better met[iods for identifying atrd ' O -A-mo�e proacfive inspection policy;`possittly,including a. '
,� sharing infoFinaYion amoag ageneies abou[ theseproperEies._ � � periodic-sys[emahc_inspecrion appioach Eoe one- and fwo- ��_ �
� i. ° Infoi�ateonsystemsthatsupport€}recross-agencry _ � �itrentaC-housingeouidatso-help�govemnientmoxe_-� -
' identification of chronic problem properties _. , effecridely address chronio properties.
��- �Easy ctoss-deparknen_tat referrat atnong field skaff; so �. "��a : Fully utilize tools alceady_at_the goveinlnent's'disposa�.
�� tha[ police officers �td paramedies who;otten see � � The CitysGouid examine its�ofieies and Q�actices ceYated � �
� ,: deplorable,eond�ionscan quickly a'nd easifp`refer fliese to bfironic proBle� propertie� inclading cibtions, Citg= "
� �ropertiesto IIespection st�ff- � � � � � .� � initiated 3'enant Remedyllctions and City-mitiated "_, �_ �
1., . .. � � ' �Iufor�arion sps,teg�c tha�support tfie c�oss-agency �� _ ' � �uclawfal detainers.; " � �
��- _ �� sharing of probteins at ihe>pFOpexty atid actions taken to- -_ p_ Ttie County co¢Id examine making market vaLue � �
�= resolve them . deYerininat'ions mot�e cur�enY, the �se of nuisance propeity "
�� Q Once govemment agertcies have idenfified �ud shazed - _ Takings and commaniry prosecution, andl3ousing eaurt
4- _- - uiformation'on YheseprapecEies, �the aasformati0n:needs to 6e- � fane teuels and this coiut's capacity to deal �vith tfie many_ --�
�- - nsed to betiter "case mauage" problems"af the=property: and oomplex probiems ofthese properties.
� �Case managemenf wouldalso of�'er the opporlumtyto ." - � O� Ideas tl5af may help in the pievention of chromc problem -�
f ` Prosecuteinaway,t6aftakesmta_accouatthe�otal properdesaelateprimarityto: - '
_ atFect the'property fias on the commtuiiTy; � s ��,° Empowering and persoading property owners and :_`-
' '■, Eon�ue� "khock;& falks: with ownerand occupants="" " govern�enf fb soi�e,4ather tfianjust ` deaFewi�,'th�
- about the Gity services consumed and'the effeet the . problems facing them' and, '
� P��tt3' is havingyn ftie couimunity;=' � � '�. Redtieing anc�,mini�ezing those factors�vhictr
_' �■_. Such conversarions could he ¢roadened t6 mtroduce a�' ." predfspose a properl�y to becoming a chronic problem, �
' _ ' _ _ _ - "iestoraUYe justice" component: � � _ .' � � picluding poverty, Biigfi� building abandonafent, poor � - �
, , " bdildeng=cbnditions, yiolence and drug/alcofiol abuse.
- hfE�'HODQLQGY . - ' , � . _ �
-' 0- The reseacch process primarily involvCd developing.32 case . E�mining police and inspecfion_ records for I00 of the
studies and condue[itig a�orough liferattire review.' 275; ive found tliat fOlo, met our definition:of-ehro�ia ,
O Case studies were dev.eloped using: . problem pioperEies.
" - ■ Data and iecotd review;
_ 0.'ttiestudy list was narrowed from 6El co 32 case studies by
- ��_ Int�rviews and_site dtsits;and - elimjnating-someo�the p"roperties found in "clusters"-of -� -
- - ' ■ - Fieltl�'inrnectinnc and �Pinlira rdn_olnn..c . . . �_ . ..0.......,...�.d:to... .......a�a:a� .,...i .......e ..,6:,.A ...e..e ....,«e,1 . .
� rne case �tumes.were.selected by a proeess where:. ; by ttthe sama owner. A small number of case'studies were
�� Elected offic'rals,-district couneils a�d inspectinn stiff eliminated beeause vye �vese unab(e tq creafe a camp(ete -�
- � suggested E75sli�f'erenfproperti� farsfudy-as'chronic , _ � �case study,:as records we�e incompl_ete�or Ct was = . � �� _
problecn pioperties. - � � � - impossib[e to.incerqiew �eople ielevanE_to the prope�ty.'. �, . � � _
� �_
` FQR QUESTIONS, GOMNIENTS, OR k COPY OF THE REPORT PLFJlSE-CONTACT: -'�
- Gerry Strathman, eouncl Re"search Director '� �- _ � � Marcia Mdermond, Poticy Analysf�. '-,
;(651,) 266-8575 or gerrv:si�athmanCa�cisfpaul.inn.us (651) 266-8570 or,iiiarcia'moermond(�ci.stoaul.mn.us :
o�. � 9
City Council Research Report
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul;
Case Study Lessons
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Study Goals ...............................3
Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Nominations ......................... 5
Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Problems with the Selection Process ....... 8
Population Est.of Chronic Problem Properties 8
Creation of the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Theoretical Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Analysis ................................ 11
Causation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Case Study Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Quantitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Financial Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nuisance Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Property Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Violent Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
How the Problems Interact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
DEALING WITH TAE PROBLEMS ..... 63
Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Patrol ............................... 65
Police Patrol Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Cost of Police Paffol Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
FORCE Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
FORCE Unit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Cost of FORCE Unit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Fire Suppression & Emergency Medical Serv's 75
Fire Prevention - Certificate of Occupancy ... 77
Citizen Services Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Conection Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Abatements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Orders to Remove or Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Citations ............................ 83
Condemnations ........................ 83
Rental Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Problem Properties 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Good Neighbor Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Problem Properties Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Other City Enforcement Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Animal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Zoning................................. 88
Licensing ............................... 89
Summary ................................ 90
HOW CHRONIC PROBLEM PROPERTIES
COME INTO BEING . ....... . . . ......... . IS
Who Fails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Why Do They Fail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Deviance ............................. 16
Syxnbolic Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Structural Functionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ConflictTheory .................... 19
Unable/Unwilting ......................... 19
Ring Concept ............................23
Predisposition ............................ 25
Poverty ..............................25
Property Conditions .................... 29
Surroundings ..........................31
Vacant Buildings and Abandonment . . . . . . . . 33
Personal and Behavioral Factors . . . . . . . . . . . 33
LNING WITH THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . 36
Who's Harmed? ..........................36
Neighbors and Govemment Agencies . . . . . . . 36
Tenants and Occupants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
When Are People Actually Hazmed? . . . . . . . . . . . 41
WhaYs the Problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
What ihe Experts Think . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Broken Windows, Incivility and Disorder .... 43
Dif�ering Impact Depending on Neighborhood
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Neighborhood Cohesion & Collective Efficacy 47
What the Case Studies Tell Us About Conditions . 48
Ratings ........-� ....................48
Exterior Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
[nterior Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Crime ............................... 57
CURING THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Unable and Unwilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Actor Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Govemment .......................... 93
Improvement of Existing Tools & Approaches 93
Improvement Using New Tools & Approaches 97
Owners ................................ 103
Social and Personal Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
CONCLUSION ......................... 107
APPENDIX A: Reference of Cases Studies .... A 1
APPEND[X B: Bibliography and References ... A 3
APPENDIX C: Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . A 8
APPENDIX J: Age of Residential Structures, Pre-
and Post- 1939 Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 21
APPEND[X K: Robbery Map 2000 & 1999 ... A 22
City Council Research Report
Chronic Prob{em Properties in Saint P<
Case Study Lessc
Tables 8� Diagrams
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Diagram A. Map of Chronic Problem Property
Case Study Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 1. Building Ward Location . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Diagram B. Saint Paul Wazd Map . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Building Occupancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Diagram C. Chronic Problem Properties as a
Proportion ofAll Properties in Saint Paul ... 9
Table 3. Cost Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
HOW CHRO1vIC PROBLEM PROPERTIES
COME INTO BEING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Diagram D. Ring Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 4. Actor Failure Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 5. Market Value Averages Information .. 27
Table 6. TaY Delinquency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 7. Utility Shut-Offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 8. Chronic Problem Property Status Prior to
Study Period (1994-98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 9. Building Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 10. Registered Vacant Building Status 1994-
2000 ..............................33
LIVING WITA CHROIVIC PROBLEM
PROPERTIES ......................36
Diagram E. To Whom Is A Property A Chronic
Problem ............................36
Diagram R Multi-Unit Apartment Buildings, Calls
for Police Service for Individual Units ..... 39
Table 11. Examples of Physical and 5ocial
Incivilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Diagram G. Wilson and Kelling's (1982)
Incivilities Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.
Table 12. Interview Ratings of Ckuonic Problem
Property Housing and Safety Conditions ... 48
Table 13. Exterior Structural Problems ....... 51
Table 14. Garbage/Yazd Exterior Problems ... 51
Table 15. Interior Structural Problems ....... 53
Table 16. Interior Systems & Utilities Problems 55
Table 17. Interior Public Health Problems .... 55
Table 18. Nuisance Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 19. Property Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 20. Violent CrimelCrimes Against
Persons ............................
Table 21. Summary of Conditions, Aggregate .
Table 22. Summary of Conditions, by Property
DEALING WTTH THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . .
Table 23. Police Calls for Service Load Change,
1999, 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 24. Police Calls for Service: Dispositions
During Study Period (1999-2000) . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 25. Police Interventions (Aggregate) . . . . . .
Table 26. PropeRies Requiring Interventions
Aggregate .............................
Table 27. Citation 5ummary Table for Code
Enforcement (CE), Certificate of Occupancy
( C of O) Program and Mimal Control (AC) .. 1
Table 28. Property Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !
Table 29. Average and Median Costs . . . . . . . . . . t
Table 30. Chronic Problem PropeRies Total Costs by
Category ..............................5
CONCL[ISION ......................... IC
APPENDIX A: Chronic Problem Property Case
Study Reference List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
APPENDIX D: Calls to City, by Violation, by
Case .............................. A 1
APPENDIX E: Calls to City, Totals and Averages,
by Case ............................ A 1
APPENDLX F: Property Code Interventions, by
Case ............................... A 1
APPENDIX G: FORCE Interventions, by
Case ............................... A 1
APPENDIX H: Costs for Complaints, Calls for
Service and EMSIFire Runs, by Case ...... A 1
APPEND[X I: 2000 T� Information, by Case . A 1
APPENDIX J: Age of Residential Structures,
Pre- and Post- 1939 Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 2
APPENDIX K: Robbery Map 2000 & 1999 ... A 2
City Council Research Report Chronic Probiem Properties in Saint Paul:
Case Study Lessons
List of Case Studies
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
HOW CHRO1vIC PROBLEM PROPERTIES
COME INTO BEING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IS
The Brothers Grim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Motel Califomia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
CashCow ..............................22
Craeking Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Errant Investor I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Errant Investor II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Gangster Boyfriend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Overthe Edge ..........................34
LIVING WITH CHRO1vIC PROBLEM
PROPERTIES .......................36
T'hrough the Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Home Alone ............................40
Cu]tural Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Down`n Out ...........................44
Fear Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Weird Neighbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Old and Ugly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Empty Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Dirty Dealing ..........................58
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . 63
Double Trouble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
La Cucaracha .......................... 70
Bog House ............................ 72
Misplaced ............................. 74
Watering Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
AHigator Alley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Danger Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Bad Boys ............................. 80
CURING THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Double Gross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
DiRy Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Overwhelmed ..........:............... 98
Cazeer Criminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Nasty Four ........................... 102
FightClub ........................... 104
Case Case ............................ 106
CONCLUSION ......................... 107
APPENDIX A: Reference of Cases Studies .... A 1
nronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
INTRODUCTION
Most urban residents are very concemed about their surroundings. Not only do they want their
homes and businesses to be safe, clean and attractive — they expect their neighbors' homes and
business to be ordedy and well-maintained as well. The fact not everyone acts in acwrd with
Ihese values is a major problem for cities. Some shaze these values but fail to act on them; such
as when people want snow cleazed off sidewalks but neglect their own. A few do not share these
values at all; such as people who see no problem with storing junk cars in their backyard. The
dissonance between these widely shazed public expectations and the actual behavior of some
creates tensions that City govemment is expected to resolve.
Most cities spend a great deal of time, energy and money trying to maintain an environment that
meets community expectations. These efforts aze based on the need of elected officials to
respond to citizen expectations and on the belief that failure to maintain high standazds will lead
to disinvestment and out-migration.
Happily, for the most par[, the efforts of the City of Saint Paul to maintain community living
standards are successfuL The City's cadre of code inspectors, police officers, building
inspectors, animal control officers, fire of�icials and attorneys engage in a never-ending struggle
to ensure community standards for property maintenance and acceptable behavior aze upheld.
They conduct inspections, issue corrective orders, conduct abatements, provide advice, cite or
attest wrong-doers and prosecute offenders. These tactics work most of the time. Most property
owners comply with directives from City staff and most miscreants straighten-up (at least for a
while) when confronted by the police.
Unhappily, there aze times when CiTy intezventions do not work. Some property owners aze
unresponsive to directives from City ofl�icials, some offenders continue to violate despite
interventions by the police. At first blush, this may seem a trivial problem. One might suggest
that since most citizens comply, that ought to be good enough. Others might say we just need to
"get tough" with those who continue to offend. Unfortunately, neither of these glib answers
produce acceptable results.
The suggestion that we simply accept some level of deviance does not fully rewgnize the effect
these offenses have on the surrounding neighborhood. If the effects of violations were limited to
the property upon which the offenses occur, then it might be possible to simply tolerate them.
This is not, however, the case. The effects of non-compliance aze toxia The appearance of one
building affects the appearance of the entire neighborhood. The unsafe practices of some tenants
affects the safety of all tenants in the building. Criminal behavior in one house undermines the
safety of the entire neighborhood.
Most people are unwilling to accept even one property that is not in compliance with community
expectations. This intolerance of deviance, while understandable, creates a serious challenge for
City govemment as it is neazly impossible to achieve 100 percent compliance with any standard.
It is relatively easy to achieve 80 percent compliance with any reasonable standard. It is much
more difficult, and fu more expensive, to achieve 90 percent compliance. It is extraordinarily
difficult and extremely expensive to achieve 99 percent compliance. Since there are probably
fewer than 300 chronic problems properties among the more than 80,000 properties in Saint Paul,
we aze, in effect, seeking to move from 99.75 percent compliance to 100 percent compliance.
mD2 SaiM Paul Ciry Council Research Center
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Pau�: Case Study Les
Both theory and practice suggest that this will be difficult. Nonetheless, because of the profound
toxic effect of these propeRies on the community and the widespread intolerance for the violation
of minimum community standazds, nothing less than 100 percent compliance is acceptab(e.
The idea that we should just "get tough" with chronic offenders underestimates the resilience of
offenders and overestimates the efficacy of government. While most citizens aze socialized to
respond to govemment directives — a few, however, aze not. While, in the final analysis,
govemment has the power to coerce compliance with community standazds, there aze numerous
safeguazds that circumscribe how and when govemment power may be used against citizens.
These safeguards, such as due process of law, create unintended consequences and give violators
an opportunity to evade or avoid govemrnent sanctions. The clever, or simpty stubbom, can
resist compliance and avoid sanctions fora very long time before the full force of possible
government sanctions can be brought to beaz. Such resistance tends to either e�aust the
attention span of enforcement officials or makes eft'ective enforcement so time-consuming ar�d
expensive that the govemment, in effect, gives-up. Even when the City "hangs tough" in the face
of resistance, the processes of law can take a very long time.
So! What to do? If we can't toleraYe chronic viotations of community standards and "getting
tough" is expensive and slow, how do we deal with these vexing problems? We believe the
aaswer is that govemment must act smarter. By acting smarter we mean leaming what causes
these behaviors and addressing the causes, not just the effects. Moreover, we must be sure we
aze looking at all of the symptoms, not just those that a particular agency of government is
capable of handling. When usual interventions do not work, we need to turn our focus from
symptoms to causes. So long as dealing with symptoms works, which it usually does, it is not
necessary to try to understand and address the underlying causes. This study is intended to begin
the process of understanding why some properties have violations of community standards that
are serious, repetitive and enduring, while others have violations which aze remedied relatively
easily. We call such propeRies "chronic problem properties." We believe that once we
understand causes and all of the symptoms in the case, then we can begin to fashion strategies
and tactics to address and resolve the underlying problems. We are convinced that this approach
holds great promise. Just as understanding the causes of diseases lays the foundation for
developing cures, undersianding the causes of chronic prob[em properties will lay the foundation
for designing effective government interventions that will work.
To begin to understand chronic problem properties, we must eschew the tendency to see only
some symptoms and begin to think deeply about causes. To this end, we have conducted
extensive investigations into 32 curreni chronic problem properties. We have gathered,
organized and reviewed City files and County property records for each ofthese properties. We
have conducted in-depth interviews about each property with City staff and community
organizers. These efforts have created, we believe for the first time, an extensive cross-agency
record of everything we know, or think we know, about each of these properties. We believe that
these stories, or case studies, hold the key to understanding chronic problem properties. We
invite you to join us in a descriptive visit to each of these properties. From the richness of this
experience we believe that you, along with us, will begin to understand the compiex tapestry of
people, property and public interest that constitutes the chronic problem property world. From
this visit, we believe that together we will begin the understand the causes of these problems and
therein find the seeds for solutions.
2002 Saint Paul City Couneil Research Ce��
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �� ��� 3
STUDY GOALS
Although chronic problem properties aze an ongoing problem for most cities, few researchers
have attempted to specifically examine the underlying reasons for their existence or analyzed
what interventions aze effective in correcting them. In this study, a number of questions have
been posed to help us come to a better understanding of chronic problem properties and how to
better deal with them. Tfuoughout the study process, we have sought to confirm our wide-spread
assumptions, and come to a deeper, richer understanding based on the experience of Salnt Paul's
neighborhoods with chronic problem properties.
1'he chapter, How Chronic Problem Properties Come Into Being, poses perhaps the largest and
most difficult set of questions to answer:
❑ How are chronic problem properties created?
❑ Who causes them? and
❑ What factors make it more likely a chronic problem property will devetop?
The basic assumption underlying these questions is that not all chronic problem properties have
the same causes and that by identifying the causes of the chronic problem properties, the City
would be able to more accurately target interventions to correct the problems. However, the
more we leamed, the clearer it became that the issue of causation of chronic problem propeRies,
as with most other types of social phenomena, is too complex and multi-layered to identify one
specific cause.
The next chapter, Living with Chronic Problem Properties, examines the experience of living
with chronic problem properties; and it explores:
❑ Who is harmed by the existence of chronic problem propeRies?
❑ What kinds of code violations and crimes happen at chronic problem properties? and
❑ How is the City, or agencies of other levels of government, alerted about the conditions
atthese properties?
Dealing with the Problems, is the chapter of the study which discusses the steps govemment and
others can take to decrease the level of problems being experienced at a property. The focus is
on how we deal with the symptoms, rather than effoRS to explicitly tazget underlying causes.
❑ What enforcement methods are the most useful in resolving each type of chronic problem
property situation?
❑ Are we effectively using the tools we currently have in addressing chronic problem
propeRies?
❑ Are we effectively coordinating the activities of various agencies involved with chronic
problem properties?
❑ Do inspectors, police, social services and the courts have the tools they need to deal with
the complex issues presented by chronic problem properties, or are more or different
types of efforts needed?
Curing the Problems moves beyond [he steps taken to address individual problems at a property.
This chapter goes deeper to examine how we can take into account the cause of the problem to
make our attempts at intervention more effective. At the simplest level, we aze talking about
moving beyond sending a City crew to pick up garbage repeatedly. Here we are trying to get at
'10025aitrt Paul CRy Council Research Center
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paui: Case Study Le:
the ci�umstances of why garbage continues to be a problem at a particular property and then
using that information to solve the underlyiag problems. Key in this chapter is the examination
of the questions:
❑ Who is empowered to solve the underlying problems at a property and how can we get
them To do i2? and
❑ What tools do the individuals and organizations need to solve the problems at a chronic
problem property?
Preventing Chronic Problem Properties summarizes the leaming that has occurred in the study
and applies it to prevention. It asks:
❑ How can the key actors be persuaded to take the actions necessary to prevent the creation
of chronic problem properties?
❑ What risk factors should be tazgeted to decrease the likelihood of chronic probtems from
developing? and
❑ What additional tools should be made available to help the key actors prevent chronic
problem properties from coming into being?
RESEARCH METHODS
The research questions posed in the previous sections aze many, and each of them is complex in
its own right.
❑ How aze chronic problem properties created?
0 What do they look and fee] like?
❑ What can be done to fix them and prevent them from happening?
Cleaziy, no research method exists to unequivocally answer these questions about chronic
problem properties. What we have attempted to do, is to scratch the surface by examining the
experiences of 32 such properties in Saint Paul,' The stories Yhese case sYUdies tell, together
with basic statistics and lessons from theories of criminal justice, neighborhood planning and
urban sociology, form the foundation of the research for this study.
Sample Selection
The selection of properties that would serve as case studies of chronic probJem properties began
with an assessment of the number of these in Saint Paul, as well as the definition of "chronic
problem property." These questions—how many aze there ? and what, exactly, are they? — are
intertwined. With respect to the first question, "what are they?" Council Reseazch inirially
conduded that
Chronic problem properties are properties with serious (founded and substantial),
repelitive (ar least 3 instances ofpro6lems in IS monthsJ and enduring (active as a problem
praperty for at Zeast 18 months) problems which adversely affect their neighbors and/or the
community as a whole.
� Our original goal was to have 25 complete case studies. However, our elimination process left us with 32, and we
felt there were no objective criteria we could applv to our group to narrow the case smdy list again.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Ce�
hronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons UGZ.: c �/ 5
Unfortunately, this definiLion does not, on its face, take into account the complexity of the issues
presented by chronic problem properties by way of the character of the problems, who is
responsible for the problems, or who is affected by them. This is something we will explore
throughout ow study.
As to the second question, "how many are there?" we began with the assumption that not all the
problems experienced were reported to a single agency or authority. Some problems are reported
to the City's Code Enforcement Division, such as garbage, broken windows, or "no heat"
Similar problems found at commercial or residential buildings with 3 or more units are repoRed
to the City's Certificate of Occupancy Program. Animal-related problems are reported to Animal
Control. Finally, behaviorai and criminal problems are reported to the Poiice Department. To
date, there is no central database of City records to analyze to determine which and how many
propeRies meet the criteria presented in our definition. Additionally, the City may or may not
have been contacted about the problems being experienced at a specific property. We, therefore,
decided it was most appropriate to ask the people who worked with these properties on a daily
basis for nominations.
Nominations
Council Research solicited nominations of chronic problem propeRies by letter and follow-up
phone call to the City's Code Enforcement Division, Certificate of Occupancy Program, City
Council Ward Offices and District Councils. Through this process occurring in the summer of
2000, 275 addresses were received as suggestions for our "list." It was apparent in our
conversations with staff from these agencies and organizations that they did not always nominate
ail of their potential candidates. There were also several cases where we did not receive
nominations from district councils because of a lack of staffing. Of those nominations we did
receive, only some of the same addresses were offered by more than one of the agencies.
Altogether, 1 I percent of the nominated addresses were identified by two or more agencies or
organizations as chronic problem properties. Interestingly, multiple nominations did not occur at
a higher rate for those properties with the worst code and criminal violations.
Selection Process
For all of the 275 addresses nominated, we determined their City Council Ward, district council,
the basic type of problem(s) experienced and basic information on building use. From this list,
we selected 100 addresses. At this time, we were trying to develop a"representative" group by
maintaining geographic distribution throughout the City, as well as ensuring a variety of building
uses and problems experienced. We then looked at various City computer records to find:
❑ Number and type of Code Enforcement calls and actions;
❑ Number and type of Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O) Program calls and actions;
❑ Number and type of Animal Control calls and actions;
Q Number of Police calls for service, reasons for the calls and their outcomes;
❑ Commercial or residential use;
❑ Rentai or owner-occupied; and
❑ Number of housing units if multi-family.
"' For e�mple there were many instances where we received follow-up phone calls with additional addresses. In
other cases, staff clearly indicated that they were giving us one or two addresses on a particular block, or owned by a
particular party, but there were more which could have been suggested.
�02 Saint Paul Ciry Council Resrarch Center
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study t
Using these records we were able to determine if the propeRy superficially met our definition as
a chronic problem property, based on the whether the problems experienced were repetitive (at
least 3 instances of problems) and endurfng (active over I8 months). Among those eliminated in
this step were two types ofproblem properties worth mentioning:
1) those with some animal-related issues, such as too many animals, or the build-up of
animal waste inside or in the yazd of the property—these properties tended not to be
"active" on City files for the requisite 18 months; and
2) neighborhood (repair) garages which move old, broken-down cars azound, thus
evading City parking restrictions, but giving the effect of disorder in these
neighborhoods. These properties tended to have just this as a problem and the City
licensing process for such facilities gave the City additional leverage to solve the
problem sooner.
This comparison process of looking at the properties and our definition helped us eliminate 40
properties, leaving us with 60 properties on our list. For the list of 60 remaining properties, we
put together complete files with "every piece of information we could get our hands on" in
County, court, and City records. For this list of 60, we then determined if the problems were
serious, meaning the problems were significant and serious to the City, and to the neighborhood.
Using this criteria we eleminated those properties which had:
Diagram A. Map of Chronic Probiem Property Case Study Locations
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Researoh L
Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
`�°�- "�'e 1 7
❑ A"single major" problem(s) which was slow in resolving (major rehabilitation projects
sometimes fall in this category);
❑ Repetitive, but relatively minor violations (doesn't mow the lawn, few and infrequent
police service calls for low level offenses); and
❑ A tight geographic cluster with other chronic problem properties and may have been
experiencing similar problems.
- We tded to focus on those properties which had complex or worsening problems, and were
therefore the most likely to continue to cause the City and the neighborhood serious headaches
over a longer period of time. This elimination process left us with 38 properties. The last 6
properties were eliminated because we were not able to sufficiently document repoRed problems,
°u��=� �=�� °- interview relevant staff, or otherwise complete case study files for analysis.
,��
The 32 completed case studies aze, in our judgement, reflective of the population of chronic
problem properties nominated. They aze located throughout the City in six of the City's seven
wazds, as shown in Table 1. The case studies tend to be more concentrated in the older
neighborhoods of the City, as is shown in the map on page six. These case studies are made up of
14 owner-occupied properties, 14 rental properties, and four businesses. This breakdown is
shown in greater detail in Table 2.
Table 1. Building Ward LocaHon.
Properties 3Z
in Group
Wazd 1 6 (78.8%)
Wazd 2
Wazd 4
Wazd 5
Wazd 6
Wazd 7
4 (72.5%)
5 (15.6%)
a (rz.si�
5 (15.6%)
8 (25.0%)
Problems with the Selection Process
There aze two basic problems we noticed in our selection process. The first problem was that we
assumed the number of calls for service to the Police Department or inspectors would show the
severity and complexity of problems at a particulaz property. They did not necessarily do this.
The only measure we observed that could be used as a proxy for severity and/or complexity of
problems is "action" police calls.' However, it was appazent in our review of the data that there
was a wide variation in the proportion of founded calls. We believe there are three likely
scenarios to account for this: 1) excessive complaints by over-sensitive neighbors; 2) a"normal"
rate of calling given the situations the proper[y is experiencing; and 3) under-reporting, where
3 We defined "action" police calls as those calls for service to the Police Department which required a police
officer to take action. These aze recorded in Police Department records as "advised," "report written" and "detox" See Table
24 on page 68 for further details.
Ciry Coundl Rrs¢arch CeMer
Diagram B. Saint Paul Ward Map
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study �
only the most serious situations eticit a call for service from an occupant of, or neighbor to, the
property experiencing problems. This dynamic is discussed more thoroughly in the chapter,
Living with Chronic Problem Properties beginning on page 36.
Table 2. Building Occup:
Properties in Group (N=)
Owner Occupied
Owner Occupied Rental
Rental
Gease (Commerciai)
Owner Opera[ed (Commercial)
Total
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit
11
34.4%
3
9.4%
14
43.8%
1
3.1%
3
9.4%
11
52.9% N/A
3
I5.8%
5
26.3%
N/A
N/A
0.0. %
9
100%
N/A
N/A
Commercial
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
25.0%
3
75.0%
The second problem we observed in our selection process was that some types of chronic
problem properties consistently did not "qualify" as such using our definition. As mentioned
earlier, cuts were made which had the effect of substantially decreasing the number of properties
which were: animai-related; repair garages; and in clusters of chronic problem properties or
owned by the same owner.°
Population Estimate of Chronic Problem Properries
It is difficult to determine how many chronic problem properties there aze in Saint Paul.
However, throughout the research process, we have been able to devefop an informed opinion
about this question. As to number of chronic problem properties, we believe at any given time,
there aze at least 225-275 in Saint Paul. We deduced this in the following manner:
❑ 50-60 perceni of those we exarained (100 of the 275 nominated) met our definition;
therefore, 138 - 165 o£the nominated addresses likely met our definition;
❑ Not al] disTrict councils had sufficient staffand were able to respond to our request;
therefote, we likely had an "incomplete" list, so we add 20 - 30 > giving us 158 - 195
❑ There are chronic problem propeRies that were not nominated because they aze located
in a"cluster" of these types of properties, and aze not looked at as individual
properties, but parts of a"bad area;° therefore, we need to add 15 percent to the total
of those nominated = giving us 192-247;
4 We chose ] or 2 representative properties for an azea or owner—although we selected cases from these "ctusters,°
we may still be underrepresenling the "ctuster effect."
5 There were several incidences where City or district council staf}'indicated, "you could pick any one (property) on
that biock (or between these streets, or in this complex of buildings), bu[ I'll just give you this (or these) addresses."
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Le
32 � 19
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
❑ There aze chronic problem properties that are not identified as such by City and district
council staff because they do not receive complaints on them, usually because of
apathy or farigue on the part of neighbars and occupants; therefore, add another 15
percent � giving us 220-284.
Diagram C. Chronic Problem Properties as Proportion of All Properties in Saint Paul
� p. AII Buildings in Saint Paul
AQprox. 79,000
C. Problems Resolvetl In'I Year
ppprox.'16,000
in 2 Years
E. Chronic Problem Properties ftom Counctt Reseamh Investigetion
Approx. 250
g, g�i�tlings Active
in City Gomputer
2 Years
Approx. 24,000
Area A. This area represents the 79,000 properties in the City of Saint Paul based on Ramsey
County ta�c data.
9
Area B. This azea represents the 24,000 properties the Pioneer Press defined as "acrive" based on
an analysis of 5%z years of City Code Enforcement computer records. Being "active," and
therefore, according to their analysis a problem property, was determined using 2 dates, the first
and the last the City interacted with the properry. If those dates were more than 2 years apart, the
Pioneer Press determined it was a problem property.
Of these, approximately 16,000 properties had their problems resolved in 1 year (Area C), and
18,000 (an addiriona12,000) within 2 years (Area D). The balance of properties (the gray area
within Area B), approximately 6,000, were presumed to be chronic problem properties.
Area E represents the chronic problem properties Council Reseazch esrimates exist in Saint Paul
at any given rime, approximately 250.
Because of the inadequacies of the City's information system, the newspaper's analysis did not
include any informarion as to whether the complaint(s) the City received were founded, whether
a code was violated, or the severity of the Code violation alleged. Therefore, it seems very likely
that 24,000 is an over-representarion of the problem properties in Saint Paul. [Article from the
Pioneer Press series on Problem Properties"St. Paul Inspecrion Data Proves Hard to Track." 5
December 1999.]
2002 SaiM Paui CKy Council Research Center
�o
Chronic Problem Propertiesin Saint Paul: Case Study
Creation of the Cases Studies
The thir[y-two case studies were developed using information from a variety of sources for a 24-
month study period. First, we examined computerized records and files from tbe City's Code
Enforcement Division, Citizen Services Office, Certificate of Occupancy Program, the Police
DepartmenYs FORCE Unit, the City Attomey's Office, Police Department, Fire Department,
Animal Control, Department of Planning and Economic Development, and Office of License,
[nspections and Environmental Protection. We also gathered informaYion from Ramsey County
Department of Property Records and Revenue, IR[S (Integated Reality Information System), the
Polk Directory, and the U.S. Census. Second, we conducted structured interviews with all of the
City and district councii staff who worked with owners and occupants of the chronic probtem
properties, as weli as the neighbors affected by it. Notably, we have had the opportunity to
accompany various inspecYors and enforcement agents "in tha field" on numerous occasions.
During this research process, we aze aiso able to accompany the FORCE unit in the execution of
search warrants.
Based on our interviews and field experience, we developed the narrative component of the case
studies and conducted follow-up interviews to clarify irregularities in our findings.
UnfortunaTely, not a!1 inconsistencies have been, or can be, rectified. In other cases, we have not
been able to verify information we suspect may be true based on other facts we reviewed.
Finally, we pointedty asked our interview subjects why the property in question became a chronic
problem property. These statements were often insightful, but, were subjective reviews of the
situations. In essence, we were trying to look at the proverbial elephant, where each interviewee
saw only a paR of the animal.
Because of these concerns, we have chosen to use rode names, in addition to not using
property photos, to protect the identity of owners, occupants nnd neighbo�s.
It is our contention, the telling of these stories is just as important as relaying facts and figures
surrounding their situations as chronic problem properties — and only in putting these putting
These together is one able to get a comprehensive view of the situation.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Throughout the research process, we encountered the need to interpret our findings using some
sort of a theoretical framework. We, therefore, sought out joumals arid other academic work thac
could give insight into the creation of chronic problem properties, as well as suggest possible
courses of action for their etimination. We looked at planning housing, sociology and criminal
justice and specifically examined theoretical work in the following areas:
❑ Broken Windows Theory;
❑ Incivilities Thesis;
❑ Neighborhood Cohesion;
❑ Social Capital;
❑ Collective ef�icacy;
❑ Neighborhood planning; and
❑ Deviance Theory.
6 FORCE is the acronym for the Focusing Our Resources on Community Empowerment program.
2002 Saint paul City Council Research G
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Gase Stutly Lessons :�OC, vC1Q'1 i 7
Information and references from our review of these theories appears throughout our work. A
resource list of materials may also be found in Appendix B.
ANALYSIS
Our original goal was to analyze information from case studies which speak to:
❑ The causes of chronic problem property status— which includes the statistical and
anecdotal information;
❑ The likelihood of specific problems oceumng individually or in combination with each
other—which will assist enforcement and social service agencies in assessing the
probability of specific problems occurring; and
❑ The likelihood for specific enforcement strategies to be successful given the problem
or mix of problems at the property—which will assist policy maker, enforcement and
social service agencies in assessing the probability of specific problems occurring.
In order to do this, we conducted three types of analyses, in addition to reviewing our data in ihe
context of the theories discussed in the previous section. These areas included a causation
analysis, the development of case study narratives and a quantitative analysis of data from our
case studies.
Causation Analysis
The first of our analyses, we titled the "causation analysis." Here, we literally tried to determine
the primary, secondary and contributing causes to the case's chronic problem property status.
This was done by reseazchers reviewing all facts in the files, and then consulting to develop an
informed opinion as to cause. As mentioned eazlier, we had asked our interviewees to
hypothesize why a particular property has become a chronic problem. Examples of the types of
reasons we heazd include:
❑ Landlord exploitation of tenants ;
❑ Criminality of tenants;
❑ Property owner recalcitrance towazds City orders;
❑ Financial distress of owner or landlord;
❑ AlcohoUchemical dependency of owner or landlord; and
❑ Disability of owner or landlord.
Our conclusions tended to be based heavily on the impressions of those we interviewed, and
tended to look like this:
❑ Primary cause: alcoholic owner occupant, secondary cause: uncontrolled children,
contributing cause: financial distress; or
❑ Primary cause: exploitive landlord, secondary cause: drug use of tenant, contributing
cause: criminal companion of tenant; or
❑ Primary cause: incompetent landlord, secondary cause: domestic violence of tenants,
contributing cause: financial distress of landlord.
1002 SaiM Paul City Cpuncil Research Center
12
Chronic Probfem Properties in Saiot Paul: Case Stud
Of course, there were significant problems with this analysis. First, there are the biases of
researchers and the interview subjects. Second, the determinations were subjective: there was no
definitive way to sort out, among the many problems we found present in our cases, which
actualiy causes the chronic problem property status. Whose to say it was alcoholism or financial
distress that tipped the balance? And when can an outsider, in our case— reseazchers, validly
"diagnose" alcoholism or financial distress? A few drinks to some would be alcoholism to
others, and we were in no position to judge. Financial distress may have bean brought on by
frivolous spending, and some may believe there were adequate resources, were it not for foolish
spending. Th9rd, it was nearty impossible to separate the cause and effect of these different
problems, and the stories surrounding each situation were fluid. Four[h, it became very clear that
many of the problems which lead to chronic problem property status exist in many households
and businesses—that are noT chronic problem properties. This last finding helped lead to the
development of section of this report dealing wiih predisposing faccors to chronic problem
property status. Because of the problems encountered with this analytical approach, we did not
use this analysis in developing specific findings relating to cause.
Case Study Narratives
Throughout the research process, it became apparent to us that some of our greatest learning was
coming from the stories associated with each of our case studies. This seemed to hold true
whether we were talking about how a neighborhood experienced an incident of child neglect, or
how a bar failed to make timely payments to the City to maintain the appropriate licenses. We,
therefore, decided to split our analysis of the cases to include both a narrative, story-telling
approach, as well as a quantitative approach. In developing this narrative approach, we had to
make detettninations about which way to tel] a particulaz siory when we had conflicting versions,
but by and large, the information we gathered from different sources came together in a
consistent and coherent fashion. This approach also gave us the opportunity to discuss in more
depth the perceptions of those involved, not only about the property, bat also the dynamics of the
households and neighborhoods. One example of this is the case of racism and culturat bias,
where we do not have "quantitative indicators," but only people's impressions of what is going
on in a particulaz azea. The use of case study narratives throughout this report has helped to
clarify and give life to some of the issues addressed. It also gives us a coherent structure for
organizing the vast amount of information we gathered.
Quantitative Analysis
The third type of anatysis used in the development of this study is a quantitative analysis ofthe
data gathered in the case studies. Although we are unable to draw defnitive conclusions because
our sample of case studies was not randomly drawn,' we can use the informaYion to form credible
hypotheses about what the likely dynamics are. For the 32 case studies, a broad array of
information was gathered. The actual data items include items related to the following areas:
❑ Property ownership and tenancy;
❑ Property valuations;
❑ City enforcement and housing loan services;
❑ City Code Enforcement and License actions;
� Recall that the concept of chronic problem properties is lazgely a self-defined and, therefore a subjective
phenomenon, so it is impossible [o know the "true" population from which a statfstically valid sample can be drawn, and that
estimates have been used. Although we tried very hard to use cases we believed to be representative of those nominated,
there is no definitive way ro confirm this.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Resnard�
Cbronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons _ t'� 13
0 Police Patrol data;
❑ Police FORCE Unit activity;
❑ Call levels to various City agencies; and
❑ Property and crime conditions.
It should be noted that although we were able to document conditions, call ]evels and
enforcement actions, the City information systems available did not allow for analysis of these
pieces of information in a"chronologicaP' fashion. We were, therefore, unable to make definite
"cause and effecf' determinations about given conditions leading to particular call levels and
enforcement actions. What we can, and do, discuss is the propensity of each of these pieces of
information to be associated with one another. It is our belief that an analysis of the quantitative
information and the narrative stories of each of our case studies, taken together, will provide a
comprehensive picture of chronic problem properties in Saint Paul and very likely in other urban
environments, as well.
Financial Calculations
Irt the course of conducting the quantitative analysis for this study, it became obvious that almost
all of the interactions the City had with our chronic problem properties had costs attached to
them. The City, as a govemment entity, collects tases to provide to the community-at-large the
services discussed in this report. There is little debate that provision of police, building and
health inspection, fire suppression and emergency medicai services ensures the health, safety and
welfaze of all of the residents of the City. However, the high level of services required at the
chronic problem properties we studied— and the expenses associated with those services—
deserve special attention.
Therefore, we set about to establish two dollar figures associated with each of our case studies.
The first figure we established the municipal portion of the property taxes owed for 2000 using
Ramsey County property tas information systems. The second figure we calculated was the
casts associated with ihe City services providad to each property. In order to establish costs, we
multiplied the number of visits City staff made to a property by the average wst by visit. Table
3 provides a summary of our estimates and the basis for those calculations. In the case of some
of the services of the FORCE Unit, very conservative estimates were used with respect to staff
involvemant. It is also expected that these numbers would differ widely by property and
situation.
It is important to consider that property taxes make up about one-third of the City's general fund
budget. The batance of the City budget is financed with money the City receives from the State
of Minnesota and severa] other sources. Throughout the study we present information on the
City property taxes owed by each of our case studies, and compare this to the expense of the
services provided. When looking at these figures, it is impoRant to kaep in mind the City's other
revenue sources finance two-thirds of the wsts for the services we describe. In essence, for every
$300 worth of police services provided, $100 is covered by property tases and $300 from other
sources.
In addition to these quantifiab[e costs, there are also a number of "indirect" or other costs. For
example, when a Code Enforcement citation is written, there is not only additiona[ time invested
on the part of the inspector (not captured as a part of the visit), but also on the par[ of the City
Attomey's Office which is prosecuting the citation. The same may also be said of Police for
amests, citations, and search warrants. Another type of staff cost involves City employees who
work on these chronic problem properties, but whose time is not logged in our dispatch or
� �'^� P'+�� City Councii Research C¢nYer
�i ��
�ii i
I
,�I�i
� � I�
I' I�
I II ;!�l
I '�I�
' I'
�.,I
14
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul; Case Stud
comp(aint management information systems. These people include staff in the Council and
Mayor's O�ces who handle constituent concems about these properties. Time spent in meetingS
and at the desk trying to work on these problems is not captured by these information systems.
Neither is the time spent proactively monitoring chronic problem properties, as is the case with
staff for the City's registered vacant building program. Finally, we did not attempt to quantify
costs associated with the negative effect these properties have on their neighborhoods, such as
potentially decreased property values.
Table 3. Cost Calculallons
Dept./Divesion Cost Estimate Basis for Calcula6ons
Code Enforcement,
Zoniag, Licensing,
Mimal Contml and
Ceaificate of Occupancy
Complaints
Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) and
Fire Services
Police Call for Service
FOACE Unit Knock & Talk
FORCE Unit
Buy/Surveillance
FOACE Unit Arrest
$150 per Complai�t Average of 1 ini[ial visit and 1 fo(low-up. $75/visit
calculation made by Ciry Council fiscal staff for Code
� Ertforcement Excess Consumption ordinance
amendments. 2 visiis at $75hisit is $I50. "I'his is the
base number used for several types of City complaints
in this study, as they require similar staf6ng leve[s.
$�{S7 per Run
$130 per Call
$130 per Visit
$325 per Buy /
Surveillance
$520 per Arrest
Using 2000 b�dget £gures and all Fire and EMS ruris
made by the department, the unreimbursed cost to the
City is $457 / run on average.
City Counci] fiscal staff analysis of cost from 2000 for
the Excess Consumption of Police Services Ordinance.
Es[imate same staff involvement as responding to cal1.
Estimate 2,5 X staff invo(vement as responding to call
(2.5 x$130). (Yery likely a substantial underestimate,)
Estimate 5 X staff involvement as responding to call
(5 x $130).
FORCE Unit Wazrant $1,300 per Warrant Estimate 10 X stafl involvement as responding to call
Execution 10 x $130 .
( ) (1'ery Iikely a substantial underestimate.)
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Co�ncil Research
Chronic Problem Properties
HOW CHRONIC PROBLEM
PROPERTIES COME INTO BEING
Chronic problem properties aze characterized by ongoing and enduring social and physical
problems, otherwise referred to as incivilities, disorder, or nuisance crime and conditions. Why
these problems persist while others cease upon intervention is puzzling. In order to better
understand this phenomenon we looked at who was involved in perpetuating or fixing the
chronic problems at our properties. For the purpose of this study, we refer to them as actors.
WHO FAILS?
The four actors we identified with chronic problem properties. The first is the owner who has the
legal right to the property in question. Owners can be individuals who live at the property,
otheswise referred to as owner occupants. However, 56 percent of our case studies have non-
resident owners, landlords or property managers who act on their behal£ We observed that
owners are ultimately responsible for the physica] upkeep of the property and are, therefore, the
main point of contact and inquiry when a property is in disrepair. Owners play an important role
in fixing and preventing chronic problems by ensuring that properties are up to code and criminal
activity does not occur.
The occupant is the actor who dwells or resides within the property in question. They could be
owner-occupants or tenants. Occupants aze important in this discussion because they alone aze
likely to alert government agencies to interior property code violations in renta] properties.
Occupants were also the primary source for crime and behavior problems found at the property.
Not surprisingly, it is more difficult to ameliorate socia] problems or incivilities, such as drug
dealing, when it is condoned or perpetuated by the owner, as tenants can be evicted.
The neighborhood is the third actor group we aze considering and we consider it the distiact azea,
residents or organizations surrounding the property in question. It is made up of individuals in
the vicinity of the property and the organizations that work within, or represent, that particular
azea. It may not appear neighborhoods have a direct impact on chronic problem properties, but
they do in a number of ways. We see this in the role neighbors and neighborhood organizations
play in providing both a sense of community and in perpetuating community standazds of
behavior— social cohesion and community efficacy. (Social cohesion and community efficacy
aze discussed in Living with Chronic Problem Properties on page 47.) How well these
neighborhood systems aze functioning will determine whether the neighborhood can prevent the
creation of chronic problem properties and mitigate their problems. If these systems aze not
functioning, neighborhoods can actually work to perpetuate or facilitate the creation of chronic
problem properties. For example, if junk cazs in a neighborhood aze commonplace or loud music
is the norm, the neighborhood incorporates the problems of the property into the fabric of the
community. Govemment depends on the neighbors or neighborhood organizations to call the
police or notify Code Enforcement of social and/or physical incivilities in their neighborhood.
Govemment is the final actor which plays a major role when thinking about chronic problem
properties. For the purpose of this study, the term govemment primarily refers to the City of
Saint Paul, Ramsey County and the court system. Govemment is the entity that regulates,
enforces codes and laws and provides services relating to residents' public health and safety. It
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Couneil Research Center
76
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
sets the minimum staridard for property maintenance and behavior through the legislative
process. These standards are enforced by inspectors and the police. In Saint Paul, the Code
Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing propeRy maintenance standards at all one- and
two-famity units. This division also enforces exterior code standards for all Saint Paul
properties. Buildings wiih three or more units are inspected at least every two years through the
City's Certificates of Occupancy Program in the Fire Department. Govemment also establishes
programs to assist residents, including problem property owners. It also uses many tools to
clean, abate, try to eliminate and prevent problem properties. These steps often ameliorate any
code-related probtems that arise. Although, if an owner or occupant is unwilling to maintain
these corrections, it often becomes a chronic problem property. Another CiTy service that is
highly used to correct chronic problem propeRies is the Saint Paul Police Department.
Phenomenally, one hundred percent of our case properties had police visits during the study
period resulting from calls for service. Although the City of Saint Paul is not dvectly
responsib[e for social service activities within the City, we do know that social services are an
imponariT complement to police initiatives.
WHY DO THEY FAIL?
Chronic problem properties are multi-causa! and complex. Each chronic problem property is
idiosyncratic in nature and has individual and environmenta] forces that perpetuate its probtems.
Through analyzing our case studies, we found there is not one cause or formula we can apply to
determine what creates problem properties, or even more so, why they perpetuate.
After studying the cases and the actors, we noticed a pattern of deviance from mainstream
society. Typically, problem properties are abated effectively upon intervention. However, some
problem properties persist undeterred by fines, conection orders, police interventions or drug
raids. In order to better understand this phenomenon, we chose to look at several sociological
frameworks to clarify how deviance manifests itself and how it works in the creation of chronic
problem properties.
Deviance
Deviance is defined as behavior that dif�'ers from accepted social or moral standards. The
fol(owing three sociological paradigms explain pattems of behavior that may be considered
deviant by mainstream society, whicE� aze in conflict with established norms and laws. These
pattems of behavior have been a prevalent throughout our case studies. We will look to identify
why these pattems exist and even more importantly, why they persist.
Symbolic Interaction
Symbolic Interaction is a theory that attempts to explain the development of one's identity
through one's interaction with others and how one acts in response to others. According to the
theory, one develops a sense of self based on the idea that "[ am what I think you think [ am." If
an individual interprets that "others" perceive him or her as deviant, he or she may continue to
paRicipate in this self-fulling prophecy. Symbolic Interaction theory suggests the important
piece is how the actor interprets his/her role based on how he/she perceives and models other
people's beliefs about this role. How do the "others" in this case influence and perpetuate the
deviance at chronic problem properties? How do they encourage the persistence of social and
physical incivilities?
Z�02 Saint Paul City Council Researoh'
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons oa a�� ,�
The idea of "other" encompasses the influences an individua] uses to identify themselves in
relation to the world azound them. "Other" can be defined in two ways; first is known as the
"Significant Other". This includes people who are close to you, such as family, friends or
colleagues. The individual holds in high esteem what they think the "significant other" thinks
about them. Therefore, the individual tries to act in a way that is consistent with how he or she
perceives how the significant other thinks about his or her role. Whereas, the second other is
refened to as the "Generalized Other," and it includes the rest of society. For example,
individuals interpret how society views them to be or act through stereotypes in the media. Or, if
they grew up in a neighborhood where their family was treated in a certain way by the neighbors,
they may continue that pattem. Individuals may try to "be" what they think others expect them
to be or they may refuse to conform to values or perceived values of the society. Symbolic
Interaction helps to explain some of the dynamics in Watering Hole and Fight Club, where
customer perception and expectation become reality for the owners.
Expanding on this basic theory, some symbolic interactionists would explain that an individual
has difficulty maintaining their property because of their affiliation with a particular group,
whether it is ethnically or economically based. This aspect of the theory incorporates the concept
of the "pluralized" other. The theory of the "pluralized" other states that one's affiliation or
identification with a particulaz group of people — whether it be a racial, ethnic or economic
group — may greatly influence a person's perception of how society views them. For these
theorists, the "pluralized" other is just as important as the "significanY' other in shaping the
individual's view of the world.
A low-income person, for instance, may perceive the rest of society believes that low-income
neighborhoods aze not tidy. This may be confirmed by everyday experience as the residents
drives through his or her neighborhood and sees that, indeed, the neighborhood is disorderly. In
that residents mind being a low-income becomes associated with not maintaining a high level of
maintenance on one's home. Moreover, the low income resident may also perceive that others in
the low income group may think that maintaining a home at high standards is a sign of uppity or
show-off behavior that is inconsistent with the norms of the group. If the resident strongly desires
to continue his or her identification with this group, he or she will conform to this interpretation
of the goups norms and values. For these reasons, he or she may be less likely to address issues
on their property which others in society may think aze important. The important point here is
that it is not that person's character which explains their inability to maintain their property.
Rather it is their identification with a particulaz group or class of people that reinforces their
perceptions of the world and shapes their decisions regazding property maintenance.
Structural Functionalism
The theory of Structural Functionalism hol'ds that a society functions best when individuals share the
same norms and values because it promotes solidarity. The theory also maintains, however, that
because a society has estabiished norms and values, that society will also have deviance because the
rules of the society will not be agreed to or shazed by everyone. In other words, while it is beneficial
for society to reduce deviance, a society will never be abie to truly and completely eliminate ic.
' Although family is not outright mentioned or referted to in this study, it could by hypothesized that family might
play a role in haiting or prevencing chronic problem properties. One way is ttirough socialization. If a family raises a child in
an emironment that adheres to social norms and standards regazding conditions of property, the child will emulate this
behavior with iheir home. However, if the family does not follow these nonns, then ihe children are more likely not to
participate acwrdingly. 1'he second way family might be considered influential is through peer pressure or observance. If a
famity member notices the dectine of a propeay, mosi likely they wiit irttervene, either monetarily to ease the cost of
maintenance, or to address oiher incivitities,
mD3 Sain[ Paut City Cpuncil Research Cenier
18
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Stu,
Case Study: The Brothers Grim
_ �__��__
"The Brothers Grim° is a cute house in an attractive area
of the City. The home has no mortgage and was the
recipient of a forgivable rehabilitation loan for $7,092 in
1991. Until 1997 this was the home of a older woman,
who was thought to be an eccentric character by her
neighbors, and her rivo adul[ sons. The mother died in
1997 and the has spiraled down ever since. The
ownership was somewhat ancertain during the smdy
period as the mother's estate was in probate; however,
the sons continued to occupy the home. They did not,
however, bother to pay [he property taaces which had
been delinquent since 1998 for $9,517. In the summer of
2001, the property was taken by the County as a taz
forfeiture. While we aze focusing on the yeazs of 1999
and 2000, probletns invoiving dog fighting and drugs
extend back further. In recent yeazs, the property seems
to experience waves of problem activities for three to six
months at a time, with brief one to three month lulls in
between.
This house has experienced both interior and exterior
code violations. The most speculaz interior violation
involved a brokett sewer line in the basement. The
brothers attempted to continue to live in the home despite
this situation until complaints from neighbors about rats
and odor brought Ciry inspectors to the scene. As a
result, in July of 1999, the City condemned the building
for one month for being unfit for human habitation.
Interestingly, the `Brothers" approached the District
Council for financial help with the sewer problem, but
were unsuccessful with that effort. They did,
nonetheless, get the sewer repaired and resumed
occupancy. Other, less serious, code violations resulted
in summary abatements and citations for tall weeds and
grass, garbage and broken stairs. A warrant is stiII
outstanding for failure to appeaz in court in response to a
tag issued for the broken sewer line.
The "Brothers" aze widely considered to be heavy drug
users involved in a vaziety of criminal behavior. The
police responded to this address 46 times during the
study period. Besides drug issues, they responded to
calls involving fighting, domestic assault, disorderly
boys, auto theft and burglary. These catls and subsequent
investigation led to at least one FORCE raid on the
properiy. Convictions for drug possession and operating
a disorderiy house resulted from this. The domestic
assault chazges were leveled following a violent fight
between one brother and the other brothePs girlfriend,
where she was attacked with a chair and a lmife.
Neighbors reported a variety of instances where domestic
situations have spilled out of the house and onto the
street. People, including minors, come and go at all
hours. There have also been azrests for selling nazcotics
and child endangermen4 The child endangerment
resulted from a resident girlfnend leaving her child
unattended Criminal activiry wenf lazgely unabated
through the summer of 2001, as is reflected in 38 percent
increase in calls for police service over the previous year.
Despite the fact neighbors organized to deal with this
problem tivough the FORCE unit and other police units,
it has been to little avail as the problems continue to re-
emerge. The brothers calm down their activides for a
rime, perhaps because they aze in jail, or because they are
genuinely hying to clean up the�r act. However, they
seem to be so imme�ed in [he drug culture that their
criminal behavior begins again, and the property
continues to deteriorate. Many of the staff involved with
this property believe the brothers ue probab7y [oo far
gone for any effective intervenrion and may actually have
become unable to maintain this proper[y. They are,
howevey a neighboPS nighhnaze. The violen[ and drug-
related crime, together with the lack of maintenance, led
to the physical decline of this otherwise nice home in a
nice neighborhood. Cleazly, the govemment either lacks
[he tools Yo deal with sach a d�fficutt probtem or is
simply unwilling to do what it would take to resolve this
problem.
In the end, the govemment taken control of this property
for non-paycnent of taYes. Given that the house was
owned outright, it seems particulazly surprising that the
brothers lacked the where-with-all to refmance the
property to pay the back taces. According to the last
reports we received, one brother periodically tries to get
back into his lifelong home for someplace to stay,
although it was boazded and sewre. The other brother's
where-about were un}aown. Neighbors hopes aze pinned
on someone who will eventually take over and hopefully
clean up the property. As a boarded vacant house, it
continues to stand as a reminder of past h
2002 Saint Paui City Council Rese
Chronic Probl¢m Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
c� a�
Struct�ual functionalists attribute deviance to a lack of assimilarion by some into the rest of
society, thus producing a sub-culture that is different, or in conflict with, "mainstream society.'
�n turn, this subculture creates an environment that supports and reinforces certain norms and
values that may be considered deviant. The dominant culture, or mainstream society, does not
have rewards or sancrions that overcome the rewards and sarisfacrion of remaining in the
comfort and stability of the sub-culture they grew up in. Thus, these individuals do not
participate in the same opportunity structures as those who follow established mainstream
norms. By not participating, they may be excluded from having the same educarional
opportunities, subsequently leading to disadvantages and possible discriminarion in the
workplace or in competing for traditional jobs. Therefore, structural funcrionalists believe that it
most desirable to get those in this particular sub-culture to assimilate into mainstream society.
In the context of chronic problem properties, a particular subculture may socialize an individual to
adhere to norms and values that may be considered deviant to the dominant culture. For instance,
Storing cars on your property. Some may think this is acceptable to do in order to use the parts in
other automobiles, thus saving them money. However, it may be against the law according to the
dominant culture. In this example, the dominant society may not have the resources to overcome
the benefit from storing your own car parts in your yard, so some would naturally conrinue to do
it. In iYfasPlaced, the owner and proprietor was aptly described in an interview as being
°°misplaced in time and location," alluding to his lack of connecrion with prevailing community
standards on how the auto towing and repair business should, and should not, be run.
Conflict Theory
This theory is based in Ma�ist thought and finds the source of deviance in social and economic
inequaliries. Conflict theorists believe deviance is created by unequal access to wealth. These
theorists view that society is conrinual conflict to access wealth. It is the source of stratification
in society. Deviance comes from those who do not have wealth and try to access it through
alternate means, which are often in conflict with the wealthy. Those in power often the wealthy,
create the rules to protect their interests. Therefore, those who differ or do not agree with these
rules are considered deviant. Defming those in the lower classes as deviant is a way to exercise
power over them and maintain control.
This theory also identifies how this view manifests class distinctions. Those who aze defined by
classes identify with that panc�ular class and those within that class and view themselves as
separate from other classes. This develops and strengkhens class identity and class affiliation which
is, more often than not, stronger than affiliating with other classes. So it is in the best interest of the
upper class to maintain their power distinctions over the lower classes by limiting the opportunity
structures of the lower class. Thus, lower classes may have limited access to education and lack
access to capital. They may be arrested more because they aze not of the power class or participate
in their way of doing things, which helps the wealthy class maintain its class boundaries. Under this
theory, drug dealing may be seen as an alternative means of eaining a living when other
opportuniries do not present themselves— and even somerimes if they do. Prostitution may be
interpreted in this school of thought similazly. These situations present themselves in the case
studies Career Criminals, Cracking Up, Motel California, and Dog House, among others.
� � � Unable and Unwilling
Deviance manifests itself as individual actors that aze unable or unwilling to effectively address
and eradicate problems at their properties, thus becoming chronic problem properties. Similazly,
neighborhood organizations and govemment may also be considered unable and/or tmwilling to
�:-�,:: ..
� Pwl Cily Council Research Center
�'" � y
20
..x.. � R6i+ : .
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons (�� oZ(o�1 21
"Motel Califomia" is a 100+ unit motel that rents rooms on a
daily and weekly basis for appro�mately $65 and $215
respecuvely. TLe people who reat hue tead to fall into �
several categories: individuals and families neaz
homelessness; migrant and seasonal workers; along with
some drug dealers and prostitutes.' The motel l�as a"seedy"
reputation and it has been suggested it attracts bad tenants
because no one else would want to stay there. The
surrounding neighborhood is lazgely light industrial, offices
and some retail. This property has been considered a
problem by neighbon and the Ciry for a long time, and it has
been on the problem properties task force list for yeazs. The
motel continues to maintain a high occupancy rate probabTy
due w the cmrent shortage of affordable housing in Saint
Paul and surrounding ueas.
Maintenance of the motel has long bern a serious problem.
1Le property has received many coxrection orders for
overcrowding, sanitadon, rodents, lighting, smoke detectors,
extension cords, exposed wiring, fencing, staitways, roof,
exterior walls and abandoned vehicles. It has, however,
mainCained its Certificate of Ocwpancy 6y maldng
coaections when required by the City. The owners aze
considering reopening a restaurant in the building and aze
engaging in a uni[-by-unit rehabilitation effort which has
extended over a long period.
C�ime has been a continuing source of concem with Utis
property. The police were called to this address 296 times
during the study period—which is an average of three police
calls per week. The reported crimes have included: pubiic
drinldng; narcotics; prostitution; cltild abuse; disorderly
boys; domestic assaulu; disturbances; fighu; thefts; assaults;
aggravated assault; vandalism; sex offenses; auto theft;
obstruction of legal process; burglary; robbery; runaways
and stalking, Sexual assaulu aze reported by neighborhood
activists to be frequent, which may be related ro prostitution
and transieat residenis. (In 2001 calk were up slightly over
the previous two years and there continues to be much
reponed violence and nuisance crime here.) It has been
suggested this high level of criminal activity is not unusual
for a building of t7vs type, which may paitially explain the
very high number of 31 Fire and 30 EMS runs to this
address, as well as the high number of "transporfs to detox"
(11) which resulted from a variety of calls. These Fue and
EMS calls may be duplicate calls, as both types of uniu are
roufinely dispatched in response to emergency medical
service calls. Even if ttus is the case for all of the calls, fue
units were still called to this property at leu[ once each
month.
Neighborhood organizations, neighboring businesses and
police have articulated a number of chronic problems at tlds
motel, almost all of wluch relate to the behavior and criminal
activiry of its occupanu. One might suspect that these
concems were bom out of a"not-in-my-backyazd"
mentaliry, given the types of residents who stay at this motel.
However, the long record of code and criminal groblems
documents [he real and serious nature of the ongoing
problems. The extremely high level of "visible" nuisance ,
violent and property crime, coupled with the "invisible"
problems lurking within the motel's rooms, spurred
concemed neighbors to meet with motel mauagement.
Although motel management has come to a few meetings to
discuss these concems, many believe their follow-tluough
has been inadequate. For example, given the high level of
crime, [he need for private security was pointed out.
Management did follow tluough and provide one security
guazd for an 8-hour night shift. However, repor[ed crimes
remained largely unchanged, even increased, in the yeaz
following our study period. In another case, a notorious
"swinger's club," wlilch is banned in at least one Mianesota
county, met for a weekend nighY at the motel— even though
the neighbors had some previous bad experiences with this
goup mee6ng at tlils locauon. It was though[ to be
inconsidera[e, at best, of management to book them for
anoiher event. After being confron[ed about the group's
background, management did, however, respond by
canceling the group's future bookings.
Many see the manager as the root of the problem with Uus
properiy, and it was noted that [he advent of serious
problems with tltis motel seems to coincide with his tenure
as manager. He is said to not o8en be present and not caze
about managing the building, as he seems to have other
business interests that occupy most of his time. Some even
believe he is actually facilitating criminal activity at the
motel by renting units to outof-town gang members and
visibng drug dealers. Some staff we in[erviewed also
suspect that he helps drug dealers— imowingly or
inadvertently— to conceal their criminal activities by
moving them azound in the build'v�g wluch thwarYS police
surveillance activities. He is tliought W generally cooperate
with criminals, drug dealers and prosrimtes. The owners
seem liffie interested in the manager's acliviaes so long as
the business remains higlily profitable. Given its cunent
rates and occupancy, it is undoubtedly, very profitable.
'"No narional�r even reliable local—staristics are available, but appazenfly more and more of the poor have been reduced to
living in motels. Census take:s distinguish behveen standard motels, such as those tourists stay in, and residential motels, which
rent on a weekly basis, usually to long-texm tenanis. But many motels contain mixed populations or change from one type w the
other depending on season. Long-term motel residents aze almost certainly undercounted, since motel owners often deny access
to ceasus takers and the residents themselves may be reluctant to admit they live in motels, crowded in with as many as four
people to a room. (Willoughby Mariano, "The Inns and Outs of the Census," Los Mge[es Temes, May 22, 2000)." From:
Ehreureich, Bazbara, Nickeled and Dimed, On (Notl Ge[tine Bv in America. New York, 2001.
effectively address chronic problem properties, not because they themselves are deviant per se,
but because of their inability or unwillingness to respond to these chronic problems. For
purposes of this study, being `Su�able° is to lack the necessary power, authority or means to halt
problem properties. As we see in our case studies, there are numerous individuals identified as
unable due to mental illness, poverty, drug addiction, etc. �
An actor who is "unable" to maintain their property shows up in number of ways. Many of our
case studies provide examples of owners or tenants who do not have the capacity to fix the physical
or social incivilities at their properties. An individuaPs mental and emotional capacity may be
hindered by mental illness, addiction to drugs or any number of things. In addition, owners or
occupants may not have the economic capacity to maintain their property. They may not be able to
pay utility bills which will prompt a condemnation from the City if services are shut-off from the
property. Tenants may be "unable" to effectively address incivilities because of limited resources
and options. Saint Paul's tight housing market may inhibit a tenant's ability to find or afford
another place to live. Thus, landlords and owners may continue to exploit them and refuse to keep
up the property knowing they witl always have tenants, whether or not they keep up the property.
A tight housing market is a landlord's market— unfoRUnately, even for the slum lords.
Lack of knowledge about laws or existing resources is also a piece in the puz2le of chronic
problem properties. Owners and tenants may not know what is considered a code violation. Fo,r
example, owners may not think there is a problem with storing mattresses in their backyard.
Therefore, they may choose not to comply with correction notices because they feel fhat the
government and/or their neighbors are simply oveneacting. On the other hand, if a chronic
problem property emerges because of a lack of resources, owners and tenants may be unable to
mitigate the problems because they may not know about govemment or community programs
that would help them solve the problems they aze facing.
Govemment may also be unable to mitigate behavioral and physical incivilities. By the time a
problem property becomes a chronic probiem property, the government is almost always aware
of it. However, the problems at the property may be too complex for a standard government
intervention to fix. The "underlying" problems at a property, such as economic distress or
domestic violence, may need to be resolved before the "surface" problems of uncollected
garbage, broken windows and uncontrolled children can be successfully engaged.
For purposes of this study, being "unwilling" is to be reluctant to fix problem properties. As we
have seen in our case studies, there are numerous individuals identified as unwilling due to greed,
hopelessness, indifference, antagonism towards govemment, their neighbors or tenants. Our case
studies suggest landlords or owners will often remain unwilling to cease the physical or social
incivilities because of the financial benefits of those actions. For example, several of our case
studies outlined how owners exploit the precarious financial situation of tenants. For example, in
Double Trouble, the landlord keeps the units substandard and demands first and tast month's rent
from desperate families. Then when families are forced to move because of the horrible living
conditions, the owner keeps all of the deposits and then seeks the same from the next tenant.
Owners or tenants may also profic from iIlegal activity occurring at the property. For owners, the
benefit may be direct, in that they aze imolved in illegal activity. More often than not, however,
the benefit is indirect. The landlords rents to people involved in illegal activities because they
aze more likely to accept poor living conditions without complaint— quid pro quo. Govemment
may also be perceived as unwilling to deal with chronic problem properties. The main reason for
this is that government lacks the financial resources and capacity to effectively deal with the
complexity of most chronic problem properties. Because of these limited resources, govemment
often focuses on what it can fix at a reasonable cost, thus prioritizing other enforcement and
service provisions.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Cente� �� ��� C� COUncil Research Center
sl!: .
:.��.M;���a.+
xi �.�.._
Case Study: Motel California
22
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson
"Cash Co�' is an apartment building with neazly 70 units in
a complex consisring of tlus and a similaz adjoining �
building. There aze also several lazge apartment buildings
immediately adjacen[ to Uvs complex. These aze all
relarively new buildings, which are somewhat secluded by
woods in an area of the Ciry which has almos[ a"suburban
feel" to it, with many single family homes and lazge yazds.
Given its size and layou; [he bvilding is reall y a
neighborhood within the neighborhood in which it is
located. Not swprisingly, there aze a variery of people who
live here, and indicaUOns aze that the majoriry of them are
law-abiding and decent people to tiave as neighbors. The
problem is tttat this complex is in decline in much the same
way we [hink about some older neighborhoods in major
cities. The physical condi[ions aze getting worse. II is
getting more crowded, and poorer people—many of whom
rely on Seclion 8 W pay their ren[—aze moving in. Finally,
a few "bad actors" are scazing away those decent tenants
with the means to leave and fi¢d another place to live.
Beginning wi[h the physica] decline of Ihe building, we see
a pattem of neglect with respect to basic maintenance and
needed periodic rehabilitation projects. The City has issued
many correction orders some including as many as 218
items. Two citalions were issued for improper building
maintenance. Both citations were unsuccessfully challenged
by the owners in District Court. The Certificate of
Occupancy was also revoked, but was eventually reissued
because the City did not want to displace the occupants of
tt�is lazge building. Major deficiencies have involved heat,
electricity, overcrowding, holes in walls, infestations, paint
and tom catpering. The exterior has also experienced
maintenance problems involving paint, roof, doors, windows
and screens. The Ciry's Problem Properties Task Force has
addressed the properry on several cecasions and there was
also a TenanYs Remedy Action, which mmed out to be
mos[ly unsuccessful, as only a few of the needed repairs
were completed. Oae effect of this actioa was the evicrion
of a tenant leader shortly afterwazds, in what was widely
believed to be management retaliation. Management of this
building aze reported to onIy make basic repaics in [he uni[s
when they have no other optioa—and in those cases, they
chazge the tenants exorbitant fees for doing so.
Crime and the behavior of some tenants has also been a
problem for tlus building, and police continue to be active
here. In fact, during the two-year study period, the police
responded to over 200 calls, which means they had calls to
this building an avenge of twice each week. 1Le incidents
involved public drinking, narcorics, clilld neglecUabuse,
&ghLS, disorderly boys, vandalism, weapo�s, arson, au W
theft, burglary and fraud. Analysis of the police calls shows
the properiy cleazly has a mix of good and bad tenants. For
example, 43 of the appro�mately 70 uaits generated no calis
for police services during the two yeazs smdied. However,
some units had as many as 20 calls. These tenants are oRen
single women who rent a unit and aze then joined by problem
boyfriends. In one unit we looked at, the calls generated
cleazly spelled out a difficult family situalion: child abuse
and neglect; domestic assaults, disorderly boys and wazrant
azresu. Sn another unit, a different, but related story is told
in its calls: disorderly boys, other assault, vandalism, arson,
recovery of stolen property and narcorics. In yet another
unit, there are only calls abouY domestics and nazcotecs.
Amazingly, one-third of the calls to the building were to
general areas. The incidents in these parts of the building
tended to involve dismrbances, domes6cs and narcoucs. The
sheer volume of these calls indica[es rivo probable dynaznics:
first, domestic disturbances and assaults that spill out into, or
begin in, the genernl azeas of the building; and second, drug
dealing and use that is not limited to the private areas of ihe
building that is to say, in the tenants' units. Follow-up on
the property indicates the behavioraVcrime patterns seen
during our study period remained largely unchanged in 2001.
The owners claim to screen prospective tenants but some
officers do not think they do a very good job of it, if they do
it at all. Problems aze exacerbated by good tenants leaving
as the building deterioratu. Not suiprisingly, securiry at th�s
complex is a continuing problem. Police indicated a
complex of this size should have private securiry on site to
maintain order. Although the owners had a security service
at one time but dropped it because of the expense.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about this property, from a
Ciry perspective, is [he extraordinary usage of Fire
Department services. Not only has this buildiug required
inordinate attenrion by the Certificate of Occupancy program
of Fire RevenUOn, it also received 51 fire runs and 38
emergrncy medical services runs in less than two yeazs.
The basic problem with Uris property is bad management.
Furthermore, they make little reinvestrnent in the property.
Given the relatively kugh rent chazged and [he high level of
occupancy, it is hazd to believe that this building would not
be a money maker. Indeed, the complex was purchased by
its curren[ owners in 1995 for about $3.75 miilion, but the
taac rolis indicate its mazket value two years later was only
$2.5 million. The reason for [his major difference in
valuarion is not lmown, but it does suggest taces being
collected &om this property may be faz less than iu sales
price would suggest
They only make repairs when forced to do so and [hen often
cUarge tenants exorbitant fees for making such basic repairs.
It seems the owners' objective is to maximize their short-
temi profits vrith litde regazd for the welfare of the teuants or
the long-teim viability of Uus apartment building. As a
msult, they consume an inordinate amount of public services
and provide unhealthy and dangerous &ving places for their
tenants.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
o� a�� 23
Some would azgue government does not have the capability to know about all the problem
properties. However, in ttte case of chronic problem properties, the govemment is almost always
awaze there aze problems, through code inspection, emergency calls, or FORCE surveillance.
Notably, a chronic problem property for one agency, such as Code Enforcement, may be just an
occasional service user for another, such as the Fire Suppression, or Emergency Medical
Services.) The neighborhood could potentially play a larger role in alerting govemment to
problem propeRies by notifying the police or Code Enforcement before the problems become to
ovenvhelming and complex, thus preventing them from becoming chronic problem properties.
What better eyes than a concerned neighbor?
Through this research process, we had di�culty differentiating between individuals being unable
or unwilling to address problems with their properties. More often then not, the problem
property stems from both an unwillingness and an inability to effectively address the social and
physical incivilities at the property. Chronic problem properties present a unique challenge. The
causes of chronic problem properties are complex and often unique to each property. It is hazd to
pinpoint whether physical and social incivilities aze due to an unwillingness or inability to
participate in mainstream society, or the inability to meet the standards set by a wealthier class.
More often then not, our case studies demonstrate how chronic problem properties typica�ly have
both physical and social incivilities due to any of the above-mentioned actors being to some
extent, both unable and unwilling to effectively deal with the problems located there.
Why are the above-mentioned actors continually unwilling or unable to deal effectively with the
social and physical incivilities plaguing a property? One reason may be the continuation of a
problem serves a pwpose to those who are perpetuating it. For example, the owner may not want
to cease exploiting their tenants because they are making a profit off of the high tumover of
tenants in a poorly maintained building. An occupant may not want Yo cease drug dealing
because there is a high demand for drugs and they cannot find a better paying source of income.
Neighbors may not want to intervene because they are threatened by the residents of a chronic
problem property or they wish to continue participation in the social incivilities housed there.
Finally, the govemment may not want to intervene because they do not have the tools available
to effectively mitigate the problems and prefer to redirect limited time and?esources. In
addition, government may not be able to fully intervene due to the laws that protect individuals,
such as due process, appeals and rights of property owners.
Ring Concept
Chronic problem properties, by nature, aze toxic to the whole community system. Because they
aze properties with enduring problems, the� affect many levels of society, thus creating a
breakdown in these systems we usually depend on to curb problem properties. For a problem
property to perpetuate into a chronic problem property, the actars must continually be unwilling
or unable to change the situation.
The concept of simultaneous "system" failures at the owner/occupant and govemment levels is
captured in Diagram D which for purposes of this study we are calling "Ring Concept." The way
the Theory works is that a problem, such as a broken window ot uncollected garbage, escapes
through each of the "systems" society has in place to correct it. At the core of this diagram is a
semi-circle representing ownership, as well as the rights and responsibilities associated with it.
A semi-circle is used because the systems society has in place aze flexible. The penalties society
levies are not so great that there will never be violators. The system failure at this tevel is that
the owner is unabte or uawilliag to fx the broken wiadow and have the garbage collected.
�,;m��nt Paui Ciry Council Rey¢arch Center
2002SaintPaulCityCouncilResearchCen�N ';_' .
Y:
! �\l�lh'�'
Case Study: Cash Cow
24 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Stud Lesso �� UoC. o�la`1 25
Y ns � Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
The next semi-circle represents occupants
and tenants. If the property is rental, the
tenant has some rights according to both
the lease, if there is one, and state law.
Accordingly, a tenant has the righT to call
to the owner's attention the problem, and
request that it be fixed. By exercising
their rights and responsibilities, tenants
can prevent a problem from continuing.
The broken window should be fixed and
the garbage collected. If these things do
not occur, the tenant can often remove
himself or herself from the unit. This
system does not work when the occupant
is either unable or unwilling to pursue
corrective action. Of course in many
cases, the owner and occupant are one-in-
the-same. In these cases, the protections
afforded by leases and state law are of no
Diagram D. Ring Concept
/ Hnyneo
umima: a
�.�,
�o�m
Managtts
�.:.
�
.�..�
�«.
��,.�,
GevemmeM
�o,umem
6
�`
�
consequence. Table 4 summarizes who we saw as being responsible for a probtem continuing at
the owner and occupant levels in our case studies. Clearly, in the vast majority of cases (25 of
32), the owner or �andlord is primarily responsible for a problem becoming and continuing to be
chronic.
Table 4. Actor Failure
Actor Commercial Owner Occupied Rental I Total
Properties in Group (N =) q 11 i 8
Owner Occupant
Landlords
Tenant
Landlord & Tenant
2 (50%J
2 (50%)
0 (0.0%J
0 (0.0%)
9 (81.8%)
0 (0%J
2 (18.2%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
13 (7Z.2%)
1 (5.6%)
4 (22.2%)
ll (34.4%)
14 (43.8%)
1 (3.1%)
6 (18.8%)
The third semi-circle in the diagram represents neighbors and neighborhood organizations. There
aze basically two options available at this level to heip these people who are affected by the still
broken window and uncollected garbage. First, they can estabiish and enforce community
standards. Neighbors communicating these standards to the owners and occupants provides
informal social control. It may be that a neighbor out raking has the opportunity to voice concems,
or through the maintenance of their own property provide cleaz expectations of their neighbors. Of
course, City ordinances and state laws aze meant to codify community standards. The other basic
option available to neighbors is to activate enforcement agencies by informing them of the
problems and demanding action. It is important to keep in mind that there aze many reasons
neighbors or neighborhood organizations would be unable or unwilling to pursue either of the
options avaitable to them. For example, they may be fatigued from having dealt with similaz
problems for so long, or they may be afraid of retaliation. In the end, they aze reliant upon either
the owner or govemment ultimately taking action to see that the problems aze corrected.
32
The outermost ring represents govemment enforcement of laws and provisiori of services. The
govemment can, through its enforcement agencies, mandate that window be repaired and the
garbage collected. If it is not, enforcement agents can write a citation and fine the owner for
violating the law. The govemment can also board the broken window, collect the garbage and
assess the cost for these services to the property's taxes. However, in order to do these things,
the government has to be aware of the problems and agree with the complainant that the
problems aze indeed violations of the law. There aze also limits on govemmenYs authority to act
and possibly circumscribe individual propeRy rights. Both not knowing about a problem and
limits on govemment's ability to intervene in problems on private property can make govemment
unable to solve the problem. Lastly, govemment in general, is often quite circumspect in its
decision making on when a problem merits govemment abatement. A City may decide to col(ect
garbage, but not board a broken window. It may choose to condemn a property for certain
conditions, but not be willing to make a financial investment in their correction. For example, the
govemment may condemn a house for a large hole in the bathroom floor. It is rather unlikely
that the govemment would actively abate this probiem on their own.
In the research process, we have discovered that there need be two system failures for a chronic
problem property to develop: the owner and the government must both be unable or unwilling to
correct the problems encountered. If the community systems represented in the Ring Concept
diagram work when problems arise, those problems will not become chronic. Occupants and
tenants, as weli as neighborhoods, have some ability to bring about the correction of problems,
but they are ultimately reliant upon owners and government to resolve problem situations.
PREDISPOSITION
In the fields of hea(th and wellness, there is often talk of predisposing factors which make it more
likely an individual will develop an illness or disease. In some types of cancer, a family history
of the cancer makes it more likely that it will develop. For heart disease, being overweight and a
smoker make it more likely. The same may be said of chronic problem properties. Althaugh we
know that both the govemment and the owner must be unwilling or unable to wrrect the
problems which present themselves, we believe there aze also a number of circumstances that
make it more likely that this will be the case. What follows is a discussion of the factors we have
identified as likely playing a role in predisposing a property to becoming a chronic problem.
However, it is important to note that predisposition is not destiny— just because a particular
cancer runs in the family does not mean that all the family's members will get it.
Poverty
While we did not attempt to gather information on the income and wealth of the owners and
occupants of the chronic problem propeRies we studied, it was apparent that these people were,
in many cases, living in or near poverty. This level of poverty can be seen in Motel California,
Overwhelmed and La Cucaracha. Thera are several indicators that help in understanding our .
conclusion on poverty in our case studies. The first of these is the properties' market value.
average (mean) market value for the I- and 2-unit houses we looked at was $62,011, as is seen in
Table 5.
2002 Saint Paul City Co�ncil Research Center ���� ����� Resea2h Center
v* c�;;
26
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons p �° °�'��'f 2�
} Chronic Problem Pro ertiesin Saint Paul: Case Study lessons
things as paint, maintenance of outbuildings and
mattresses in the yazd. In recent years there }iave been
ttuee correction notices for trash, paint and screens. In
addirion, there have been six summary abatements for
[rash, vehicles and gazbage. There have not been any
interior violations possibly because of the rather recent
rehabilitarion and because no inspectors have seen the
interior of the duplex in recen[ years. Also, [he building
was not in the Ciry's rental registration program during the
study period, though it cleady should have been included.
Behavior problems at this address are extensive and
enduring. In fact, police intervenUOns at [his address have
I "Cracking-Up" is an upper-lower duplex in a been little short of amzzing. During the study period, the
neighborhood in h�ouble. The area's housing is in Po�ice have been called 164 times for public drinking
' generally bad condilion and is primazily rental. The " �rcotics, disorderly boys, disturbances, fights, obstruclion
residents aze a mix of elderly people who l�ave lived in the of jusflce, prostitution, ag�avated assault, auto theft,
azea for a long time, recent Asian immigianu, poor and liquor law violalions and other offenses. Two seazch
uneducated people from a variery of backgounds and a �'�ants were executed for nazcorics. In addifion, [he Fire
bunch of rough chazacters who hang out in the streets Departments has responded with four EMS runs and two
intimidating residents and visirors alike. On the surface, it � �'
seems that many of the area's residents are these rough Occupancy of the duplex is confusing at best. One tenant
characters living a criniinat ]ifestyle. The immediate azea lives in the downstaiis unit with her two children. The
where Cracking-Up is located is notorious for drug crime, upstairs unit was occupied, a[ leas[ for a while, by a man
m particular, crack dealing. who was en a ed in criminal activi
% S ty including domestic
In the couzse of our iesearch, we were in this abuse of the downstairs tenant. The tenant's sistei seems
neighborhood on a bright fall Friday aftemoon. There we � also live in the downstairs unit. The downstaixs teaant is
saw many young men in the 20's, mostly black, "not very brighY' according to many of the staff
congregating, mi]ling and dispersing. Ca� full of �nterviewed, and is believed to be incapable of holding a
passengers would pull up to the groups and one or two of regulazjob. She and her sis[er are also reported to be
the men would poke their head in the car window for addicted to crack cocaine and aze likely not to maintain
awhile. Then the cazs would leave, and new ones full of conhol of their residence. Drug dealers aze l�own to
passengers wou]d take their place. As we sat in our station frequent [ttis house and also "hang ouP' on the front porch.
wagon and watched, we were ourselves approached on two Her level of complicity in this drug-dealing activities is
occasions by prosfimtes. uncleu. Some see her as involved while other see her as a
viclim of neighborhood criminals.
Not suiprisingly, the owners of Cracking-Up aze shady � is generally a lousy situation with no appazrnt remedy
chazacters themselves. The property has passed from one short of a govemment intervenrion. A ranking officer in
slumlord to another severat times since being rehabili[ated � Saint Paul Po]ice Department had explored the oprion
in 1996, after being vacant for a period of fime. Because of ossibl
of the mulriple sales for [his property in recent yeazs, P Y Setting Uus woman into a prosritution
estab]ishing a cleaz sequence of ownership is difficult. It Prevention, recovery and rehabilitation prograni— to no
has, however, been owned by several notorious slumlords avail. We have a drug-addicted prostitute tenant with her
and is now in the hands of an ovmer some see as an old- prosritute sister living in a building owned by a landlord of
time gangster who lives in the suburbs but seems to enjoy 9uestionable competence and even more questioaable
the company of the criminals and marginal chazacters. motives. 1Le neighborhood is full of drugdealers and
Though this properry has been problematic for a long tlme, other criminals who further con�ibute to tlus unsavory
matters have gotten worse under this mos[ recent owner. simation. The Ciry responds to police and fire calls plus
There has cleazly been more criminal activity at Uils occasional visits by inspectors to deal with specific
properry since iu purchase by the current owner in Mazch situations. The core problems remain unresolved and, for
2000, and police calls aze up dramarically. 2Lis may be in �e most part, unaddressed. Without a massive
part because of the predilecfions of the new owner, and in �tervenlion by City and Counry agencies, this problem
part due to his inabiliry [o properly manage his property. �Il continue with only the owners and tenants changing
from rime [0 5me.
The physical problems with this duplex have been limited.
There have been some exterior code violations for such
As a post script, the level ofpolice calls to the properry were down slightly in 2007, but the type and seriousness ofthe
calls remained largely unchanged. However, prostitution, auto thefi and aggravated assault were not reponed; but fraud,
robbery and gambling were reponed in 200! and not reponed irz the study period. Notably, although there were fewer
calls to this property in 2001 than in the previous rivo years, the number ofreports written by the police war up
significantly, suggesting no improvement at this properry.
Tab►e 5. Market Value Averages Information
Properties in Group (N =)
Total
32
Residential
t-2 Unit 3+ Unit
19 9
Commercial
4
$94,200
$139,367
N/A
MV Used by Ramsey County
for 2000 Tases
MV Per Unit Using Ramsey
Co. 2000 Taxes
median $57,500 $53,600 $197,450
mean $62,011 $446,838
mean $39,495 $48,561 $20,316
A second indicator of the level of poverty at these properties is the level of tax delinquency in
our case studies. Table 6 shows that 11 of the 32 properties studied, fully one-third, were
delinquent in paying property taxes during our study period. In one case, Brothers Grim, the
property was seized as a tac forfeiture six months afrer our study period. In two other cases,
Empry Promise and Dirty Dealing, failure to make payments on contracts for deed led to the
house reverting to its original owner. �
Table 6. Tax Delinqui
Tax Delinquency Status
Properties in Group (N J
Yes
Average Amount Owed
Average Years Delinquent
Owner
Commercial Occupied Rental
4 11 18
1 3 7
25.0% 2Z3% 38.9%
$12,611 $6,027 $3,817
2 2.7 1.4
Total/Average �
� 32
11
34.4%
$5,219
1.8
A third indicator of the poverty encountered at these properties is the number of utility shut-offs
they had. Eleven of the properties, or one-third, had gas, electric or water 'service shut-off for
nonpayment during our study period. Table 7 shows the majority of these were shut-offs of
electricity.
Table 7. Utility Shut-Offs
Code Violation
Aaperties in Group (N )
Water Shutof'flMalfunction
Electriciry
Gas
Owner
Commercial Occupied Rental
4 11 18
I 3 1
25.0% 27.3% 53%
l 2 5
25.0% 18.2% 26.3%
0 0 2
0.0% 0.0% 10.5%
TotaUAverage
32
5
15.6%
8
25.0%
2
6.3%
Taken together, these low property values, delinquent tases and utility shut-offs lead us to
believe that poverty makes it more likely that an owner or occupant wiil be unable or unwilling
to take action. For owners this may mean they lack the financial where-with-all to fix what
needs to be fixed. For tenants, this may mean that because oftheir own financial distress,
2002 SaiM Paul City Council Research Cente� `� �Z�t �ul Crty Ccuneil Reseamh Center
?!2': ,
��.;�A�
�a::c a;
Case Study: Cracking-Up
28 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessone,� `nic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �— `'1 29
Case Study: Errant Investor I
`Bnant Investor I° is a vacant upper-lower duplex in the
North End. This duplex is one of many buildings
owned by this investor. In fact, until recently, this
individual owned or co-owned most oF the buildings on
[he entire block. The owner's fanuly has been
prominent and influential in the azea for many yeazs
occupying a mansion and acting as a kind of feudal
baronage for the immediate surrounding area Unril
slipping to addiction in 1995, the owner was viewed as a
clever and effec6ve real estate investor and property
manager, who was a major asset to the communiry.
Unforiunately, his increasingIy frequent relapses into
addiction have resulted in one of the City's best property
managers becoming one of the wors[.
This property was 3n terrible physical condition during
the study period. The City condemned i[ in January
2000 because of problems with all of the major physical
systems including plumbing, hea[, water, stove
refrigerator, toilets, smoke detectors, doors and
windows. Health hazards also involved rodents, insects
and gazbage build-up inside the building. The exterior
also evidences a myriad of problems ranging from tall
weeds and grass to roof, fim, doors and locks. The City
and the community have been very acfive in trying to do
something with [his building. In recent years [he Ciry
has issued five work orders, seven summary abatement
orders and two corzection orders on this property
besides the condemnation that led to i[ becoming vacant.
There have been problems with squatters since the
building went vacant and the police and Code
Enforcement aze momtoring the property for illegal
occupancy.
Prior to this building becoming vacant, it was a source
of continuing behavioral problems. The FORCE Umt
raided the building in 1995 and again in 1998. In 1999
alone, the police responded to 22 calls for service
involving domestic abuse, assaults and nazcofics. The
FORCE Unit also conducted two "Knock and Talks° at
this address. The excessive police calls to this proper[y
go back more than five yeazs with a brief hiatus when
the "Eirant Investor" fust acquired the property.
As suggested eazlier, the wre problem with this property
is the owner. Ae bought this property, and many others,
in 1995 and began managing them qui[e effectively. He
paid the taces, c]eaned-up the property; screened and
managed his trnants. Then in 1995, he fell victim to
drug addiction and ceased caring for his properties.
Same neighbors even believe he began, sometimes,
exchanging rent for drugs and sexual favors. Taaces
were no longer paid and [he buildings and the quality of
tenants deteriorated precipitously. The Ciry tned to deal
with the situation but to ]ittle avail. These matters then
went ro Housing Court which was also ineffective in
addressing the situation. Eventually the owner was
convicted and required to serve a brief period in jail and
pay moderate fines. The Housing Court Referee also
provided that a portion of the jail [ime and fines could
be waived provided he participate in a chemical
addiction assessment and sell his properties. For a
period of several months, he was missing and eventually
was apprehended in the fall of 2001 when a routine
traffic stop led to the discovery of the outstanding
housing court warrants. Meanwhile, this duplex has
been rehabilitated and sold on a contract for deed to a
new owner. It required no police services in 2001. The
properiy's foimer owner is reported to be living out of
state, and has been off of drugs for a few months.
they cannot afford to lose the "roof over their heads" by complaining. However, not all the
chronic problem properties we examined had poverty, and in no case was it the only thing "going
wrong" preventing the problems from getting fixed. Finally, although it may seem self-evident,
not all those who are poor live in or own chronic problem properties. In fact, given that some 1 I
percent of the City's population lives in poveRy, and less than I percent of its properties aze
chronic problems, it is cleaz that most do not.
Property Conditions
The condition of the property at the time its current residents move in is also a factor which may
predispose it to becoming a chronic problem. Its age, the quality of the original construction and
how it has been maintained play a role in how likely problems aze to develo� just as these
factors are important in how a used car will probably perform. While we did not assess the
quality of these properties' original construction, we do know a lot about their age, how they
were maintained in the five years preceding our study period, and their cunent conditions (which
will be discussed in the next chapter, Living with Chronic Problem Properties).
Table S. Chronic Problem Property Status Prior to Study Period
Residential � . '
1-2 Unit 3+ Onit Commercial I , Total
Properties in Group (N =) 19 9 4 I 3Z
Chronic Problem Property
Not Chronic Problem Property
12 iS
63.2% 88.9%
7 1
36.8% Il.l%
0%
4
100%
20
62.5%
12
37.5%
As we reviewed files from the Police Department, Fire Department and Code Enforce�ment, and
other City agencies, we made determinations in each case about whether it was a chronic problem
property in the five-year time period preceding the study, from 1994 through 1998. Table 8
shows that almost two-thirds of the case studies were chronic problem properties eazlier, which
suggests these problems ue slow in resolving— as is the case with Weird Neighbor because of its
long-term incomplete home improvement project. Moreover though, it suggests that the
immediate presenting problem, whether it is a broken window, uncollected garbage or out-of-
control children, was not what we needed to be examining. In only a few cases were the problems
a continuation of the same problems. In most cases, however, the problems seemed not to be a
continuation, but rather new problems with the same, or similar, root causes. The underlying
problems that created the circumstances that allowed problems to grow and remain uncorrected.
A clear example of this pattern is seen in Double Gross and also in La Cucaracha. Notably, none
of the four commercial properties we looked at would have been categorized as a chronic problem
property before our study. However, nearly 90 percent of the multi-unit residential buildings
would have been, as would over 60 percent of the one- and two-family houses.
In general, the propeRies we looked at were relatively old, an average of 91 yeazs old. One- and
two-unit houses were the oldest, averaging 100 years old, and all of them were constructed before
World Waz [I. In the entire population of the City's housing units, approximately 47 percent
9 ihe eleven percent poverty rate is a"best-estimate," based on information reviewed by [he City's Planning and
: Development Department from the 2000 Census Supplemental Survey.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Resea��
CW�cil Resra'ch Center
30
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons -�
��Cpronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
Case Study: Errant Investor II
"Enant Investor II" is the second of two properties
included in this study owned by the same problem
landlord. The inclusion of two properties owned by the
same person reflects the ]azge number of prob]em
properties owned by this investor. Indeed he owed
over 30 properties at on time, including more than half
the houses on the City block where our rivo case studies
are located. When he was in his good days, he was
sern as a savior for this neighborhood. Since he fel]
into clrug addiction, his personal and financia] problems
coupled with his lazge holdings have created a problem
of major proport�ons.
This particular property was built as a single fanvly
home in 1884 and later converted into a duplex. It is
kind of a cute looking house from the outside, although
it is very smai] for a duplex. The yazd has, however,
been the major source of problems. During a recent
hvo yeaz period, the City conducted five sncmnary
abatements and rivo vehicle abatements at this address.
The owner has received many conection orders to
clean-up mattresses, fumiture, appliances, vehicles,
garbage and tall weeds. Despite these numerous orders
and abatements, the property continues to experience
general neglect of the exterior. Following our smdy
period, the property was condemned for a time as the
water was shut off for nonpayment. It is also appazent
that for a number of months, no one was managing the
property and the tenants paid no rent.
Because duplexes are not subject to Certificate of
Occupancy inspecrions, City inspectors have never had
access to the interior of the building. NEAR did,
however, conduct a walk-through of the building when
they were considering purchasing it for rehabil�tation.
This walk-through lead them to conclude the building
was not salvageable and they dropped their interest m
the properiy.
The police were called to this property 18 rimes during
our study period. These calls involved nazcotics,
domestic assault, aggravated assa�lt and warrants.'
They wrote reports for about half these calls suggesting
the incidents were substantive in nature. One of these
calls related to a late summer evening shooting that
occurred on the front porch of the house. In this case, a
former and current boyfrirnd of the tenant were
involved. Sadly, only one neighbor bothered to call
about the shots being fired.
This is among the worst of [he many bad properties
held by this owner. The City tried just about
everything to deal with this situarion including
attempting to confron[ the owner through the PP2000
inidarive. Nothing the City has tried has worked. In
the fall of 2001, this properiy was sold to a developer
who did some minor rehabilitation. It is cunenfly on
the mazket, and the same tenants contmue to reside
there.
� The IeveJ and type ojcalls in 200/ is similar to our study period.
C�2 9 s,
were built prior to World War II. Three- and four-unit tended to follow a simitar age pattern, as
can be seen in Table 9. However, larger, multi-family buildings were built mostly after World
War II. A notable finding in reviewing the data was that all six of the buildings which were
vacant during the study period were over 100 years old, including Dirty Dealing, Empry Promise
and Errant Investor !.
Table 9.
Building Age
Residen[ial
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit
PraOerties in Group (N )
Average Age
100+Years Old (Built Pre-1900)
62+ Yeazs Old (Built 1900 - 1939)
< 62 Years Old (Built 1940 - Present)
Unknown Age
19
100
I ] (52.9%)
8 (921 %)
75
4 (44.4%)
0 (0.0.%)
8 (92.7%)
1 (11.1%J
Total/
Commercial Average
4 32
51 9t
0 15 (46.9q)
0 8 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%J
5 (75.6%)
Surroundings
Several neighborhood, or geographic, factors play a role in the likelihood of a chronic problem
property developing. The first of these is the concentration of poverty. As we discussed earlier,
the inwme and wealth of the key individuals involved, namely the owner or landlord and the
occupant or tenant, makes it more or less likely that chronic problems will develop. But poveRy
is also a geographic phenomenon. Although not all poor people live in "poor"'neighborhoods,
there are neighborhoods which have significantly lower average incomes than other ,
neighborhoods. This lack of resources has the power to predispose not just an individual
property, but entire neighborhoods to chronic problem property development.
In addition to poverty having potentially negative impact on individual properties and
neighborhoods, so can the presence of blight. Sometimes blight may take the form of physicai
decline and dilapidation of surrounding buildings. It may also include the crimes and behaviors
of people who contribute to the general sense of disorder in the uea. Not surprisingly, the
existence of other chronic problem properties in the surrounding area has these effects and
contributes to the neighborhood's decline. Several of our case studies were so situated. Errant
Investor I and II are on the same City block, and neaz other problem, or chronic problem
properties. Cash Cow is a large apartment building in the midst of other lazge apartment
buildings in similar circumstances. Nasty Four and Down `N Out aze neighbors, as aze Career
Criminals and Fear Factor. Finally, Cracking Up is in a sma(1 azea of the City known for many
kinds of problems. As discussed in the methodology section of the Introduction, many of the
properties nominated for the study were a p,art of a cluster.
. a ,�,,..._ .
.ei'�: "�
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center �y� ys�` �, �t Paul City Council Research Center
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons A ��
�Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
rYa
Case Study: Gangster Boyfriend
"Gangster Boyfriend° is a single family rental property
that was registered as a vacant building for 15 months
unril it was rehabilitated and sold to a property
investment company in February of 1998. The cturent
landlords appeared to be buying the properiy on a
conhact for deed from the property inveshnent
company. They, in tum, rented the property to a
woman believed to be a family friend. Interestingly,
even though this property is rental, the taxpayers have
claimed a homestead exemption for this property. We
have advised the County Assessor of this situation and
he is investigating for possible fraud. The home is in
good physical condition and there aze no laown
violations of Ciry codes with respect to the interior.
There have, however, been several exterior violations
for such things as garbage, abandoned vehicles,
fumimre and tires.
The serious problems with this property began in
January 2000. In the ensuing ten months there were
problems of every sort. The police were called 7A times
to deal with dishtrbances, disorderly boys and noise
violations. Drug use and alcohol abuse began to create
feaz among the neighbors. The FORCE unit, the Gang
Strike Force and Family Interve�tion all worked on this
address. The emergence of al] these problems
coincided with the primary tenant becoming involved
with a notorious local gangster who lived there on an
intemuttent basis. He was believed to have a number of
women companions throughout the City, and was said
to have moved from one woman's home to another's on
a regular basis. The tenant, and perhaps another woman
who also lived in this home, seem to be unable to care
for themselves and their children. Even their animals
suffered from neglect ]eading to several interventions
by Animal Control.
The neighbors were very active and attempted to
organize to deal with [his situation. The Block Club
met extensively and the District Council attempted to be
of assistance. Finally the situation came to a head in
October 2000. The Gang Sfike Force came to the
property and azrested, with considerable fanfaze, the
gangster boyfriend. Shortly afterwazds, the landlord
evicted the tenant and the property became quiet again,
which it has remained through 2001. The evicted
tenant has moved to another Saint Paul address and it
remains to be seen if problems follow. Cunently, the
property is reportedly vacant and for sale.
Vacant Buildings and Abandonment
�o�.""'�O 33
Another dominant feature in the landscape of chronic problem properties is vacancy and
abandonment— both for the chronic problem properties themselves and the surrounding area. -
Table 10 shows that 6 of our 32 case studies experienced an extended period of vacancy between
1994 and the end of 2000. In a typica] yeaz, about 400 of the City's buildings are registered as
vacant with the City, representing one-half of one percent of the City's 79,000 properties. [n our
study, 19 percent were vacant in the seven years we examined. Notably, almost all of the vacant
properties in this study are one- and two-unit residences, which were all more than 100 years old.
Oftea these properties were not the only vacant buildings in their neighborhoods. When we were
out in the neighborhoods looking a the chronic problem properties in our study, it was clear that
some of these areas were checkered with vacant and abandoned buildings.
Table 10. Registered Vacant Building Status 1994-2000
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit Commercial I Total
Properties in Group (N =) 19 9 4 I 32
Registered Vacant Building
Never A Registered Vacant Building
5 (26.3%) 0 (0.0%) I (25.0%) 6 (18.8%)
14 (73.7%) 9 (100.0%) 3 (75.0%) 26 (�47.3%)
Abandonment of a property is relatively hard to determine looking at ownership alone. What we
can determine is when the owner has not taken steps which to keep the property occupied and
useful. What this tended to look like in our review of the property's records were situations
where 1) property tares were in arrears, putting the property in danger of becoming a tax
forfeiture (see Table 6); or 2) needed rehabilitation and maintenance were neglected, so that a
building remained vacant over a long period of time. Abandonment also involved the
"disappearance" of an owner for a currently occupied property, as was the case in Errant Investor
li and Old and Ugly.
Each of the factors— concentrated poverty, clustering of chronic problem properties, vacancy
and abandonment— are different. None of them, alone or together, is a predictor of chronic
problem property development. They aze instead factors that can predispose individual
properties and neighborhoods to developing chronic problems. In our research we saw a
significant number of chronic problem properties which were not in "poor" areas with high levels
of vacant and abandoned buildings. We did, however, note that these factors may predispose
properties in some areas to becoming chronic problems.
Personal and Behavioral Factors
Severa] personal and behavioral characteristics of the key actors involved, namely the owner or
landlord and the occupant or tenant, makes it more ]ikely that problems will become chronic at a
particular property. Although these aze discussed throughout the study, we will touch on them
here as well, because we believe they can make a difference in the likelihood of a chronic
problem property developing. Recall our earlier discussion in this chapter of individual actors
being unwilling or unwilling to address the problems which they face. In each case, it is our
contention that both the owner and the government must be unwilling to correct problems.
,.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center ;�„„'� ��M Paul Ciry Councii Reseamh Center
;tt€�;
r'a
34
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson$
"Over the Edge" is an ugly old house with a former
abandoned commercial space attached to its front. It is
currently configured as a triplex, although County
records show it to be a duplex. The house is an
"eyesore" occupied by very poor and "scary" people,
reportedly attracted to the building because of its
relatively low rent and lack of tenant screening. The
wi[ in the fron[ `bld commercial" section of the house
has been notorious among communiry and police
officials for years for reported drug acfiv�ty. This
fiplex is owned by two investors, both of whom own a
few other rental propert�es according [o Ramsey County
tax data
The building has passed Certificate of Occupancy
inspections except conection orders regarding doors
and locks on the inside. The City condemned one unit
in July 1999 because of a utility shut-off for
nonpayment. The exterior has been more of a problem
wtith many conection orders for doors and locks,
garbage, fumiture in yazd, abandoned vehicles and tall
weeds. Animal Control came [o the property several
times in the fall of 1999 to address dog concems. The
owners have responded to these corzection orders, albeit
slowly. One tag was issued to the owner in December
2000 for failing to comply with Certificate of
Occupancy requirements.
Police have been called to this address 21 times during
a two-yeaz period. For a triplex of this type, this is a
relatively low number. The police have been called to
respond to d�sturbances, nazcotics, disorderly boys,
theft, burglary and the death of a child. In addition to
these officia] calls, there have been reports of violence
that spills into the street, public drinking, domesric
violence, child neglect and drug activiry. The FORCE
unit investigated this property in the summers of I999
and 2000. In both cases investigations were conducted
into alleged drug use and sales. In 1999 FORCE
conducted surveitlance on four occasions, attempted a
drug purchase and conducted a"Knock & Tallc.° In
Jmme 200Q the FORCE unit executed a seazch warrant
and made several arrests. From August of 2000
through June of 2001 there were no calls for police
service to this property. Beginning in July 2001, old
pattems re-esiablished themselves, and late in the year a
domesrio-related aggravated assault occa�red here.
The problems at this property suggested the need for
social service interoenrion and the Cou�ty conducted an
assessment. That assessment suggested a lazge part of
the prob]em was due Yo the racisY attitudes of [he
neighbors. The neighbors countered this by stating that
their concems were not being taken seriously and they
wanted more input into the assessment process, as they
were very concemed about what they were seeing at
this property. The relatively low number of police ca]ls
suggests tha[ the neighbors may have given up on
calling the police except for their most serious
concems. They may have just come to tolerate a level
of cnminal activity at this location. This changed,
however, when a fenanYs child died in the building
from being smothered when a drunken pazent rolled-
over on the child while sleeping. This tragic event
drove neighbors over-the-edge conceming their
tolerance of the misbehavior in their midst.
Nonetheless, the property confinues fo be an unresolved
problem for the neighborhood and City. It
demonshates how the lines between code violations,
nuisance crime, domestic abuse and child neglect can
converge. The problems simply become a festering
sore which infects the neighborhood with farigue,
hampering residents abiliry to address problems pro-
actively. Additionally, the element of reported racism,
whether real or not, worked to drive a wedge between
the actors, disheartening those involved.
�OZ. oZ.�O�( 35
Chronic problem situations often develop because the owners, occupants and tenants do not take
the actions available to them. So, why would someone act this way? In addition to our
sociological discussion of deviance, we think it is necessary to point out some of the most
common personal and behavioral characteristics we came across that helped create or
complicated the problems at these properties.
Alcohol and drug abuse is a dominant feature in our case studies. There are two ways to gauge
whether alcohol abuse was a problem for the properties we studied. The first was looking at the
reason for, and disposition of, police calls. If there were calls labeled "drunk" as the reason for
requesting police service, or calls where the disposition was to take someone to "detox, we
could be fairly sure alcohot or drug abuse had reached a critical level.
Table 24 indicates the number of times taking a person to detox was the outcome of a call for
police service. We also relied on the people we interviewed to tell us this kind of information.
Although we had no specific question relating to drug or aicohol use, when we asked why a
property had become a chronic problem, they often volunteered information on the role of drugs
and alcohol. Over the Edge, Misplaced and Down `N Out all have serious problems related to
alcohol and possibly drug use. Thidy-seven percent of the properties had at least one public
drinking episode during our study period. The majority of our case studies (59%) had d�ug o�
narcotics-related problems. In many cases, the propeRies were occupied by relatively low-level
drug dealers, who used dealing as a way to support their addiction. This type of situatiqn existed
in Errant Investor 1, Dirty Dealing and Danger Island.
The presence of domestic violence dominated the landscape of chronic properties we examined.
As we discuss more in depth in the next chapter, 88 percent of our case studies had at least one
episode of domestic violence during our study period. In almost all cases, the numbers were
much higher. Domestic violence was the most prominent feature of all of our case studies. This
situation, although altogether too common, is perhaps best discussed in OverwheTmed and Errant
Investor Il. �
In each case, we may surmise that alcoholism, drug abuse or violence complicates the problems
already present at these properties. Another conclusion we may draw is that th�se aze the
underlying problems at these properties, and the other things we see, whether it be uncollected
gazbage, broken windows or dog fights, aze symptoms. Both of these conclusions are valid. Our
focus is on the problems propensity to occur together with the other issues surrounding chronic
problem properties.
-;,,,';;4:,,:
] t � .� .,
20025aint Paul City Council Research Cer� ��",,� ^ k'���� � CO°ncil Research Center
' .
�h�onic Problem Properties in Saint Paui: Case Study Lessons
Case Study: Over the Edge
36
y n cr
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paui: Case Study �esso da�a�P 4 37
ns Chronic Problem Propertiesin Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
LIVING WITH THE PROBLEMS
Up to this point, this study has discussed in general terms what chronic problem properties are,
and who is affected or hazmed by them. In Living with the Problems, we will discuss in depth
how they ]ook, feel, and even smell to those who aze harmed by them. The case studies have
numerous instances of health, housing and property maintenance code violations, which we can
use, along with other information, to describe the appeazance and habitability of these properties.
We aiso use police department call information and FORCE unit materials to describe the crimes
occurring at these properties. Equaliy important, however, is the issue of who is harmed by the
existence of these properties, and this is where we begin.
WHO IS HARMED?
At an abstract level, we can fairly say the entire community is hurt by a chronic problem property.
We can surmise that all property values aze lowered a little, and the quality of life for all decreases
when blight and feaz conditions aze mtroduced anywhere. But we all do not live in, next to, or
down the street from this type of property— even if we aze aware of a few of them. In order to
get a better grasp of who is harmed by these properties and what their experiences are, we discuss
neighbors, govemment agencies, tenants and occupants in this context.
Neighbors and Government Agencies
Diagram E. To Whom Is A Property A Chronic Problem
We began ourresearch process
at the neighborhood organization
and City level by having
neighborhood organizers, elected
officials and enforcement staff
identify chronic problem
properties in their azeas of
responsibility. As discussed in
the Research Methods, on page 5,
not everyone identified the same
properties. Astonishingly, only
I I percent of the properties on
our list of nominations were
nominated by more than one
person. However, in most cases,
even though one person did not
nominate a property and another
did, there was general agreement
that it, too, was a chronic
Code
Entorcement &
Certi£eate ot ,
Danger
Islantl
Hame \
Alone
La Cucaracha
Overvrhelmetl
Errant
Investor I 8 II
Misplacetl
Empty
Promise•
\ Empty
Promise"
community/ oow� a
Neighboehood a�
Police
Bwthers
Grim
8ad
eo
Career
:riminals
Beginn�ng of Study Penod
° End af Study Penod
problem property. In a few cases, we were surprised to find that there was not agreement
between our key constituencies as to whether a particulaz property was a chronic problem.
Diagram E shows, for example, that Bad Boys was a chronic problem for the neighborhood and
Police, but not for Code Enforcement. On reflection this makes sense. Bad Boys had no serious
exterior code violations, so it passed largely under the radar of Code Enforcement staff.
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Cen[e�
Similarly, �splaced was a chronic problem for the CeRificate of Occupancy Program and the
neighborhood, but not for Police.
The lessons to be leamed from this are best portrayed in several other case studies. Empty
Promise began the study period as duplex occupied by a dnxg addict and his drug using tenants.
The property had numerous code violations and ended up being condemned. Following
condemnation, it became a registered vacant building and on at least two occasions was occupied
by squatters. While it was occupied it was very much a wncem of Code Enforcement officials.
After it was a secure vacant building and squatters were eliminated, it became only an occasional
concern of Code Enforcement, as it monitored the building to ensure it was secure. Similarly,
Empty Promise was of little concem to Police once it became vacant. However, during the entire
study period, it was perceived by the neighborhood to be a chronic problem— first, as an
"active" problem with problem occupants, then as a more "passive" problem as a dilapidated
building standing as a reminder of problems present in the neighborhood.
In another case, Down `N Out, the neighborhood believed the use of the building to be a chronic
problem. Although. The City's Certificate of Occupancy Program and Police Department had a
fair leve] of activity, the thing that made this a chronic problem was its use as a rooming house
for marginal "down and out" chazacters in the midst of a residential neighborhood of mostly one
and two-unit residences. In the reverse situation of Down `tV Out, Danger Island was seen as a,
chronic problem by City Certificate of Occupancy Program and Police Department �but not the
neighborhood. The geographic isolation of Danger Island keeps it from being a serious problem
to neighbors to the property. However, the extremely high level of service required of inspectors
and police officers signals the depth of problems within this building. '
Tenants and Occupants
The situation at Danger Island opens up another level of questions. If the neighbors do not seem
to be affected by the problems at this property, to whom is it a prob(em? The answer is, of
course, the tenants who live in the building. Diagram F shows one part of the dynamic. In this
diagram, we see what proportion of units generate the most calls for police service in the multi-
unit buildings included in our study. In a couple of cases, including Danger Island, more than
half of the units generate high levels of calls for police service. There are also units which
generate almost no such demands. Therefore, we assume that at least in most cases, the
individuals in these units are not generating the problems. Instead, these units tend to be
occupied by people who experience the problems as victims. They also seem to lack the ability,
financially or otherwise, to remove themselves from the chronic problem property. Danger
Island is the most extreme example of a property which has a majority of units in trouble.
Anotker layer of problems for Danger Island, as with many multi-unit buildings, is the shazed
space of the building. We consistently found that the general areas of the building generated
more calls than any individual unit. In these spaces there were disturbances, drug dealing and
use, domestic argumenu and assaults, fights and aggravated assaults, among other problems.
Problem units, coupled with problem shaied space in the building, work to create ari atmosphere
of feaz and intimidation for those who are not a part of generating the problems.
;
- :U'�',"�,". m?.
'�;"'��aint Paul City Council Researoh Center
�A
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessop
JO
Case Study: Through the Cracks
"I'hrough the Cracks" is a rnther unassuming duplex
located in the middle of a block among a number of
other similaz properties. Problems with this property
have continued for many yeazs. The cuaent owner,
who owns several similaz rental properties in [he same
Saint Paul neighborhood, bought this property in 1987
and has realized a significant appreciation in its value.
The complaints to the Ciry about this property are
mainly about the failure of the owner to make needed
coirecrions and the behavior of [enants, as the owner
did not seem to be screening tenan[s.
The tenants disturb and, sometimes, frighten their
neighbors. There is a lot of drinking, hassling and
intimidatiag behaviov At least one neighbor, a Hmong
woman, reported being temfied for herself and her
family. Despite concem about the behavior of the
tenants, the police have not received many calls about
this address. They have been called 15 times during
our study period and have written five repor[s about
incidents a[ this address for aggravated assault, the
execuHon of wazrants, domestic assault, narcotics and
interfenng with 91 ]. The FORCE Uni[ attemp[ed an
unsuccessful drug buy in September 2000 and
attempted a"Knock & Talk" in November 2000, only
to fmd the tenants in quesdon in the process of moving
out. In May 2001 an arrest was made for drug law
violations.
The City haz responded to seven code complaints
during the study period by conducting three swnmary
abatements and three vehicle abatements. The
sununazy abatements have primarily involved garbage,
glass, a toilet, a bathtub, diapers, old Food and
overflowing gazbage containers. The consis[rncy of the
gazbage problems saggests the owner does not have a
regular garbage pick-up service. The building has also
had problems on the interior with heai, electricity and
water damage. The exterior has experirnced problems
with garbage, windows and abandoned vehicles. On at
]east one occasion a complaint about this property was
mishand]ed by the City. A tenant called Citizens
Service in November 1999 to complain about no
bathtub, electrical prcblems, ceiling ]eaking, inadequate
hea[ and no window glass. Code Enforcement did not
respond to this complaint until fully five months later
when an inspector final]y responded. For some reason,
despite the seriousness of the complaint, the matter
seems to have been referred to the Dayton's Bluff
Iniriative rather than being handled directly by Code
Enforcement. When the City finally did respond to this
complaint, [he complaining [enant had ]ong since
moved.
This property continues to hover ` just below" [he City's
radaz and the condirions [hat make it likely ro remain a
chronic problem property aze still presen[. The
conditions include poverty, a distinct lack of
neighborhood cohesion, no tenant screening, an
uninvolved owner and generally bad neighborhood
conditions. While things may have improved at this
proper[y because some of the worse tenants have moved
on, [he City cleazly "dropped the ba1P' with respect [o at
least one major complaint about condition in this
duplex.
Down'N Out (20 units)
❑ 0 - 3 Calls
❑ 4 - 9 Calls
� 10 or tviore Calls
% = Percent Units in Building
Cash Cow (69 uni[s)
%
General Areas of Building
Categorized as a"Unit" for this
Graphic Presentation
�� Notably, this was also the case with Career Criminals where the nephews introduced criminal activity to the
property. In Career Criminals, however, there was information to lead us to believe the uncle was a part of the nephews
criminal endeavors.
';�Z�int PaW City Council Research Center
4002 SaiM Paul City Council Rasearch Center �,"`;'?`'
.. i{e�'y-:ti:,..
��'� i
i^m.��.^�-.
9 Chroni� Froblem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
C�ot 39
The other key group of tenants or occupants affected by the existence of the problem unit, are
those who live within the unit or property. In many cases, those within these problem units or
propeRies are generating the problems being experienced. ,However, within these units there
often lives a family or partner. There are many examples in this case study where all of the
family members actively contribute to chronic problems, as is the case with Bad Boys, Cracking
Up and Career Criminals. However, there are also many examples where people within the
chronic problem property or unit aze also victims. We see this clearly in Brothers Grim, Errant
Investor II and Overwhelmed where domestic violence is present, as it is in 88 percent of our
cases. In Gangster Boyfriend though, we see a different, but similar situation. In this case study,
there is no reported domestic violence per se, rather the problem is the boyfriend's other criminal
activiTies, such as drug dealing or dog fighting. In this case study, he introduces the problems
into the household.
Diagram F. Multi-Unit Apartment Buildings, Calls for Police Service for Individual Units
Nasty Four (4 units) Danger Island (11 units)
The Case Case (12 units)
La Cucaracha (2S units) Alligator Alley (30 units) -
40
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessop
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
802.�'oZ�9 �/ 41
"Home Alone° is an average looking duplex, where
one unit is homesteaded, while the other unit is rental.
It is located in a relatively stable, but lower income
neighborhood, and in many ways, this house is not
distinguishable from its neighbors. We have no
informarion regazding the interior of the building other
than the gas and electric were shutoff briefly several
yeazs ago. However, this duplex is in the rental
registration program, and thus inspectors could have
gained access. The exterior has experienced some
problems in recent yeazs because of problems with
windows, tall weeds and grass, vehicles, mattresses and
sewer. Code Enforcement has received five calls
complaining about this proper[y. Subsequent
inspecrions noting violarions of the building
maintenance code have resulted in rivo summary
abatements for tall weeds and trash in the yazd. A
citarion was also issued for the exterior and [all weeds.
What really makes this property standout among its
neighbors is the sense of feaz and unease it brings. The
police have been called to this property 17 tunes during
the study period. Many of the calls have been for
nuisance violations such as public drinking and
dis[urbances. However, a number of the calls have
been for more serious matters such as domestic assault
and fraud. Gunshots have also been heazd in the
backyazd. The most serious calls, however, have
involved child neglect. In one instance child protection
was called in when it was discovered [hat the pazents
k�ad left very small children alone in the backyazd for
maay hows. Evidently, the parents were ioo drunk to
norice the children missing, or the passage of time.
These neglectful pazents greatly concern the neighbors
and social service agencies.
It is uncleat from the records we reviewed whether this
property is owner-occupied. The owner does not accept
any responsibiliry for problems with i}�e tenants. While
the property appeazs to be owner-occupied, from the
fact that the property is homes[eaded, it is also 3n the
rental registradon program, which is not a requirement
for owner-occupied duplexes. We believe, for at leas[
some of the study period, a relative of the owner lived
in the house, ihus meering state law requirements for
homesteading. However, for the majority of the study
period, this was not the case.
Whi]e there aze certainly City issues with the
maintenance of this properfy and some criminal
behavior, [he most conceming problems are social
service and child protecfion issues. The resolution of
these types or problems aze matters for the County to
address. Beyond police intervention, there is little that
the Ciry can do to resolve child neglect concems. This
matter has been refeaed to County Child Protection
agencies. The nature and results of this County
intervenrion aze unknown.
WHEN ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY HARMED?
When thinking about chronic problem properties, some specific propeRies, neighborhoods and
situations aze conjured up in each of our minds. There are conditions out there that ` just bug us."
That fact alone does not necessarily mean one is faced with a violation of laws or property codes.
Part of what happens in neighborhoods today is that people with differing standards of behavior
and property maintenance aze brought together, into close proximity with one another. For
example, experience, past history and upbringing may te11 one that certain things aze done one
way, and another's may say it should be done another way. As cities become increasingly
diverse, this situation is likely to continue.
Differing standards and expectations of behavior and property maintenance can be seen between
different cities; some would say Saint Paul has a look and a feel that is quite different than
Minneapolis. It can be seen between neighborhoods, like Dayton's Bluff— which is one of the oider
neighborhoods in the City and has a history of working and upper classes living neaz one another, and
Highland— where the residents tend to be middle and upper class and most of the housing was built
in the twentieth century, for people moving into their second homes. City's have historically handled
the differing standards and expectations of its citizens by building distinctive neighborhoods which
were often made up of peopte who were primarily of one caltural background. But neighborhood
characters' have changed over time, often for the better, as with lessening racial geographic '
concentration and increased housing opportunities. This coupled with immigration makes our
neighborhoods, particulazly those with affordable housing opportunities, more diverse than ever. `
In Cultural Conflict, people who have lived in the neighborhood for years, with an established set of
values and standards, are confronted with people who aze new to the neighborhood and may not `
shaze the same set of values. In this case study, the neighboring white residents were O.K. with an
outdoor party and drinking, as long as it take place in the backyard. The Afriean American peopte
who lived in Cultural Conflict, would have parties and drink on the front porch, where people from
inner-cities have more traditionally congregated. The case study evens mentions a case where
neighbors called the police because some tenant's children were playing jump rope io the street.
Cultural ConJlict was also a very poorly maintained property with many e�erior code violations.
The situation at this property brings to light issues inspectors and police officers have to deal with
every day: in a complaint-based system of Code Enforcement and law enforcement, we rely on
people to notify the authorities when something is amiss. However, people respond to more than
just strict violations of laws and codes. They respond to things that aze different than what they are
accustomed to, and also to those things and people which scare them.
Another case where a chronic problem property triggered reactions from neighbors is Down `N
Out. Here, the standards of behavior and property maintenance are noticeably different than the
surrounding area. In this case study, it was more the land use than racism or specific cultural
differences coming into play. Down iV Out is a single room occupancy apartment building with
a high level of drinking and drug use, and from the neighborhood perspective, it is a locally
unwanted land use (lulu). , ,
The last type of situation which deserves consideration in this discussion is that of the crazy
neighbor. Anyone who has staffed phoae liaes in an o�ce that takes calls for service, such as
the Police Communications Center or the Citizen Service Office can tell you there are some
people who call often, but rarely have real and founded concems about the behavior or property
maintenance practices of their neighbors. One such case is Dirry Dealing, where a mentally ill
�,,:
':��OZ Saint Pau� City Council Research Center
2�02 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Cente�
;<�e:
Case Study: Home Alone
42
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
O� —� <oq as
woman lives next door to a chronic problem property and frequently calls the City about her
concems. Her complaints were founded from time to time, but by and lazge, they were not.
"Culmral ConflicY' is a very oId duplex in a highly
visible ]ocation on a major thoroughfaze. Because of
its age and condition, it may very well have the lowest
value of any duplex in the City. This rental property is
owned "contract for deed" and has been a chronic
problem for many yeazs.
The physical condition of the building is not good. The
exterior has been the source of problems with tal]
weeds, broken wi�dows and screens. Code
Enforcement has received six complaint calls about this
property within the two yeazs studied. We lmow
nothing about the interior of the building as no City
inspectors have been inside. Gaining access to the
interior of rental duplexes is possible under the Ciry's
rental registration program. However, this property was
not registered during the study period.
The Fire Department has also had an extraordinary level
of activity with this address with three fire runs and
eight emergency medical runs during the two yeazs it
was under study. The Police have been called to this
address 73 rimes in the same time period. This is an
exhaordinary level of service needed for a rivo-unit
building. The po]ice calls aze, however, primarily for
nuisance violations, mostly noise. While some
neighbors and Ciry staff suspect the residents of dmg
dealing, there have been no azrests for drug offenses
and no FORCE unit activity at this address. Violations
aze primarily noise and disturbances along with a few
ca]Is for domestic assaults, fights and assaults. The
responding police officers have written few actual
reports except one major disturbance, which some
called a semi-riot. The usual police response to calls at
this address is to "advise." There is no partiwlaz
pattem to the police calls other than they occur on a
regulaz basis. Po]ice calls in 2001 look much like
previous years, although there was one reported azson
following our study.
This property is a neighborhood nightmaze. The owner
does not screen tenants and has little concern for what
goes on at the properry. This is wmpounded by
cultura] and rnce-based conflicts between the white
neighbors and the black tenants. The tenants see no
problem with moving the'u fumiture and partying in the
front yazd and sometimes the street. In one instance,
couches were placed on the sidewalk as part of an
outdoor parfy. '1'h(S part} ended in four arrests.
Several staff have described this type of situation as the
frontyazd/backyazd syndrome where neighbors aze O.K.
with an ou[door party and drinking, as ]ong as it take
place in the backyazd. Neighbors disapprove of parties
and drinking on the front porch and in the front yazd
where people from innerciries have more tradit�ona]]y
congregated. Some neighbors have pledged themselves
to drive these "undesirables" out of the neighborhood
and call the police at every opportuniry. There seems to
be a racist element to the wnflict at this property. They
have even called the police because some tenants'
children were playingjump rope in the street. There is
an old lady next door who calls the police upon any
provocation. Somerimes the police find a basis for her
reports, sometimes not.
The mix of an uncooperative ]andlord, semi-
incompetent and culhually different tenants and picky
neighbors generates enduring problems. There is some
indication the landlord has recently begun to do some
tenant screening and is beginning to learn the business.
This may begin to break [he cycle of bad tenants being
replaced with bad tenants. However, the property and
its poorly maintained condition conrinues to be a
prominent visib]e reminder to residents who don't like,
sometimes reasonably, the way the neighborhood is
changing.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM ANYWAY?
So just what is it about these properties that makes people worry? They do not usually look as
good as their neighbors, but a lot of properties are like that. The answer is that chronic problem
propeRies scaze us. They scare us not just because of the crime which is too often present, but also
because of their chaos. Someone intimately involved with the property is either unwilling or
unable to fix the problems there. This is why their impact goes so far beyond the boundaries of
their yazds. In order to explore the chronic problems at these properties and why they are so
hazmful, we wili first look to experts and their theories; and then move on to what we have leamed
at a property-specific level.
What the Experts Think
In the course of doing a comprehensive literature review, we discovered a great deal of wo'rk by
researchers to determine the affect problem properties have on urban decline, housing mazkets
and crime rates. Although, most of the literature does not specifically attempt to explain the
origins of chronic problem properties, much ofthe reseazch provides in£ormation on why chronic�
problems properties ue important to study. ,
Broken Windows, Incivility and Disorder
The notion that physical disorder and crime, particularly petty crime, have a negative impact on
housing values, increase resident fears of crime and cause increase in future crime, has been
developed by a number of prominent urban sociologists and criminal justice scholars over the
last two decades. These thinkers have developed a close-knit family of theories linking these
propeRy-associated disorders with crime changes and neighborhood decline_ These theories,
termed broadly as "incivilities theory," have changed the philosophy of policing in a number of
police departments. They also provided municipalities with an important justification why close
attention should be payed to the blight and crime associated with chronic problem properties,
similaz to ones in this study. Incivilities, also known as disorders, are defined by reseazchers as
social and physical conditions in a neighborhood that are viewed as troublesome and potentially
threatening by its residents and users of public spaces. Social incivilities include such activities
as prostitution, drug-dealing, and loitering. Physical incivilities would include such things as
broken windows, junk cars, and garbage houses. Table 11 has lists of both social and physical
incivilities.
In developing strategies to deal with the issue of neighborhood decline and incivilities, social
scientists in the last 20 yeazs have found eyidence that correcting physical and social problems
associated with properties is one of the most fundamental things that must be done to improve
urban neighborhoods. Michael Greenberg, in the article Improving Neighborhood Quality: A
Hierarchy ofNeeds, found City residents believe neighborhoods will only improve if crime and
physical blight are controlled. In a survey of 306 New Jersey residents, respondents stated the
absence of crime and decay is required for neighborhood to be considered excelient. These two
factors were far more important than others, such as quality of
"�f �2 �aiot Paul Ciry Council Research Center
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center "*?'�- '
�':':
Case Study: Cultural Conflict
T
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
"Down `n OuP' is a lazge, old mattsion converted into
20 single resident units. It is next door to another case
study, the "Nasty Four," in an historic preservation
district. The cunent owner has had the property for 20
yeazs. Most of the residents aze on some farm of public
assistance. The building itself is very depressing and
has been described as "a halfway house for people on
thefr way into an insriturion, rather than on the way out
of one."
Not sutprising, there aze conrinuing behavioral
problems. There is lots of drinking, drug use and low-
leveI criminal activity. Dudng the study period, the
police have been called to this address 90 times. Forty
of these calls have been to the general azeas of the
building and 50 have been to specific units. The
incidents have included public drinking, nazcotics,
disorderIy boys, domestic assault, fights, theft,
aggravated assault, vandalism, burglary and azson. The
calls to the general azeas of the building have involved
nazcotics, disorderly boys, domestic assault, fights,
assault, "drunk" and burglary. T}�e calls to individual
units have been primarily domestic assault and aze
rather evenly spread over time and units, so there does
not seem to be a sma11 number of problem people or
units causing the calls to the building. The number of
domestic assaults, disordedy boys and family/children
calls is puzzling for a single occupancy rooming house.
These calls likely stem from issues related to
overcrowding in individual units, among other
problems.�
In recent years, physical maintenance of the building
has not been a stgnificant problem While conection
orders have been issued for both interior and exterior
violations, the owner has taken caze of all of them
promptly. Exterior orders have been issued for paint,
siding, trim, doors, stairs, windows and screens.
Interiox orders have been issued for rodents, insects,
gazbage buildup in a unit, water damage, stairs, holes in
walls, smoke detectors and a bathroom sink. None of
these problems have been particularly serious and all
have been resolved quickty. In essence, there aze no
enduring Code Enforcement prablems.
The basic problem with this property is that the
neighbors do not want this kind of use in their
neighborhood. They consider most of the occupants to
be undesirables and wish they would go somewhere
else to live. They would prefer to see this building used
as housing for students rather than for "down `n
outers." This preference is reinforced by a history of
more serious behavioral and maintenance problems.
There were, for example, FORCE raids conducted at
this properiy in both 1997 and 1998 and, although there
have been none recently, neighbors have a long
memory. Although the owner has become much more
responsible and effective in recent yeazs, ihe neighbors
sti11 see this as something they do not want in their
neighborhood. This is reflected in what is probably an
urban myth about drunks at this building trying to lure
young children onto the property. It is a loca]]y
unwanted land use (]vlu), which also begs [he question,
`�vhere aze these people to live, if not here?" Finally,
all of the problems this property faces aze not helped by
the fact that the "Nasty Four" is [heir next door
neighbor, and both aze widely considered to be pu]]ing
the neighborhood down.
� As a jollow-up, looking at calls for 2001, we see that they are down slightly, but the type oJcalls remains largely
unchanged.
Vd��ot(o`j as
Ghronic Probiem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
public services, recreational oppoRunities, and improving schools, in shaping residents' opinions
about livability and neighborhood quality.
Table 11. Examples of Physical and Social [ncivilities
Physical Incivilities
Broken Windows Gazbage/Trash/Litter
Boarded Vacant Buildings rall Grass/Weeds Grown-up
Vacant Buildings Junk Cazs (Private Properry)
Abandoned Buildings Vandalism
Dilapidated Buildings Abandoned Vehicles (Public Properry)
Social Incivilities
Dumping
Noise
Pomo Theaters
Bars
Graffiti
Prosti[ution Sexual Harassmen[ on the Street Robbery
Public Drinking Domestic Disputes tha[ Spill into Public Space Loitering
Unpredictable People Pubtic Insults Gunfire
Panhandlers Vagrancy Weapons
Mentatly Disturbed Drug Deating (Open Air and Drug Houses) Curfew Violations
HarassmenUHaranguing Auto Theft Street Dog Fighting
School Disruption Arg�ing/Fighting Among Neighbors Truar�cy
Gang Violence Lack of Traffic Enforcement Gambling �
Rowdy Teens (Feral �
Youth) `
Since chronic problem propeRies are the source of a disproportionate amount of crime, physical
and social problems, Greenberg's findings suggest that cities should prioritize neighBorhood
redevelopment efforts to address blight and crime at these properties, before investing time and
resources into other neighborhood redevelopment efforts.
William Q. Wilson and George Kelling in a seminal article published in Harp'ers Magazine,
entitled Broken Windows, ouUined a thesis which states physical incivilities, are in �nd of
themselves, catalysts for neighborhood decline. How physical disorder lead to this decline, in
Wilson and Kelling's broken windows theory, is a multi-step process. The casual model of their
thesis is graphical displayed in Diagram G. -
The first step in the sequence is the existence of a sign of incivility, such as graffiti or a broken
window. It is not important per se that the window is broken. Windows aze always getting
broken, properties are always deteriorating and some homes are always being abandoned. More
important is how long the broken window or other problems remain uncorrected. If the condition
is not repaired in a shoR time, Wilson and Kelling theorize residents will inFer that resident-based
conuols aze weak and other residents do not care about what is happening in their neighborhood.
When this occurs residents will presume ttie neighborhood is socially disorganized, which will
subsequently lead residents to be become increasingly reluctant to use public spaces or to
intervene in disorderly situations. With this withdrawat from the public realm, social and
govemmental controls weaken and residents become increasingly concemed for their safety.
At the same time, local petty criminals, such as graffiti artists or "taggers" and disorderly
teenagers will become emboldened, causing further resident concem and withdrawal. For local
petty criminals and at-risk youth, persistent physical disorder symbolizes opportunities for
delinquency. ARer a(ong period of time, physical incivilities and delinquency will become
ingrained 'en the neighborhood's environment and serious criminals from outside the area will
become awaze of the neighborhood's deteriorating conditions. These criminals will take
oppoRUnities to victimize others because they will perceive their risk of detection or
��',"�Z S�t Paul Ciry Council Research Cen[er
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center "'�
: nv;�s.
,. w�Pa�.kc
�F.r
Case Study: Down `n Out
46
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessoqy �hronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
UOl T�CO`f 47
apprehension to be much lower than in other neighborhoods. If the offender mo[ivation is high
enough and there aze sufficient targets available, they will move into the neighborhood and
commit street crimes.
Diagram G. Wilson and Kelling's (1982) Incivilities Theory"
Unrepaired
Signs ot Inciviliry
Resitlents
Withdraw From
Public Spaces;
Become More
FeaAul
Loeal Ottenders
Emblodened;
More Pretty
Crime; More
Incivilities
Residents
Withdraw More;
Become Feartul
Outside
"Serious"
Ottenders Move
Into Locale
Wilson and Kelling provide a strong rationale for why cities should address chronic problem
properties and the social disorder they create. The policy recommendations they put forth to
prevent or correct this decline focus mainly on encouraging cities to concentrate on enforcement
activities on maintaining both physical and social order. In their article, the authors azgue that
after World Waz II, Police Departments moved away from maintaining order to devote most of
their energy to fighting and solving serious crime. Instead, police and other City enforcement
agencies, should spend more time working with residents to correct incivilities by performing
such duties as moving rowdy groups out the area and notifying agencies so that landlords are
cited for needed repairs or trashed-filled lots are cleaned. Much of the community policing
movement of the last 20 years incorporates the essence of the Wilson and Keliing's theory and
was the inteilectual inspiration for the zero-tolerance approaches undertaken by many cities, such
as New York City, which attempt to reduce crime through eradicating disorder.
Differing Impact Depending on Neighborhood Stability
Kelling and Wilson also discuss in great detail how enforcement activities should be deployed in
City neighborhoods. They roughly sepazate a community into three different types of
neighborhoods: stable neighborhoods with a secure population and healthy housing values;
neighborhoods that have deteriorated and have experienced prolonged declines in housing values,
have a transient population and have experienced a history of incivilities; and neighborhoods in
transition which have been stable but aze threatened by an uncertain future. Wilson ar�d Kelling
suggest this last group of borderline neighborhoods is where incivilities will have the strongest
�� Ralph B. "Caylor. "The Incivilities Thesis: Theory, Measurement, and Policy. " Measuring Whoi Matters:
ProceeJings From the Policing Institure MeetrnKt. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, July 1999.
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Center
impacts on crime, behavioral and emotional outcomes. Incivilities, have little impact in stable
neighborhoods because they are either resolved quickly or residents aze confident enough in their
neighborhood not to perceive incivilities as a threat. In declining neighborhoods, incivilities have
little impact as well, because a relativety large number of incivilities already exist in the community
so additional ones have a diminishing impact. Therefore, it is the borderline neighborhoods in
which remediation efforts should be focused. A number of researchers have followed up on this
thesis and have found that, indeed, municipalities achieve the biggest retum from dollars invested
on reducing incivilities when they focus on borderline neighborhoods."
Neighborhood Cohesion and Collective Efficacy
Since its initial publication, Kelling and Wilson's theory has generated a tremendous amount of
conuoversy. Critics of the theory have azgued repeatedty that, while the phenomena appeaz to be
related, there is little evidence that disorder directly promotes serious crime. For instance, Robert
Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush have noted that homicide, azguably one of the better
measures of violence, was among the number of offenses which they studied for which there was
not direct relationship with disorder. Unlike Kelling and Wilson, they believe physical disorder,
such as the broken window, is just a proxy for the real causes of decline; namely concentrated
poverty and the lack of community cohesion and involvement." This lack of social cohesion and
involvement, Sampson and Raudenbush have termed, collective efficacy. They believe by ,
strengthening collective efficacy, neighborhoods can be stabilized and crime reduced.
A number of scholazs believe collective efficacy is important element in any discussion of
incivilities theory. Not only may strengthening community cohesion and involvement be an
important factor in combating disorder, disorder may have a negative effect on effoRs to build
collective efficacy. As Wilson and Kelling have suggested, disorder leads residents to withdraw
from the public sphere. This withdrawal has the potential to cause them to cease organizing and
participating in activities which would improve collective efficacy.
Reseazchers have also found that the presence of incivilities limits the development of social
capital.'" Social capital is defined as the level of civic engagement, the mutual trust between
residents and the strength of community institutions through which civic interaction takes place.
Physical disorder has also been found to increase the residenYs mistrust of local officials and
potential investors who are interested in neighborhood redevelopment. It is cleaz to us from
our research that chronic problem properties and the disorder associated with them can have
profound effects on the neighborhoods and residents. As we have discussed the problems
associated with chronic problem properties can be linked with increased crime and feaz of crime.
12 Rolf Goetze and Kent W. Colioa "The Dynamics of Neighborhoods: A Fresh Approach to Understanding
Housing and Neighborhood Change." Neighborhood Policy and Planning, eds Phillip L. Clay and Robert M. Hollister.
Le�cington, KY: Lexington Books, 1983, p. 65. . �
13 Robert 1. Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush. Disorder in Urban Neigh6orhoods—Does It Lead to Creme?
Nationa] Institute ojJustice, Research in Brief. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, February 2001.
14 Kenneth Temkin and W illiam M. Rohe. °Social Capital and Neighborhood Stability: M Empirical Investigation.
Housing Policy Debute. Volume 9, Issue 1, p 65.
15 Michael Greenberg. 'Ymproving Neighborhood Quality: A Hierarchy of Needs." Houcing Policy Debate.
Volume 10, Issue 3, p. 620.
Council Researoh Center
Ef3
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Less ��-� p
op$ problem Pro erties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Ud��a
WHAT THE CASE STUDIES TELL US
ABOUT CONDITIONS
We aze in a unique position at this point to delve into how these theories play themselves out in
our case studies and how they led to the conditions at these chronic problem propeRies. In order
to do this, we will first examine some of our interviewees "ratings" of the conditions. We will
then discuss the specifics of how these properties differ from their neighbors, by Iooking at both
their interior and exterior code violations, and then the criminal activity that occurs there.
Ratings
The case studies have many references about how these properties do not meet community
standards. Many of these observations come from a review of official records, such as inspection
and police reports. While these sources give us specific information about the violation of codes
and ]aws, they do not necessarily capture how these properties compare to their immediate
neighbors. In the research process, we conducted a lazge number of interviews- many with
community organizers and elected o�cials. The many stories we heard- and verified to the
best of our ability- gave color and context to the official file information we reviewed. In order
to get a more precise sense of these people's feelings about the individual properties, we asked
them to rate the properties in their area on a scale of one to ten (with one being the worst and ten
the best) their perceptions of the housing coaditions and sense of propeRy and personal safety.
We then asked them to rate the same things for the one-block azea surrounding the property. The
averages of these ratings appeaz in Tabte l2. In all cases, we found that the properties were
perceived to be worse than their surrounding neighbors.
T ab1e 12. In t e rview F
Prnperty Raiings
Properties in Group (N =)
Residential
I-2 Unit � 3+ Unit
ig and Safc
Commercial
Housing Conditions of Neighborhood
Housing Conditions of Property
Personal Safety in Neighborhood'-
Personal Safety aUin Property
Property Safety in Neighborhood'-
Safety aUin Property
19 9 4
5.8 5.0 3.9
4.2 3.4
5.9 5.0
3.7 3.7
5.3 4.4
4.1 2.9
2.1
3.7
23
3.6
�c
Housing Conditions
in the case of buildings which are over 100 years old. In this case, the immediate area received
an average rating of 5.6, but the studies were rated 3.2.
Property Safety
Perceptions of property safety for the area surrounding our chronic problem properties were rated
and average of 5.0 on our one to ten scale, while the same rating for our case studies was 3.6. In
the case of property safety, boTh commercia] and residential properties with three or more units
received poor ratings in our case studies with 2.5 and 2.9 respectively. The biggest differences
between neighborhood and case studies was again observed with owner-occupied case studies
(4.5) compared to their neighborhoods (6.6). A big difference was also seen between multi-unit
residential case studies (2.9) and their immediate neighborhoods (4.4).
Personal Safety
The final category we asked our interviewees to rate was their sense of personat safety at these
chronic problem properties and in the surrounding area. In this case, the average rating for a
chronic problem property was 3.5, while the surrounding area was rated 53. Commercial-
buildings received the lowest ratings with 2.3. The next lowest ratings were for our chronic '
problem properties which were more than 100 yeazs old.
�
Exterior Conditions
In the earlier discussion of signs of disorder and incivility, the exterior conditions of chronic
problem properties were highlighted. Of those signs of disorder that occur on private property,
all were reported in some aspect of our case studies, except porno theaters. This is reflected in
Tables 13 and 14, as well as in the case studies themselves. ,
Physicai Signs of Incivility
Broken Windows Garbage/Crasfi/Litter Dumping'
Boazded Vacant Buildings Tall Grass/N'eeds Grown-up Noise
Vacant Buildings Junk Cars (Private Properry) Pomo Theaters
Abandoned Buildings Vandalism Bars
Dilapidated Buildings Abandoned Vehicles (Public PropertyJ Graffiti
5.3
3.5 Because our research involved looking at Code Enforcement records in-depth, we have identified
those aspects of the case studies exterior conditions that would qualify them as dilapidated
5.o buildings. "Broken Windows" and tom screens were the most common structural problems
3.6 observed by inspectors at a rafe of 44 percent for all of our case studies. In addition to broken
windows, the presence and condition of doors, siding, paint, and the roof all contribute to these
properties' lack of "curb appeal."
The housing coaditions for the area surrounding our chronic problem properties were rated an
average of 5.3 on our one to ten scale, while the same rating for our case studies was 3.7. "I7ie
building conditions of commercial case studies received the worst ratings as a category of
propeRies with an average of 2. L Interestingly, the starkest differences between case studies and
neighborhood were observed for owner-occupied properties, where the immediate azea received
an average rating of 6.7, but the studies were rated 4.4. Another big discrepancy can be observed
2002 Salnt Paul Ciry Ccuncil Research Center
o Chronic P P roi
Conditions
Average
32
53
3.7
�; fi,;,;
„��.�,.;�t Paul City Council Research Center
V",;€^
�
M
50
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso� Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
"Fear Factor° is an older single-family dwelling in the
middle of the block in a troubled neighborhood. This
home was owned for many yeazs by an angry,
belligerent old man with a serious drinking problem.
He was known to yell at and berate his neighbors often.
In recent yeazs, two grandsons have ]ived with him.
The grandfather died during our study period and the
property seems to have been taken over by the
grandsons. The house seems to be deteriorating even
more rapidly under their control. The neighborhood is
not helped by that fact that the house next door (Career
Criminals in this study) is also a chronic problem
property.
The City has never conduc[ed an inspection of the
interior of [his house. However, the exterior has been a
problem. In 1999 and 200Q the Ciry has needed to
conduct three summary abatements for gazbage, wood,
ta]] weeds, appliances and rubble. The crumbling
retaining wal] has also been a problem for years.
The Police have been called to this address on 13
occasions during the study period. These calls have
invo]ved theft, nazcotics, weapons, disorder]y boys,
domestic assault, assault and vandalism. Interestingly,
no reports have been written in response to any of these
calls.� Despite the fact that neighbors believe the
grandsons aze involved in dmgs, there is no FORCE
file for this property. The reason may be that drugs are
stored, but not sold, here. The grandsons who live here
reportedly work in partnership with other neazby houses
where they sell the drugs stored at Feaz Factor. They
also sell drugs from this property on the street.
Neighbors report a lot a night time activity at this
address; however, it does not seem to involve
individual wstomers for illegal drugs, but rather street-
level dealers coming to resrock their "merchandise".
The occupants of this house create a geat deal of feaz
in the neighborhood. They have reportedly been
threatening towazd neighbors, and those who have
called the police speak of being subject to retaliation.
These threatening behaviors and criminal activit�es,
togeiher with the very poor relationship the older man
had with his neighbors, have worked to alirnate the
neighbors and prevent them from taking acUOn to
reclaim [heir safety and sense of community.
� Following our study period, police were ca[led to this property 14 times in 2001. Five of these incidents resulted in
repons 6eing written relating to the e�ecution ofsearch warrants, aggravated assau[t, domestic violence, obstructirsg
legal process and auto theJt.
Table 13. Exterior Structural Problems
Code Violation
-- o v.as� i a,
Commercial Total
n....�.tioc in Grmm M= 1
Windows/Screens
Door Locks: broken/missing
Paint: bad condition
Siding: bad condition
Roof/Fascia/Soffits: holes/
leaking
Outbuildings: poor
condition
Walls: holes, bad condition
Stair Condition
4
0 (0.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0-0%J
2 (50.0%)
1 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
32
14 (43.8%)
11 (34.4%)
10 (3/.3%)
8 (25.0%)
6 (18.8%)
6 (18.8%)
4 (12.5%)
2 (6.3%)
Fxterior Structura!
P�oblems Total
2 (50.0%) � 25 (78.1%)
m_��_ lA
�
i
Code Violation
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Onit
19 9
9 (47.4%) 5 (55.6%)
5 (263%) 5 (55.6%)
3 (5.3%) 7 (77.8%)
4 (21.1%) 4 (44.4%)
2 (10.5%) 2 (22.2%)
5 (26.3%) 0 (0.0%)
1 (53%) 2 (22.2%)
I (5.3%) 1 (I1.1 %)
14 (73J%) 9 (700.0%)
Exterior Problems
Residential
1-2 Unit
Commercial I Total
Properties in Group (N = )
19
4
Garbage/Trash Buildup
Junk Vehicle
Talt Grass and Weeds
Fumiture
Mattresses
Appliances
14 (73.7%)
8 (42.1%)
]0 (52.6%J
8 (42.7%)
6 (31.6%)
5 (26.3%)
3+ Unit
9
4 (44.4%)
4 (44.4%)
2 (22.1%)
3 (333%)
2 (22.2%)
1 (11.1%)
2 (50.0%)
2 (50.0%)
I (25.0%)
0 (0.0%J
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
32
20 (62.5%)
14 (43.8%)
13 (40.6%)
11 (34.4%)
8 (25.0�)
6 (18.8%)
Garbaee/Yard Total 18 (94J%) 5(55.6%) 4(100.0%) I 27 (84•4%)
The other major category of exterior code violations we tracked had nothing to do with the
buildings' structura] character, but rather with the yard or surroundings of the properties. Here
the most common problem was an inordinate build-up of household gazbage and trash. Given
that the City has private, rather than public provision of these services, this situation is not
altogether surprising. In many of these chronic problem propeRies, the relevant actors are either
unable or unwilling to maintain this service. Related to the accumulation of regular household
garbage, there were also relatively high levels of junk furniture, mattresses and appliances on ,
these properties. [n total, 84 percent of our case studies had some kind of garbage or yard
exterior code violation during our study period.
2002 Saint Paui Gity Council Research Cente�
,�.,
�:,��ao° oz
�m:;.:'..v .,
City Council Research Center
Case Study: Fear Factor
52
Interior Conditions
The issues at this property revolve around the owners
inability, or unwillingness, to maintain the exterior of
the property, the keeping of a commercial truck and a
dog. The neighbors have been complaining for yeazs
about a never-ending home maintenance project.
Scaffo]ding was pu[ up yeazs ago to repair and paint the
exterior of the building. Little, if any, home repairs
have actually occuired. The neighbors have complained
to the City and inspectors have issued orders to repair
the exterior of the building. These orders have been to
little effect. The owner was tagged and was ordered in
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons � M1
Chron�� Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
For a few months, a dog also caused a great dea] of
concem. During that rime Animal Control was called
seven dmes for the dog running loose. Citations were
issued on two occasions and the owner was aiso ordered
ro clean up animal litter. The dog problems ended after
this flurry of activity.
A lazge commercial truck was also being kept on the
property much to the displeasure of the neighbors. The
City attempted to deal with this situation by ordering it
removed based on zoning laws that prohibit the keeping
of commercial vehicles within residential districts. The
matter went to court and the judge ruled in the ovmers
favor because the truck was not being used for
commercial purposes. The Ciry has since revised the
City Codes to prohibit this type of storage of
commercial vehicles.
There is considerable difference of opinion regazding
this situa[ion. Some see the owner as a difficult,
anogant and possibly dangerous individual who enjoys
aggravaring his neighbors and City inspectors. Others
see this as an unfortunate situarion where his neighbors
aze hazassing a man with an illness. In the time that has
passed following the complet�on of the study period, the
owner's son has taken over the property. Much to the
dismay of neighbors, similar problems aze continuing
along with a few new ones, namely more disturbances
and disorderly conduct.
9
4 I 32
Other (Often Floor Coverings)
Doors: Missing Bad Condition
Holes in Walls
W ater Damage
Stairs: Broken, Bad Condition
"Weird Neighbor" is a single fanilly home in a pleasant
neighborhood. The owner is described variously as
eccentric and azrogant and is reportedly difficult for
both neighbors and Ciry inspectors. At least one
seasoned City inspector is unwilling to go to the
property alone because of the strange and intimidaring
behavior of the owner. The owner is considered by
many to be highly intelligent but mentally ill. His
mental illness is sufficiently debilitating so he is unable
to work.
January 2000 to complete the repairs by Iune 2000. He
was tagged again and failed to appear at the most recent
court date.
Interior Structural Problems Total
The interior conditions of these properties is more difficult to assess than that of the exterior for two
reasons. The first is self-evident. There are simply not as many people who see, and therefore can
report on, the interiors of buildings. The second is the City does not have a periodio-systematic
inspection process for one- and two-unit dwellings. Rather, the City uses complaint-based Code
Enforcement. Therefore, the violations reported in Tables 15, 16 and 17 very likely under-represent
the true level of interior code violations in one- and two-unit dwellings. We found that 100 percent
of the buildings covered by the City's CeRificate of Occupancy program had some type of interior
code violation, while the comparable figure for one- and two-unit dwellings was 63 percent. This is
generally inconsistent with the level and type of interventions required by inspectors at these
properties. For example, the level of correction orders, abatements and citations aze similar between
these two types of property. This is discussed in the next chapter, Dea[ing with the Problems.
4 (21.1 %)
1 (53%)
1 (15.8%)
3 (15.8%)
1 (10.5%)
7(3G8%) 9(100.0%) 3(75.0%) I 19 (59.4%1
8 (88.9%)
6 (66.7%)
6 (66J%)
4 (44.4%)
2 (22.2%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (50.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (O.l!%)
Vc�c ��v i 53
12 (37.5%)
9 (28.1%)
7 (21.9%)
7 (2(.9%)
3 (9.4%)
The same propoRion of our properties experienced interior systems or utilities problems, as
experienced interior structural problems, in both cases 59 percent. The most common system or
utility problem had to do with fumaces and lack of heat, although this was much more common in
the multi-unit residential and commercia] propeRies we studied, than in one- and two-unit residential
properties. This is likely due to the fact that we do not have periodic-systematic inspection for one-
and two- unit rental properties. Another reason could be that one- and two- unit properties are much
more likely to be owner-occupied, thus not warranting complaints to the City. Water shut-offs, on
the other hand, occurred almost exclusively with one- and two-unit residential properties, where one
in five had this occur during our study period. Electricity shut-offs occurred in one-fourth of our case
studies. Only occasionally was the refrigerator, water heater or stove cited as problematic. �
2002 Saint Paui City Councii Research Center
The most common suuctural problems noted for the interiors of our case studies were floor
coverings, such as carpeting or linoleum being excessively wom, Filthy or missing. Other relatively
common interior structural code violations included doors which were missing or in bad condition,
holes in walls and water damage. �
'rahle 15. Interior Structural Problems
Residential
19
Code Violation 1-2 Unit 3+ Unit Commercial I Total �
Pronerttes in Group (N = )
16 Complaint-Based Enforcement is a method of ensuring property, housing, health and building codes are followed
ttvoughout the community by responding to specific complaints or concems citizens or others informed inspection officials
about. Complaint-based Code Enforcement — Ihis is considered one of the three basic approaches to ensuring codes are
observed in the community. Periodio-systematic inspection is the method where buildings and conditions are
comprehensively reviewed on a regular basis. The third approach is a blend of these two, where there aze periodic systemahc
inspections, but inspectors aze also sent out to handle specific complain[s and concems as they arise.
City Councii Research Center
Case Study: Weird Neighbor
54
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso� � problem PropeRies in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
undone. Not surprisingly, the proper[y taYes are also
de]inquent.
The level of criminal activity here has been very high
for yeazs. During our two yeaz study period, the police
responded to 55 calls involving child abuse/neglect,
domesric assaults, fights, theft assault and narcotics.
The FORCE unit has been aclive at this property having
conducted "imock & talks" and executed a search
warrant that yielded a lazge amount of illegal drugs.
"Old and Ugly" is a four-plex that may be the ugliest t s een chi dr n werenn olved in "jump ng" a
building in Saint Paul and is also among the oldest. It local homeless man. There have been problems with
is a lazge and decrepit building that is visually pit bulls and pariying on the front porch, among many
unattractive and painted an ugly co]or. Unfortunately, other nuisance activities. Taken as a whole, this
it is also in a prominent location making it even more building isjust a bad scene. It is eye-sore and a
offensive to the neighborhood. This neighborhood, a dangerous building occupied by a criminal element and
mix of residential az�d commercial, is already in distress their children. Because of their behavior, and possibly
and is just beginning a revitalization process. "Old and also because of their race, they aze not welcome in the
Ugly" has a history of serious problems and is seen to neighborhood. The local neighborhood development
be a huge problem for the area. corporation has considered buying the building for
Both the interior and the exterior of the building have would be too expensive, as would paying for the to
experienced major problems. Within the studied two re]ocate the wrrent [enants so the building could be
yeazs alone, there have been three sumtnary abatemen[ demolished.
orders, two conecrion orders, four Certificate of
Occupancy revocarions and a condemnation. The The owner is inexperienced and in "over-his-head"
interior violations have involved apphances, rodrnts, with this building. His attempts [o manage this �
insects, water damage, doors, gas and electric service building has been an abysma] failure. He has been
a]ong with torn and unsanitary carpets. Exterior totally ineffective in dealing with the property and his
violarions have included paint, siding, fim, doors, tenants. He did no[ even evict the tenant who was the
locks, windows, screens, sidewalk gazbage, abandoned source of [he drugs found by the police in a drug raid.
vehides, fumiture and mattresses. Southern Minnesota The owner claims to be recovering from an injury and
Regional Legal Services (SMRLS) helped initiate a unable to handle the property. He just seems to just
Tenant Remedy Action (TRA) on behalf of the tenants want out from under this building and has recenUy
and the court appointed an administrator for the disappeazed and cannot be found. Whi1e his
property. The tenants, however, did not make rent disappeazance may be a good thing in the long run, it
payments ro the administrator and the property is now makes the resolution of the problems at this property, in
in receivership and the needed repairs have gone the neaz term, almost impossible.
As a post script, this property became a registered vacant building in August of2001. At that time, calls for police
service finally ceased. The property has since become a tax forfeiture to the County, and the former owner is seekng to
pay the back taxes and re-establish his ownership.
2 (50.0%)
1 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Table 16. Interior Systems and Utilities Problems
Code Violation
Residenrial
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit Commercial Total
in Group (N =) 19 9 4 I 32
Heat/Fumace
Electricity
Water ShutofflMalfunction
Gas
Refrigerator
Water Heater
Stove
2 (10.5%)
4 (2I.1 %)
4 (21.1%)
1 (15.8%)
1 (/5.8%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (15.8%)
4 (44.4%)
3 (33.3%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (171%)
I (17.1%)
1 (l1.1%)
0 (0.0%)
oa-� �5
8 (25.0%)
8 (25.0%)
5 (15.6%)
2 (63%)
2 (6.3�)
1 (3.1%)
1 (3.1 %)
Ioterior Systems Problems Total
8 (42.1%) 9 (100.0%) 2 (50.0%)
14, {59.4%)
<
Approximately forty percent of our properties experienced some type of health-relatea code
violation. Both rodent or insect infestation and garbage build-up inside of the house or building
occurred in one in five of our case studies. Overcrowding was cited only in five of the thirteen
case propeRies covered by the City's CeRificate of Occupancy program.
Table 17. Interior Public Health Problems
Code Violation
Commercial Total
in GrouO (N = )
Rodents/Insect Infestation
Garbage Build-up
Overcrowding
Smoke Detectors:
missing/mal functioning
v..ti�:o HPAIrh Problems Total
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit
19 9
1 (5.6%) 6 (66J%)
3 (15.8%) 2 (22.2%)
0 (0.0%) 4 (44.4%)
2 (10.5%) 2 (22Z%)
3 (15.8%) 7 (71.8%)
4
0 (0.0%)
2 (50.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%J
3 (75.0%)
p �.
.�Na`;�'+.��r.-
2002 SaiM Paul City Council Research CeniN ^'p'.�� �ul City Council Resear<h Center
, :k?= + �., y ; '
:a .,,
32
7 (21.9%)
7 (21.9%)
5 (l5.6%)
4 (12.5%)
13 (40.6%)
Case Study: Old and Ugly
56
'"Empry promise" is an oid upper-lower duplex neaz I-
94 in a historic azea This duplex has been vacant since
Mazch 2000 when the City condemned and ordered it
vacant. Prior to that, the house was owner occupied.
For a short while, after it was vacated, it was illegally
occupied by squatters who used this as a home and base
for se]]ing crack and methamphetamine. This building
is in bad condirion and is considered a blight on the
neighborhood. The owner, reported by neighbors to be
a"hop-head" has admitted to selling crack and is
otheiwise seen as an oddball, He rented the other unrt
to friends who were similazly afflicted. He was in the
process of buying this duplex on a contract for deed
from a man who owns one of the other cases in this
sNdy. So it seems that getting the owner occupant out
of the building through the condemnation helped, but
did not entirely solve the problems. The property has
been a problem for a]ong time with code vioiations and
high levels of criminal activity going back many yeazs.
This remains, as chazacterized by one inspector, a filthy
and wom-out building.
Maintenance of this building during our study— and
cleazly a long time before that— has been disgraceful.
The water, gas and el ectric have all been shut-off at one
rime or ano[her during 1999 and 2000. Occupants have
thrown everything imaginable in the yazd resulting m
eight summary or vehicle abatemrnt orders during the
study period. The City has wriften five Code
Enforcement tags during this time. The first three tags
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Cas¢ Study Lesso� m ` j
__. �Chroni� P��blem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
were disposed of by the court with a$200 fine with an
additiona] $700 suspended if there were no further
same or similar violations. The final two tags were
disposed of by the court with more $200 fines and
suspended $700 fines There is no indication, however,
the initial $700 fine suspended was unposed, although
the court disposed of two more "same or similaz"
violarions within only a month. It would appeaz the
court was "only kidding" about that part of the initial
sentence.
The police have also been busy at this building. They
responded to calls for police assistance at this address
72 rimes in only two yeazs. These calls involved many
nazcotics matters along with a dose of domesric assaults
and other crimes such as theft, fraud and auto theft.
The police sent "excessive consumption of police
services leiters" and conducted "[cnock & talks" at this
address. Animal Control was frequenfly called to this
property during 1999 to deal with dog problems.
In summary, this property was owned by a well-laown
slum lord who sold it to a dmg addict on a contract for
deed— possibly in the expectation he would get the
property back when the buyer failed to meet the tem�s
of the contract for deed. Not sutprising, the property
immediately became a crime scrne and a blight on the
neighborhood. Also, to no one's surprise, tares were
not been paid on this property since 1998 and
tivoughout ow study period. Like several o[her of our
case studies, this property became vacant at the end of a
downward cycIe of poIice and code problems which
ended in the duplex being used as a drug house. The
City attempted to intervene, but received only tepid
support from the housing court. Finally, the City did
succeed in getting the property condemned and vacated
which helped unri] squatters moved in and began '
selling nazcotics. When the police finally resolved that
problem, fhe property went empty which it remains to
this day.
,-,> ,
:s:..
„„r _
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Lente�
Crime
In the beginning, when we were endeavored to study chronic problem properties, we thought the
majority of problems we would encounter would be exterior code violations. These aze the
things peopte see and they often come to mind first when thinking about paRicular properties.
However, while broken windows occurred at 44 percent of our properties and there was a build-
up of household gazbage at 63 percent, various types of crimes occurred even more frequently.
For example, disorderly boys" were reported at 66 percent of the case studies, domestic viotence
was reported at 88 percent of the properties and vandalism at 56 percent. While we ceRainly
expected some crime, the level and depth of the problems was one of our more profound
findings.
In the earlier discussion of signs of disorder and zncivility, the following types of behaviors and
crimes were highlighted. Of those signs of disorder that occur on private property, almost all
were reported in some aspect of our case studies, except pan handling and vagrancy. This is
reflected in Tables 18, 19 and 2Q as welt as in the case studies themselves. Notably, although a
few of these are violent in nature, they are, for the most part, nuisance crimes.
Social Signs oF Incivility
Pros[itution Sexual Harassment on the Street Vaga�fcy ��
Public Brinking Domestic Disputes that Spill into Public Space Robbery "
Unpredictable People Public Insults Loitering
Panhandlers Drug Dealing (Open Air and Drug HousesJ Gunfire �
Merttally Distvrbed Auto TheR Weapons
HazassmendHazanguing Arguing/Fighting Among Neighbors Curfew Violations
School Disruption Lack of Traffic Enforcement Str@et Dog Fighting
Gang Violence Truancy
Rowdy Teens/E'erai Youth — also known as disorderly boys by the St. Paul Police Gambling
Nuisance Crime
Nuisance crime, which is sometimes referred to as "quality of life" crime includes a wide variety
of actions which are against the law. For purposes of our study, they aze also those crimes which
do not fit neatly into the categories of violent or property crime. Several types of nuisance crime
were found in our case studies: disorderly boys (66%), narcotics/drug dealing and use (59%) and
disturbances (56%), public drinking (38%). Prostitution was an issue in about one-fifth of our
case studies. Interestingly, severat types of nuisance crime occurred almost exclusively at one-
and two-unit residents, including loud music, haranguing of passers-by, barking dogs and dog
fighting. At the same time, repofted disturbances seemed to be more of an issue for multi-unit
residential buildings.
�� Disorderly boys is a term used in the Police Department s call management system which refers to rowdy and/or
lerly youth.
Gouncil Research Center
57
Case Study: Empty Promise
58
"Dirty Dealing" is an older single family rental house.
It has been vacant for much of the time in recent yeazs.
It was vacant from 1995 to 1998 and became vacant
again when condemned for lack of water and sanitation
in June 2000. Ownership of the property has been
unstable to say the least. It was sold in 1992, 1993,
1994, 1997 and again in 1999. The current owner was
selling it on a contract for deed when it was most
recently condemned. Interestingly, the ]ast tenant
somehow believed she was buying the home, on
contract for deed, from the preceding contrac[ for deed
buyer. Neither the conhac[ for deed buyer, nor the
tenant, aze curzently in the ownership picture with the
property having reverted to the recorded owner. The
most recent tenant was a mother and her two teenage
daughters. The mother is a suspected prostitute who
brought drug users and sellers into the home on a
regulaz basis.
Maintenance of the property has been abysmal, and
problems with garbage build-up and sanitation have
plagued its interior. FORCE unit officers indicated m
interviews that condirions in the house were some of
the worse they had see� unattended children were
left in filth, including dog feces, with little or no food
in the house. Ciry officials issued six summary
abatements, three correction orders and two citarions in
the months proceeding the condemnation for lack of
water and gross unsanitary condirions. The exterior of
the property has had gazbage, mattresses, furniture and
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessp�,��n�c Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
appliances causing numerous code violations. The City
also chazged/billed the occupants for excessive use of
Code Enforcement services.
The police have also been busy at this property.
During our study period, the police were called to this
address I50 times, in spite of the property being
officially vacant for six months of this period. There
was no significant criminal activ�ry in 2001 and very
few calls for police service. For a single fami]y
dwelling, this high call leve] during our study period is
a little short of astonishing. It means, for example, the
police came to this home an average of twice each
week the eighteen months it was ocwpied. Police
responded to calls involving noise, vandalism, detox,
nazcorics, burglary, domesric violence, fights,
dangerous condirions and disturbances. Police
infomiants were offered drugs at this locarion and the
FORCE unit raided the house. They have, not
surprisingly, received norice of excess consumption of
police services. The fact the home was condemtted and
officially vacant did not entirely stop the criminal
activiry. It continued to be used as a crack house by
squatters and other illegal occupants. The number of
police calls d'vninished, but the police continued to
respond to crimina] activity at this address, albeit at a
lesser level than when it was occupied.
The behavior of a neighbor further complicates the
situarion at this address. She is thought by staff to be a
men[ally ill mdividual who is overly sensitive and
racist. She reportedly has an avowed hah of black
people and was detemuned to force them ou[ of the
neighborhood. She is known to complain cons[antly
and tends to take things roo faz. The fac[ that the
owners do not seem to caze much about the property
makes this situation worse. They have not responded
to letters from the disfict council regardmg problems at
the property, and seem profoundly disinterested in
rehabilitating or even maintaining this property. At
thisjuncture the property remains officially vacant but
there is a possibility that a church may purchase and
rehabilitate the property.
,�;�,;..
"�:';
Table 18. Nuisance Crimes
Violation
Residential
1-2 Uait 3+ Unit
Properties in Group (N = )
Disordedy Boys
Narcotics/Drugs
Disturbances
Public Drinking
Pros[itution
Loud Music
Hazangu�ng of Passers by
Dog Fighting
Rarkine Doe Problems
10 (52.6%)
9 (47.4%)
10 (52.6%)
4 (21.1%)
4 (21.7%)
4 (21.1 °/a)
3 (I5.8%)
2 (10.5%)
2 (10.5%)
8 C88.9%)
7 (77.8%)
6 (88.9%)
5 (55.6%)
2 (22.2%)
I (Il.l%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (75.0%)
3 (75.0%)
2 (50.0%)
3 (75.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
21 (65.6%)
t9 (59.4%)
18 (56.3%)
12 (37.5%)
7 (21.9%)
5 (/5.6%)
3 (9.4%)
2 (6.3%)
2 - (k.3%)
:9 (90.
�
tv..ia000rf'rimeTotal 18 (94.7�) 8 (88•9%) 3 (75.0%)
Property Crime
Property-related crimes were only slightly less common in our case studies than nuisance or
violent crime. Of the problems discussed in the research as social incivilities, only auto theft is ?
considered a property crime. In terms of the physica] incivilities, vandalism is,discussed. The
most common property crimes reported for our case studies were vandalism (56%), theft (50%),
burglary (47%) and auto theft (41%). There were also several cases of arson and dan�gerous
conditions reported to police, however not at the same properties.
Table 19.
Violation
Crimes
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Uoit
Commercial I Total
Prnwriiac in GYOUD /N =) 19 9 4
4 (Z00.0%)
3 (75.0%)
2 (50.0%)
2 (50.0%)
o �o.a��
o �o.a�>
Theft
Vandalism
Burglary
Auto Theft
Dangerous Conditions
Arson
4 (21.1%)
9 (47.4%)
6 (31.6%)
7 (36.8%)
�
z �rosi�
0 (0.0%)
8 (88.9%)
6 (66.7%)
7 (77.8%)
4 (44.4%)
z �zz.zi)
4 (44.4%)
32
16 (50.0%)
18 (56.3%)
15 (46.9%)
13 (40.6%)
4 (/2.5%)
4 (12.5%)
26 (81.3%)
o�
P��.,PrrvCrimeTotal 13 (42.1%) 9 (100.0%) 4 (!00%
19 9
v � .�.y, i 59
Commercial I Total
q 32
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Ce�� Saint Paul C"rty Couacil Researoh Center
if
Case Study: Dirty Dealing
Voc "I�v I 61
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso� Ch � on i� problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
Violent Crime
Violent crime is both the most disturbing and most vexing component of our case studies. A
high level of violent crime was reported for these chronic problem properties. Some form of
violent crime was reported for 91 percent of our case studies in the 24 month study period. The
most common type of violence reported was domestic violence (88%), followed by other
violence (66%), fights (38%) and aggravated assault (34%). Also reported were weapons and
missing persons in 16 percent of our cases, stalking in nine percent and robbery in six percent.
Table 20. Violent Crime/Crimes Against Persons
Residential
I-2 Unit 3+ Unit
Commercial
19
4
16 (841%)
9 (47.4%)
3 (I5.8%)
5 (26.3%)
2 (70.5%)
3 (15.8%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
9
9 (100.0%)
9 Q00.0%)
6 (66.7%)
4 (44.4%)
2 (221 %)
1 (11.1%)
2 (221%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (75.0%)
3 (75.0%)
3 (75.0%)
2 (50.0%)
1 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%)
2 (50.0%)
Total
32
28 (87.5%)
21 (65.6%)
12 (37.5%)
11 (34.4%)
5 Q5.6/)
5 (75.6%)
3 (9.4%)
2 (63%)
29 (90.6%)
Given violent crime tends to be an "indoor" crime, with the notable exception of robbery, we
were somewhat perplexed. The violent crime described and alluded to in the Broken Windows
Theory and Incivilities Thesis, seemed to be "outdoor" crime- namely robbery, but also
possibly fighting and gun play. A recent publication from the National Institute of Justice,
Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods- Does It Lead to Crime? (2001) by Sampson and
Raudenbush indicates "robbers respond to visual clues ofsocial and physical disorderin a
neighborhood. These cues may entice them to act, and this in tum undermines collective
efficacy, producing a cycle of yet more disorder and ultimately more robberies."'$ However,
although robbery was occasionatly an issue for the case studies, far and away the most wide-
spread category of violent crime we saw was domestic violence. This leads us to several possibte
conclusions on the Broken Windows Theory. One is that not all violent crimes aze covered by
the theory, only exterior violent crimes. Another is that cues in the exterior world work to
encourage violence inside of residences. A third is that disorder does not promote violent crime
per se, but that the conditions which create it, also create the violence. In other words, the
underlying social conditions that create violent crime, also create social and physicat disorder. "
17 _(89.5%) 9 (100.0%)
3 (75.0%1
Violation
Properties in Group (N = )
Domestic Violence
O[her Violence
Fighcs
Aggravated Assault
Weapons
Missing Persons
Stalking
Robbery
Violent Crime Total
�$ Rober[ J. Sampson and S[ephen W. Raudenbush. Dtsorder in Urban Neighborhoods-Does It Lead to Crime?
Natronal Institute ofJus�rce. Reseorch in Brief. Wazhington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, February 2001.
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Center
How the Problems interact
The term "disorder" is perhaps the best characterization of what is happening in our case studies.
One is struck by the chaos in the surroundings and the lives of the actors involved in these
chronic problem properties. Highlighted below is a"top ten" list of the problems and crimes
identified in our cases. Tables 21 and 22 provide furfher information along these lines.
1. Domestic Violence (880�0� 7. Burglary (47%)
2. Disorderty Boys (66%) and Other Violence (66%) 8. Windows/Screens (44%) and Junk Vehicles -
3. Garbage/Trash Build-Up - Eaterior (63%) Private Property (44%)
4. Narco[ics/Drugs (59%) 9. Tall Grass and Weeds (41%) &. Auto Theft (41%)
5. Disturbances (56%) and Vandalism (56%) 10. Public Drinking (38%), Floor Coverings (3S%)
6. Theft (50%) and Fights (38%)
These problems paint a picture of households where there are frequent episodes of violence,
problems with drinking and drugs, and an inability to maintain control of one's person and
possessions. Not surprisingly, our efforts to deal with these problems are often tailored to look
specifically at the immediate problem, whether it is domestic violence, torn screens ot public
drinking, which is discussed in the next chapter, Dea[ing wilh the Problems. IndeBd,
govemment is chazged with doing just that. However, in the case of chronic problem properties,
govemment must do more than just deal with the latest problem at hand. In order to keep these
problems from presenting themselves time and again, efforts need to be made to cure and prevent �
all of the problems. �
Table 21. Summary of Condifions
Violations
Commercial Total
ProDerties in Group (N = )
4 3Z
Exterior Structural Problems
Garbage/Yard
c . _ n_..L1....... T..�n/
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit
19 9
14 (73J%) 9 (100.0%)
1 S (94J%) 5 (55.6%)
79 I700.0%) 9 (700.0%)
2 (50.0%,
4 (100.0%)
4 (100.0%)
25 (78.]%)
27 (84.4%1
32 (100.0%)
Interior Struc[ural Problems
Interior Systems Problems
Public Health Problems
/nterior Code Violations Total
7 (36.8%)
8 (42.1%)
3 (15.8%)
12 (63.3%)
Nuisance Crime
Property Crime
Violent Crime
Crime Total
1 S (94. 7%)
13 (42.1%)
17 (89.5%)
/9 (100.0%)
9 (100.0%)
9 (100.0%)
� (�z8/)
9 (100.0%)
8 (88.9%)
9 �ron.oi�
9 (100.0%)
9
3 (75.0%)
2 (50.0%)
3 (75.0%)
4 (700.0%)
s ��s.ni�
a �toni�
3 (75.0%)
4 (700.0%)
19 (59.4%)
19 (59.4%)
13 (40.6%)
25 (78.1 %)
29 (90.6%)
26 (81.3%)
29 (90.6%)
32 (100.0%)
>k ;
;u�,">'i. '
f;q';,
�r.: -
..,t*'i;a;. �..
, �� �, y , Sainl Paui C'�ty Councif Research Center
e
62
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso ''; -�., . y C�OI o(l07 63
Ch'ronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lessons
Name
Alligator Alley
of Code Violations and Crii
Exterior Interior
d �
�v� � o E �
�p �6 U U y [C
c°' � ? T x
c� �, m �
• • • � 1
The Brothers Grim I � � O
The Case Case
r r?
n
a�. a ...� ..
Cracking-Up
�� �'3� �t °ic
;�.��..
Danger Island
k�� ��
s�.kti
Dir[y Dealing
�� , , � sk :..
# .-�s��.
Double Gross
-... ,
„� � ��j
Down `N Out
i nt :xnn � :cn
� �'� ��
Enant Investor I
� ttT ��
Fear Factor
0 0 � � �
7
I
� � 0 0
�� ����iE*'s;i � �llI{i�)� , � 1N �b4A3L� i .� k i,��f����.�
• O O I O
( � m
,,,a�I�� .'_ �d�4 "'.�k� �',.��i�
O ,� g�. , PR1`
� � F"� �
�i �.������ .
1 • I
c�`me KEY
� r � O=1 - 25% of code violations o
� o o crimes in this category presep�
z 0. � at this properry
�, �,��{, t �� , 1= 26 - 75% of code violarions o�
���£ ,<'._,���'.'� ' f�� crimes in this category present
O � p at this property
� '�j�� •= 76 - 100% of code violarions
u: �
.�� �.��
� � � or crimes in this category
�� �t�p present at this property
3 �`�!r�t��kY
, , O Exterior Garbage/Pard Violations:
1) Gazbage/Trash Buildup; 2) Junk VehiclG
���� �j� � � �°�, � 3 Tall Grass and Weeds;
� �"���I;` � 4) Fwninse; 5) Mattresses; 6) Appliances
1 � I Exterior Structural Violations:
p�� I) Windows/Screens; 2) Door Locks:
� �� ;
� �1�..s" .,G.. �E '' broken/missing; 3) Paint: bad condition;
� � Q� 4) Siding: bad condition; 5) Roof/Fascia/
� +�-n�� c� � Soffits: holes/ leaking; 6) Outbuildings:
,'� �,,,,�� �,,. poor condirion; 7) Walls: holes, bad
I O O condition; 8) Stair Condirion
� ,,,� ,� � ,,� Interior Structural ViolaGons: 1) Other
� �� �'�;;_��� cy % (Often Flaor Coverings); 2) Doors:
, '� ' Missing, Bad Condition; 3) Holes in Walls;
4) Water Damage; 5) Stairs: Broken, Bad
� � � ` '�� ���� Condrtion
�'"��}�'!' i�I -Y Interior Systems Violations: I) Heab
• I �► I I O I O F Z I
►
GangsterBoyfriend � Q
�� ": P" �•. �fi NSI �j2
... � w� � !, •na ��it ` �
La C�cazacha Q
� I �` � ���' ����I� "�,
�.,�' 1 .:� �� �' ��k
Motel Califomia O O
Old and Ugly
Overwhe]med
0
�snace, ) E ectncity, 3) Water
�"` � r g� i �k Shutoff/Malfimction; 4) Gas; �
'•� ' `''u -- 5) Refrigerator; 6) Stove; 7) Water Heater
O O 1� Interior Health Violations: 1) Gazbage
� �'�'�'� ' ,,„"� ,; Build-up; 2) Rodents/Insect Infestarion;
`�' � �_.�:�� ��..?i€ 3) Overcrowding; 4) Smoke Detectors�
� missing/malfunctioning
. � n.¢ � � � Nuisance Crimes: 1) Disorderly Boys;
� #� � �`�` ' g 2 Nazcotics/Dru s 3 Disturbances;
e ...�aS ,C �i�� �, � 8 i �
0 � � � 4) Public Drinking; 5) Prostiturion;
a4 ;� {, ��, ik ,���� y . ;; 6) Loud Music; 7) Hazanguing of Passers
�z�, �+��� 4�� I�I3�i�� by; 8) Bazking Dog Problems; 9) Dog . -
, , , Fightmg ,
�, . � Property Crimes: 1) Vandalism; 2) Thefr;
&`,' ° ,y, .:; ��� 3) Burglary ; 4) Auto Theft; 5) Dangerous
_�. � .t, ..,« ��, �"�'a�� C d ti • 6 Ar
1 1 I I O O � on i ons, ) son
Violent Crimes: I) Domestic Violence; 2)
u. �.,„ � � na� u� �� n�
��.�is ,µ {���D�I�I�� "� {�� "'����� ����`� Other Violence; 3) Child Abuse/Neglecr, 4)
,�.,us'�s�, n,:, �� �r . ...,.:u� �.�t�E� �_„ ,.�'�.�..�' � s* � ... Fights; 5) Aggravated Assault; . . .
� O • O 6) Weapons; 7) Missing Persons;
.. ['Cl�. ..fl` '����i ..,.:�vt....';„�.`'�': ;as� ��m� 8) Stalking; 9) Robbery .
Watenag Hole O O O 1 � �
' _. "�"� �'�,� � � � �
w.ei3�:�Ieie§bo� . �. .n n_ �.. �.�: t—_:.� = w,. ..� _ .� k ..;::..:�i"
� Tfils table indicates the varie of problems experienced in each category presented, not the severity of problems.
For example, there aze six exterior gazbagelyazd problems that may have occurred during the two-yeaz study period. If [hree of
the six occurred at this property, the 1 indicates this.
2002 Saint Paul City Councii Research Cenl
;,;.
The City of Saint Paul, as all cities, exists to protect the health, welfare and safety of those who
live here. The City accomplishes this purpose by providing a rich array of ta�c and fee supported
services designed to ensure that its citizens have an environment in which they can be healthy,
safe and pursue happiness. The City is quite successful at achieving this purpose as evidenced by
the increasing number of people who choose to live here and by its successes as compazed to
other cities. The City does, however, not always succeed in providing the desired environment.
Crimes continue to be committed, people continue to become ill and various sorts of
unpleasantness continue to detract from the quality of life in Saint Paul. Since life is not perfect,
we leam to accept, and even expect, some violations of official laws, rules and regulations.
Since it seems almost anything can be against the law, we want enforcement officers to exercise a
great deal of discretion about when and how they enforce laws. We recognize people need a little
space and are generally quite accepting of occasional behavior outside the formal rules. For
example, hazdly anyone in Minnesota obeys speed limits all the time, yet we expect only the
most flagrant violators to be officially sanctioned. ,
The same is true of property Code Enforcement. There are few properties in Saint Paul where a
determined inspector could not find a violation of some City ordinance. Yet they`actually cite
relatively few property owners for violations and even these properties aze seldom cited for every ,
possible violation. The way one inspector put it is "one beer can in a yard is not a problem, 50
beer cans may be a problem, but 500 beer cans in a yazd is totally unacceptable. Mitigation is
not about achieving perfection. Rather, it is about achieving a level of compliance acceptable to
the community without incurring undue costs or impinging too much on peoples right to live
their lives with a reasonable degree of freedom. .,
While residents of Saint Paul may violate community behavioral norms from time to time, most
behave as expected most of the time. The favorable influences of social norms, religious beliefs,
moral fiber and/or fear of legal consequences work for most people. Even when citizens stray into
unacceptable behavior, most respond positively to the application of intemal or extemal pressures.
The overwhelming majority of Saint Paulites either comply with community norms or aze easily
conected when they go astray. For most, a word from a neighbor, a complaint from a family
member, counseling from a religious leader, a visit from a police o�cer or the ongoing guidance of
their conscience is sufficient to get them back on the right track. Unfortunately, not all respond to
such influences. Continuing refusal to comply with community norms regazding acceptable
behavior and/or property maintenance often manifests itself as a chronic problem propeRy.
Failure to follow community norms is not a new phenomenon. The City has had more than 150
years of experience in dealing with such problems. This century and one-half of experience has
resulted in a"pretty good set of tools for the City to use to deal with such problems. For
misbehavior the police often respond and "advise" the apparent offender to "straighten up" or, on
occasion, arrest someone. For failure to �aintain property, City officials may apply a variety oF
sanctions ranging from "verbal orders to condemnations, emergency abatements and criminal
citations. In this chapter we will examine the interventions used, lazgely without success, on 32 "
chronic problem properties we have selected for in-depth study. To help understanding, it is
useful to distinguish among the City agencies empowered to take corrective action with respect
to chronic problem properties. We wiil also address the City resources expended on these
properties and the cost of these interventions.
Council Research Center
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS
64
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson
"Double Trouble" is a very old— well over one
hundred yeazs— side-by-side duplex in an enclave of a
pleasant old neighborhood which is checkered with
problem and chronic problem properties. It has been
for many years within the confrol of a landtord whom
Ciry staff wnsider to be the quintessential "slumlord.°
He is notorious among City inspectors for being a lazy,
cheap owner who makes undeserved profit by
exploiting tenants who aze unable to find or afford
proper housing. He rents to tenants who he knows
cannot afford to stay, and who aze subsequently evicted
due to nonpayment of rent. The landlord, of course,
keeps their vazious deposits and then re-rents the
property to yet another unfortunate family. He deals
with the lowest end of the economic ladder by
providing temporary housing and cycling tenants
through the "revolving doors" of this duplex. This is
only one of many properties managed by the owner and
his family.
Not surprisingly, some of these unscreened tenants
bring serious behavioral problems to this address. A
neighborhood organizer said that some of the tenan[s
who have come and gone were criminal and definitely
neighborhood problems, while others were "good
people who have had a rough life." The police aze
frequently called to deal with just about every type of
minar, and sometimes more serious, crvnes. There aze
nazcotics, domestic assaults, fights, runaway children
and more. The police cope by writing reports,
investigating, giving advice and sometimes azresring or
transporting to detox centers. The flow of criminal
activity is lazgely unaffected as each set of bad tenants
is replaced with another. The community organizer for
the azeas summed i[ up by saying "you name it - it has
happened here.° Most of the tenants in this property
aze seen as "sad sacks" who have no idea how to cope
with their children and their miserable economic
situarion.
Maintenance of this building is abysmaL Tfsere have
been problems with the fumace, walls and doors, along
with exterior gazbage and interior pest infestations.
The owner wil] not fix anything— unless forced to by
the City and then makes only minimal repairs. In all,
during the 24 month study period, th�s proper[y was the
subject of four conectional notices, two zoning
citations, one summary abatement and one
condemnation.
There seems little hope for this situarion. The tenants
bring serious behavioral problems and have few life
skills. The owner depends upon this incompetence and
cycles tenants through these units yeaz after yeaz. The
neighbors call the police and complain to the district
council which "watches" the situation and hies to
facilitate official Ciry intervention. The City acts by
making Code Enforcement visits and even condemnmg
the building as unfit for human habitation. The ov✓ne�
resists and the situation continues lazgely unabated.
This property has been in PP200Q the Rental
Regisa�ation program, the Good Neighbor Program,
monitored by the Problem Properties Task Force and
been in almos[ every other program the City has
developed to deal wi[h chronic problem properties such
as this— all to little avail. This property has been like
this for ten yeazs and, unless something dramaric
happens, will likely conrinue for at least another ten
yeazs.
The Police Department is responsible for dealing with those who violate laws and City
ordinances. Patrol officers do the bulk of the day-to-day enforcement of laws and the
preservation of the peace. Patrol officers are usually the first responders to calls for police
service and usually determine how to deal with the situation when they arrive on the scene. They
often have a wide range of discretion in selecting the appropriate police response and are
expected to exercise judgement in selecting responses. Sometimes they will apprehend and arrest
alleged offenders or they may decide that no police action is required and simply leave the scene.
Patrol officers operate largely on a complaint basis. Mostly, calls are received from citizens in
the emergency communications center and patrol officers are dispatched by radio to respond to
specific complaints or requests for service. Patrol o�cers may, on occasion, engage in
systematic enforcement, particulazly dwing a special initiative such as Heavy Enforcement
Activity for Thirty Days (HEAT) but most of their time and energy is dedicated to responding to
caSls.
Patrol
The police primarily respond to concerns regarding inappropriate behavior. Sometimes these
misbehaviors are serious criminal matters but, more often, they are less serious, liut ubublesome,
disturbances of the public peace. The Police have authority to deal with property maintenance
issues but generally leave such matters to other City agencies. The Chief of Police has recently
increased the DepartmenYs focus on property maintenance issues but these concems remain
peripheral to most law enforcement officers. Behavioral issues aze, and have always been,
central to the mission of the Police Department. '
The Police Department responds to about 250,000 calls for service each year. Most of the time
the action taken is to "advise" real or suspected offenders to "straighten up" and/or to advise
crime victims how to respond to real or imagined threats to their safety or comfod. Sometimes
they write official repoRS and sometimes they take alleged offenders into police custody. Police
responses to crime aze "time-tested°and work most of the time. There are, fiowever, situations
where traditional police responses do not work. When criminals do not respond well to
traditional police tactics, the department sometimes establishes special units to address the
problem. This is why most lazger police departments have developed special units to deal with
vice, homicide, traffic enforcement and drug trafficking. Few, if any, police departments have
developed special units dedicated to chronic problem properties. The FORCE unit does target
specific properties because of suspected drug dealing. This sometimes correlates with the
presence of other crimes but, for the most part, the impact of FORCE unit activities on non-drug
related crimes is incidental, not purposeful.
���,
'"��' ��M Paul C Council Researoh Center
2002SaintPaWCLLyCouncilResearchCente� 'i` �
^er.:
a�R�ryronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
vvt ��� 65
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Case Study: Double Trouble
66
Name
Alligato� Alley
����� . . �I
�.
The Brothers Grim
The Case Case
� 2 � , �, , ��E
C t �i�SUi1�, ...b.. Y ..
Cracking-Up
Danger Island
Dirty Dealing
� �j'��R��g�'�
����..r � a�r��
Double Gross
iTIiY�I# 1�I N{ i
r.��: s�3� s� �s±
Down `N Out
Enant Investor I
r �
E C'G � ti�
Feaz Factor
��
,..
z :.., G.�.�
Gangster Boyfriend
5 8
3. „�� �F���
0 24
La Cucaracha 92 94
�n FiP 1'... >� t'� I i� t A �t �t w .„ E c
N.�4�splaced 's�,�j�����W «:: ������� <E, , �. � �ti�
�� ,, +� �� �,t.x .
Motel Califomia � �� 149 147
��+a r �OU[ �� di �t2i{��R'��� � � , F� �bi�{�{��ii Hr w.27
�
, �' ... .>._�r .>�.., _ �.w�" a�,� '�. U �'.,Y: ,_ . .....
Old and Ugly 27 27
Overwhelmed
� T�xo tLe G7acks :: '
, . �.__ u�.
Watering Hole
;�.Weird Neiehbor � - � _ ��
for Service Load 1
1999 2000
Calls Calls
74 72
t��,,;�� u�§�...� �`�°�§
.�, 21 .. zs ,
� � r � � ���
� ; °�� ����
_.� ����
57 57
14 150
auS
� ���
����,ff�s�
76 138
' (�Ikk n "�?
81 69
10 29
{t. t Yt�
��� . '��
50 41
:;> � ������ '�
�..��au�us!�
22 s
15
32
21
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �ti�onic Problem Properties in Saint Paui: Case Study Lessons
U o t o( (s�Ys�
nge, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Evaluating the effectiveness of police activities by looking only at chronicproblem propeRies is
unfair and circular. It is illogical to purposely select properties because they have been resistant
to o�cial interventions and then assess the effectiveness of such interventions based on these
2001 '• Actual Cnange Actual Cnange properties. We are not, therefore, intending to suggest police interventions are not generally
1999 2000
Calls ;(�io Cbange) (^/o Change) effective. We aze only intending to examine a small number of propeRies in Saint Paul that
�5 ': -2 (-3%) 3 (a%) seemingly do not respond to police, and other, interventioas to better understand the effect of
� n �� �, ,���,�,� these resistant properties on the City and, perhaps, to stimulate some new thinking about how to
� ' �w. _ .,�,�,�� ' °,�� �_ ��__.�.r,� �at, deal with these persistent community imtants.
31 i 4 (19%) 6 (24%)
�`��' 4 �;��;�� ,���', a��:�" �_� Police Patrol Services
�
71 0 0 14 (25%)
�. ���912 `"* � ���"'� 59� �� 5^% � In beginning to think about the relationship between calls for police service and our 32 chronic
u..,.....m.., ......._. � E{��� A Y.m� �� u,I-}!?�
� 12 � 136 (9�� %) -38 ( zs%) problem properties, it is illustrative to first recognize the sheer volume of calls for police service
�� ,� � r;� „,� � �, 4 � emanating from or about these addresses. As shown in Table 1, these 32 properties generated
� a���_ _. ���� '���� ��,: qs ti�t=:,. 2,488 calls for po(ice service in only 24 months. This averages more tha� 100 calls per month
95 � 62 (82%) -a3 (-31%) for the sample goup of propeRies or an average of 3.24 police calls for service per month for
;��'� ��� . 5�; '� '��& 7 ���° ' each property. On average, the police were called to each of these properties almost once every
� tii I=�a haN , ���a����. .., effi5dss7�����.� !l.��� -
3 :-1z (-15%) -66 (-96%) week for an ongoing period of two years. ,
murnn ' j �4�3� nr : • : �gai'k�N= � ;.
�� �:._'e�' �„ °��� While looking at the average number of police calls for service for this group of chronic problem
60 :` t9 (109%) u 31 (107/0) properties is useful, it does somewhat obscure the truly extraordinary number of callsfor police
i ��„ .. ± �mG' r �t„n � .,, ` . ,{;, I�t�r 9 � .a�> }::
�...�;�m ���''�_ a_�.�' ,. :.:: _(��C��a � service at some properties. As shown in Table I, the number of calls for police service ranged
35 :-9 (-18%) -6 (-15°io) from a low of four (Weird Neighbor) to a high of 296 (Motel California). To get a sense of how
���,' � P �� E'� ,� often police have responded to calls at Motel California, 296 calls over a period of two years, or
{ ...:.. °�i� � k,� � ii StfE;}t�; �� � .� � � .
104 weeks means the police were called to this propeRy an average of almost three times (2.9)
i : ta (-64% -7 ( s8^io) there are seven other properties in our
every week For two years. Besides Motel California,
��� s"z �� a�;:' 3 ca ak?7
1p ,�,� � yt ,P�qO"�o�F,�� ��� �/o)�,;_ group that averaged more than one police call each week for two years. These_propedies aze
la : 3 (60%) 6 (75%) Fight Club, The Case Case, Cracking-Up, Alligator Alley, Dirty Dealing, La Cucaracha, Danger
� '�(�' '� ',,"'" ���"+ • 6�,- ,• Island and Cash Cow. As might be expected, most of these properties are multi-unit buildings
�". ��'". ' �r a `��,�;� (u �
z . Z4 �� ZZ � 92��0� housing many occupants or they aze bars. While this may help, at least partially, explain the
�, ,:� ��� n �, ,„ �„ .. unusually high number of police calls, there are many other buildings in Saint Paul, with even
H!W q .v i
�C�' �_'� ,�."� `(��$,g ' more residents, which do not experience these levels of service. Another factor that may help
54 : 2 (2%) -40 (-a3%) explain the seeming inefficacy oFthese repeated police interventions is the mobile population
�� ���'. �� . �` 2 �?� � °"� served by some of these buildings. It may be that police aze successfully dealing with one
��f � � i� " S ��y��3�N s �., _:,..:�� �.; uoublesome resident only to have them replaced by another bad actor. Again, however, other
157 2 ( 1%) ]0 (7%) '
{ g � buildings also serve mobile populations and do so without becoming chronic problem properties.
� t � � y M
� i f " � ��!r�i.� R `Y
s._:�� � u_3', ... �...y+.��,,� �._. `. I$..._.���, ".,E These high numbers of police calls for service seem to have more to do with the management, or
18 : 0 0 -9 (-33%) lack of management, than with the type of building or the mobility of tenants.
� 4 `" i «�a7��i�3�'�i�i �� 00%) ���I'�� L'+t�%j � .
...�.._..�,.L!3��1��.��,.�,�«_. ..�.a,sr�s�t�I . �x....w..rceit
15 : 6 (40%) -6 (-29%) There is also something to be learned by considering the properties in our group that experienced
�; .�_��, o} `,� k £,���. '.. very few police calls for service. These properties, such as Weird Neighbor, M'uplaced and Dirty
°': 4 ��,��,,�� { s (� �� Business are chronic problems almost solely because of propeRy maintenance issues. They have
� r itn�
42 50 �o (32%) 8 (19%) had few dealings with the police because the police seldom deal directly with property
- � o . �;^ �.a.nmrk` r m
2. 1� �., �; � 0: _���,,��3s (550!):; 3 maintenance issues, especially, if there is no associated criminal behavior. These propert�es are;
however, heavy consumers of City property maintenance enforcement activities-as will be.
apparent when these activities aze considered later in this report. An important thing to
remember is that some properties aze problems mostly because of the misbehavior of occupanu,
some properties aze chronic problems mostly because of property maintenance issues and some,
„ in fact many, aze chronic problem properties for both reasons.
2002 Saint PaW City Council Research Center ,;� "�� �^� P'ul Ciry Council Research Center
�',
s$ Chronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Study Lesso %'..:�"';; y UoZ C�10`1 69
���� problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lessons
Table 24. Police Calls for Service: Disposi6ons During Study Period (1999-2000)
Action Taken on Property
% Calls OfScer Action
Name Advised Reports� Detox Taken on Property`�
Alhgator Alley 66 29 (20 %J 2 66 %
,:.,� 3�F rsn �. t'I`!?C�gr+iyi ' ii�dt ��u x ;( 3 �y�'�:' E �€� sa'knsmit
Bad: $;nys � _. � E � 25 t�e��� i z% (35��4�� ���� . . � �' � �� �� � . �.
_ Exe. r< � ie,�.a W .. < , . <.w� E�t#i I_ - ;,.' $� �s :� 3u n..,�, . �(50F'33 _3.� .
Brothers Grim 17 12 (26 %) 0 63 %
� .. � R � a �� ` ,..., ""t �3 £y* "4 $ n :-IG'
a'�iaA.�iu.�e ..:a�Iatl�[i��#p ��iS3iEd����t,`�.s $3;�"�
The Case Case 53 32 (28 %) 1 75 %
� �� �� _ �a�� � � <� � . � � r� �, � � � �,�,. �
..� _ . n;,�tQrY�, !!.:�:� .', , � .���.��.��c�,�4' . � :`._,.,.w;s , ���'.�� S �;.. �x�I�'"fi�.�.�u�;ia. `'�''`����
Cracking-Up 87 31 (19 %) 0 72 %
'��V� } �sd': '� . �" �sr _t .
�„ �0� �""'.�t,, w ; ,��a ,,�t�,�v �4��!�a ���`�����'f �;��
;Ib. , fu*r:. , ..—uiY�e.4 E y( { ..Y.11`i.��
Danger Island
4..a a ���
D ss .t�''i��
n .i...�. .e h .t . < ...k Y
Dirty Dealing
�� � s;s��
..€�j��.,.� yx .» fnar ��i� V�i� if
Double Cttoss
'st:q�}y�yEt�� -:,:, ,a�:
�� !IP�' I1b�0 TT� � '
° �3�i��en�wts�' ,
Down `N Out
r nr ; �. ����.ii __�,
, � . �lvu�il�n5
Errant Investor I
F a� r"" .
�� ��, . �����I
Feaz Factor
���g�k�Clutsi' �,
�N aR;�
Gangs[er Boyfriend
a •: "•��' £ �s:�?.. u. �.........
La Cucaracha
,..,������� �!���
Motel California
io� s2 (za i� o
a� �a� � .� �3 ��+� ��
fi � x� ��
.,.._ ..3�u`R � .
53 20(13%) 2
�� � s '� s F�K �' A a
�,;��, m� k, �=•Na ,��a.:�
23 7(18%) 0
51 16 (!8 %) 4
88« a€ F'.�' �. ����n�����. .
z2 .� �� r��zs:� :� � �,
19 4(13%) 0
'�� ����� �� rv,.�f�lt� �
7 0(0/) 0
9 3 (/3 %) 0
a.� +� � i� �'��.�.<�:..:i� ""�,,:��?
7 (1g 3 52 (28 %) 3
�#H . . .,�� �3�i'. ��P�` .�
.....ns.�6 �� i "t ,.,.Nkidp��
138 70 (24 %) 11
Old and Ugly 24 18 (33 %) 1
n a���� y � s �t ' t i rvp"f��, .. �} �sn - .
� �s�5'���ge .::t 7��i (p S is-€'" 9 a�c�'i� � 3%,� �3t�i� ��...',*'4n.
� � _ . �!�. ���uaru . . . ... �ih..i.:t... .�� 3? .,_ E}?�...AY ,�. S
Overwhelmed 9 14 (39 %) 0
�lE'6� S g1Y'fhC��"I3C�C5 ti �'� � � ?.�F� 3 ��IP.� 4 ���E5� kM4tsl:' � -
. � ... .� .. �
Watering Hole 20 32 (43 %) 1
3`G����S�%)
�a ^ro
'p r�
i �� p����p � fy �
. � i2.�!:Hi}�t :a
50 %
ei i ��
�j 3 "�
. � t�ii P
75 %
as�� T u .,. �L���
3
i����=��" �
78 %
!III9tu!`Imni ¢,,,
t f�41,�'q�p� u`y � �
n
77 %
�
o � G,����
v G�' �,.����r,��
54 %
f
� �,: �
� .._.
50 %
s l# �„H W
69 °/a
�g�' ��'
� w��
74 %
RFj" .'^:�� , �
,� � ,� � w��
78 %
t��� � 3 ..:i
� t !h€d.e.
64 °/a
����� .�.
71%
Total
146
�� � j m� ' �['_
5� � r .'llU=r
46
�s�� a ���ji�„itg�f
$������
114
�.. ��� � ..
�, �..t �,
164 �
� .I-s4�
214
���, < ����
150
%(� tjYi3i
I!W k[{N:
. tq I�t1��f�
40 �'�
�E� <���`��I
91
II3f�� .., �.•.
� "__��+��8���
30
�r���
13 ���
7A
3� ���
� ��g
185
� �
296
�� ���
55
! R t^
(4 (t I''
. a2ry. ,._.,.
36
��� ��� 3`
�
n� 4 �>�.
75
�"Reports" as a category is used when a report is written, and it does not preclude anest, or citarion as an outcome. The percent
of reports may be used as a"proxy" for the seriousness of the incidents.
*' There were several categories of cal] outcomes not included in the table as "officer action on properry:" Traffic (TRF), Gone
on Arrival (GOA), Duplicate (DUP), Canceled (CAi�, Previously Canceled (PCT�, Unfounded (LJNF), Service Not Required
(SNR).
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Councii Research G
Cost of Police Patrol Services -
As explained in the methods section, we estimate it costs the City an average of $130 for Police
Patrol to respond to a call for service. Based on this estimate, it cost the City $323,440 to
respond to calls from our 32 properties during the two years being studied. This uanslates to
$161,720 per year for these properties. Dividing these estimated annual costs by the 32
properties studies yields an average annual cost of $5,054 per property.
The properties requiring above average levels of Police PaVOI services yields some astonishing
costs. For example, the Motel California with 296 calls during the two-yeaz study period yields
an estimated two-yeaz cost of $38,480 or $19,240 annually. The estimated annual costs for other
high consumers of Po(ice Patrol serviees aze Fight Club ($5,395), Case Case ($7,410), Cracking-
Up ($10,660), Alligator Alley ($9,490), Dirry Dealing ($9,750), La Cucaracha ($12,025),
Danger Island ($13,910) and Cash Cow ($13,455). Beaz in mind, as will be discussed later,
Police Patrol costs are only one of many costs the City incurs in seeking to deal with these
chronic problem properties. Also, it is impoRant to understand, as will be elaborated on later in
this report, these costs far exceed any taY revenues generated by these chronic problem
properties. For example, the Motel California, in the year 2000, paid $3,028 in municipal taYes
to the City of Saint Paul while costing the City of Saint Paul more than six times ($19,240� that
amount in Police Patrol costs alone.
<
FORCE Unit �
The FORCE unit is dedicated to combating street-level drug dealing. This unit of about 25
officers has developed its own repertoire of tools for pursuing its mission. They focus on i
particular propeRies and use confidential informants, surveillance, "knock & talks" and search
warrants to detect and interdict street level drug dealing. T'hey also seek to coordinate with other
police and non-police enforcement agencies to prevent the creation and continuation of drug
dealing locations. This unit generally undertakes imestigations of particulaz individuals or
locations based on information from sources suggesting ongoing drug related criminal activity.
While the FORCE Unit does receive and respond to complaints, their basic method of operation
is investigative rather than wmplaint-based.
, ';,; ..
FORCE Unit Services
An examination of the FORCE uniYs activities related to our sample of chronic problem
properties illuminates the high correlation between street-level drug trafficking and chronic
problem properties. Twenty-two of the 32 properties in this study received the attention of the
FORCE unit within the twayeaz study period.
The most common FORCE tactics with these propeRies were to conduct surveillance and attempt
to "make drug buys." This was done witk� 15 of our sample properties during 1999 and 2000. ,
These activities resulted in the execution of 1 I seazch warrants being served by the FORCE Unit.
These seazch warrants resulted in 13 persons being arrested. It is impoRant to understand the
execution of search warrants by the FORCE Unit is not at all as benign as it may sound. The
execution of these warrants oRen involves the forced entry of highly trained and heavily armed
police otticers into the premise. These aze very aggressive and dangerous operations involving
;iry Council Research Center
70
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso ,s�;'�.' Y �� ��� ��
..���onic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Stud Lessons
��.
"La Cticazacha" is a relatively new and somewhat
isolated 24-unit apar[ment building in a lazger complex.
It is located in a very diverse, but stable neighborhood.
The tenants aze predominately elderly women and low
income families, some of whom do not speak English.
However, there aze also a few tenants with reported
serious mental illness, those with criminal histories, and
those who have cruninal companions staying frequenfly
at the building. The diversity of tenants has presented a
variety of types of problems for the on-site management
of the building as well as its occupants.
On visiting the building in the daylight, one is
immediately awaze of the many unsupervised children
running azound the pazking lot and other common azeas
of the building, which creates a sense of overcrowding
and disorder. Other problems aze not as apparent on the
surface. For instance, this building has repeatedly had
problems with cockroach infestations which inspectors
attribute to the poor housekeeping skills of some of the
tenants.
One informant advised that the building used to be
horrible yeazs ago, and maybe getting bad again with
drugs, guns and fearful residents. There is, indeed, a lot
of police activity with this building involving drinking,
fights, theft, assault, azson, burglary, fraud, weapons
and nazcotics. Staff have also reported evidence of
prosriturion in the pazking lot. During our study period
alone, the police have been called to this building 185
times.' The greatest number of these calls have been to
the common azeas of the building, but several uuits
have accounted for more than 20 police calls each. As
an illus�ration, there was a case where a mentally ill
woman was plagued by the real disturbances made by a
drug dealer in the unit above hers. Unfortunately, after
the drug dealer vacated, the woman continued her
constant calling of the police— not understanding that
the bad tenant had actually moved. The new trnant was
a young law-abiding woman who then had to put up
with yelling and a broom handle tapping on her floor
whenever she walked from one room to another. In
another case, one unit in the building was condemned
as the result of azson damage caused by a tenant.
Notably, there were also seven police calls to this
building during our study period on vandalisn� three
instances in general azeas of the building and four in
specific units. Nearly all of these resulted in police
reports being written.
Not surprisingly, the Fire Depaztrnent has frequently
been called to this address. In only two years, there
have been 13 fire runs and eight Emergency Medical
Service calls. These are exhaordinary service demands
for a building of this size. Not al] the building's code
violaTions aze severe or dramaric. Rather, the primaiy
issue at this property aze the behavioral problems
caused by residents and their guests.
� Police calls in 2001 decreased some 43%jrom 2000. The Zypes and incidenres reponed are much the same ar ihey were
w
�.,....
3+
a
„�,�s .
,.�,;�:�,�
:`y'i ,
When FORCE officers do not have sufficient cause to obtain a search warrant, they frequently
conduct "knock & talks" with the residents of suspect properties. This occurred with 14 of the
study properties. These visits usually involve two officers going to the premise and explaining
their concems and suspicions to the residents. They then strongly suggest they refrain from any
further illegal behavior. Somewhat surprisingly, these "knock & talks" aze ofren quite effective.
They sometimes lead residents to stop drug dealing, at least for a while. Other times, the
residents will allow officers to enter the premise without a warrant and, on occasion, the officers
observe evidence of illegal behavior which can then be used to make an arrest or to obtain a
seazch warrant. As is appazent from the numbers, the same property may experience both a
"knock & talk" and warrant searches at different times. Most commonly, officers will conduct a
"knock & talk" if initial surveillance does not justify the execution of a search warrant in the
hopes the apparent problems will resolve themselves. When "latock and talks" do not work and
the problems persist, the police may continue to obtain sufficient additional evidence to justify a
search warrant.
Tab1e 25. FORCE Intervenrions
Interveotion
Propertiesin Group(N =)
Residentiat
1-2 Unit
19
3+U¢it Commercial
9 4
Total
32
15 (46.9%)
1.5
14 (43.8%)
1.0
13 (40.6%)
0.8
Il (34.4%)
5 (15.6%)
FORCE: buys/surveillance
Average FORCE: buys/surv
FORCE Knock d Talks
Average FORCE K d Talks
FORCE Arrests
Average FORCE Arrests ( z)'
high levels of planning and coordination. They often yield illegal weapons and sigmficant
qualities of illegal drugs. They are also very expensive operations involving many officers,
squads and special tactical weapons.
FORCE Warrants
10 (52.6%)
13
6 (31.6%)
0.9
8 (42.1 %)
0.7
8 (42.7%)
3 (15.8%)
1 (25.0%)
0.5
1 (25.0%)
0.5
0 (0.0%)'
0
0 (0.0%J
1 (25.0%)
Warrant Arrests (Patrol)
4 (44.4%)
2.2
7 (77.8%)
1.4
5 (55.6%)
1.1
3 (33.3%)
] (11.1%)
Cost of FORCE Unit Services
Given the work force cequired, the special skills involved, the need for special equipment and the
cost of informants; the FORCE Unit is an expensive activity dedicated to an especially difficult
problem. There is little doubt that attempting to interdict street-level drug trafficking is an -
expensive undeRaking. This may be a necessary public investment to preserve order and
livability in Saint Paul given the enormous social cost of unrestrained drug-dealing. Given the
complexity of FORCE Unit operations, creating reliable cost estimates is difficult. Our methods ,
for reaching the estimates used in this section aze exptained in the "Methods Section" beginn�ng
on page 13. These estimates are admittedly conservative. The true costs aze almost surely higher
than our estimates.
2002 SaiM Paui City Council Research Ce�
Couneil Resea�ch Center
Case Study: La Cucaracha
72
- Up� c �ao � . �+
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso '�pnic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Casa Study Lessons
�S "G�,,.
""�" Il en rimes and experienced six "lmock &
The "Dog House" is a very old, low-value central City
duplex. One unit is an owner-occupied homestead with
the other unit being rented. Both the owner and the
tenants have been sources of conrinuing problems.
There are a steady steam of problems at this address
with peaks during the summer months.
Since this is an owner-occupied building, the City has
no information about the condition of the interior of the
building, not having been given perrtvssion to inspect
it. The exterior has, however, been the source of
several problems. There have been many orders to
remove gazbage from the yazd. Tags have been written
for failure to maintain the gazage and there is still an
outstanding wamnnt for failure to appear on one of
these tags. The property was condemned in one
instance because electrical service was shut-off due to
failure to pay a bill of more than $3,000. The
condemnation was lified when they paid the bill with
County assistance.
Dogs aze [he major source of problems at this address.
It appeazs the tenanYs son ]ikes to conduct dog fights
with pit bulls. These dog fights have taken place in the
basement of the building, so it is apparent the owner is
aware of this illegal activity and has not interoened. It
is unclear if the owner is an acrive or passive
pazticipant in this dog fighring acfivity, but it is
obvious he ]mows it goes on in the basement. There
have been many Anima] Contro] calls to this address
and subsequent Humane Society involvement. This
dog fighting is ]mown to have occuned from 1998
through 2000. In 1999, Animal Control impounded a
dog from this address after the people moved
(temporarily) to Saint Louis and abandoned it. The
tenanYs son has been tagged for many dog related
offenses such as dog fighting, rurming-at-large, no
license and no shots. The tenant was finally cited in
2000 with running-at-lazge, no rabies shots and no dog
licence, and she cunently owes $400 in fines.
The tenants, and perhaps the owner, are believed to be
involved in other behaviotal problems such as drug-
dealing and prostimtion. The tenant's daughter is
thought to engage in prostitution and her boyfriend
reportedly deals drugs from the house, possibly in her
absence. The property was raided by FORCE in 1997
and again in 1998. Despite the long history of
problems at this property, there are few police calls to
this address in recent yeazs. Since cruninal activity
continues, it may be the neighbors have come to accept
a high level of illegal activity at this location or have
simply given up hope that the City will effectively
intervene.
La Cucaracha was under FORCE Umt survei ance sev
talks" and two FORCE Unit arrests during our two-year study period. The total estimated cost of
° surveillance of this property was $1,950 or almost $1,000 a year. The cost of six "knock &
talks" at $200 each is an additional $1,200. This yields a total cost of $3,150 or about $1,575
«.., annually for "laiock & talks" and surveillance. Also, the two arrests made by the FORCE Unit at
this address cost an estimated $914 each for a total of $1,828. Totaling the cost of FORCE Unit
acrivities at these property results in a total cost of $4,978 or an average of $2,489 annually.
};�„
r .
e.;
,
<�;�v
:.�:_.
5 (55.6%) 3 (75.0�
0.4 002
9 (100.0� 4 Q00.0�
8.9 0.6
7.0 0.0
8 (88.9%) 3 (50.0%)
0.5 0.06
7 (77.8� 4 (100.0�
p,g 0.06
32
- 12 (37.5%)
0.3
27 (84.4%)
2
32 (]00%)
24.0
10.6
17 (53.1 %)
0
21 (65.6%)
0.8
able 26. Properties Req
City DepartmenUAgency
PropeKies i n Group (N = )
Certi£tcate of Occupancy
( C of O) Rogram
Per Unit Average
Code Enforcement
Per Unit Average
Police
Per Unit Average (z)
P Unit Median
Fire
P Unit Average
Emergency Medical Services
(EMS)
Pe U nit Average
Lice
Zoning
e.,...,.,1 t'�rrr�l
19 (100.0�
4.0
19 (l00.0�
35.8
24.0
6 (31.6%)
03
10 (52.6� '
0.9
0 (0.0%)
2 (10.5� �
o ro.oiJ
2002 Saint Paul C'rty Council Research Gen
Dirry Dealing was also under surveillance by the FORCE Unit seven times during the study
period for an estimated cost of $1,950. In addition, the FORCE Unit conducted two "Irnock &
talks" plus one warrant service and an arrest. They yield an estimated $400 for "laiock & talks,"
$1,950 for surveillance, $914 for an arrest and $2,127 to serve a warrant. This yields a total
esrimated cost of $5,391 or an average of $2,695 annually. The Brothers Grim is yet another
example of a drug dealing locarion with considerable FORCE Unit costs. Within only two yeazs
the FORCE Unit had it under surveillance four times, conducted four "lmock & talks" and made
three arrests. These activities cost the City at least $1,300, $800 and $2,742, respecrively for a
total cost of $4,842 or an average of $2,421 annually. These aze only some examples of how
much it costs the City to attempt to deal with the drug-dealing within some chronic problem
properties. For our sample of 32 chronic problem properties, we esrimate that the total FORCE
cost was $55,300 during the two-yea study period.
Residential
1-2Unit 3+Unit
Commercial I Total
19 q 4
N/A 9 (100.0%) 3 (75.0%)
N/A 0.6 0.02
3 (75.0%) I 3 (9.4%)
Ciry Council Research CeMer
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0�
5 (55.6%
1 (25.0�
I (25.0%)
3 ( 9.4� '
6
Case Study: Dog House
74 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso °"`` i � P v ��� � ,�
�s ,;;Chronic Problem Pro erties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
"Misplaced" is an o]d gas station converted into a
towing service and gazage. Fire seriously damaged the
building in June 1999 and it has been a registered
vacant building since that time. The owner has
continued to try to operate a business there and
sometimes tows vehicles and stores them in the lot
adjoining the damaged building. The building is m an
historic preservarion district and has been designated
by the Historic Preservation Commission as a
sig�ificant site. The site is polluted and is a"dirty
business" with an excessive number of cazs associated
with it, often occupying local streets. While perhaps
not the most desirable neighbor, there were no special
problems with the proper[y until the fire.
During the study period, the owner has been cited for
gazbage, an electricity shutoff, a water shutoff; roof
damage, outbuilding condifion, junk vehicles and an
illegal advertising sign. The Ciry also responded with
t}uee vehicle abatements, two summary abatements and
the proper[y has been condemned three times. Finally,
there have been many issues conceming iYs business
]icense, but no significant police activity.
This entire problem revolves azound the owner. He is
`4nisplaced in rime and location." He is not a clean
person, drinks a°fair biY' and has an old time junkyazd
mentality according to al] of our interviews. Some
people have reported that drinking may be a factor,
although it is uncleaz whether this is significant. A
female City Inspector reported that on two occasions he
appeazed intoxicated and invited her to go drinking with
him. Not surprising, she declined. Some staff see him
as a drunk who does not know what he is doing. Others
believe him to be a weird chazacter who ]acks the
mental capaciry to run this or any other business. Ciry
staff report he drinnks and is seemingly unable to
complete even the s�mplest tasks without neaz daily
monitoring. He does have a son who has proposed
moving his landscaping business to this location, but
the neighbors find that prospect almost as unappealing.
As to the current situation, this is a hansirional
neighborhood and very sensitive to anything that may
discourage investment in the azea. The Ciry's
Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development
(PED) has tried to broker a sale of [his proper[y but
could not make it work. City staff have h'ied just about
everything with this property and have communicated
well among themselves. The situarion is at stalemate
and will likely remain so until there is a new owner with
a plan consistent with neighborhood redevelopment.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department has both systematic and call-based responses to problem properties.
Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical Services aze usually dispatched in response to specific
calls for service. The Code Enforcement activities of Fire Prevention are, however, both
complaint-based and systematic. Fire Prevention is responsible for ensuring compliance with fire
and property maintenance codes for residential buildings with three or more units plus
commercial buildings. To fuifill this mission, Fire Prevention relies primarily on its Certificate
of Occupancy progam. This program requires buildings to successfully pass a fire safety and
property maintenance inspection every two years. Failure to pass such inspections may lead to
the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy and, ultimately, to the closure of the building.
While biennial Certificate of Occupancy inspection is the Fire DepartmenYs primary tool for
ensuring compliance with property maintenance codes, Fire Prevention does respond to
complaints from tenants and others who may be concemed about the safety or maintenance of a
building within their azea of responsibility.
�ire Suppression and Emergency Medical Senrices
Fire Suppression is the function traditionally associated with fire departments. 'Fhigactivity,
simply put, protects lives and property by extinguishing fires and providing related safety ,
services. Emergency Medical Services provide paramedic and emergency ambulance services.
While it might seem chronic problems properties would not require any special leve7 of fire
suppression or emergency medical services, this is not so. Some chronic problem properties used
exuaordinary levels of fire suppression and emergency medical services during the study period.
There is wide variability in the fire suppression services used by the chronic problem properties
in this study. Almost half (15) of the properties experienced no fire suppression caAs at all
during the two years study period. Another five had only one call for fire suppression services.
Eight properties had between two and five fire suppression calls. As for emergency medical
services, six of the properties received emergency medical services more than ten time within
two years. The extraordinary finding is that four of the properties experienced ten or more
emergency medical service calls lead by Motel California with 31 and Cash Cow with 51.
The total fire suppression costs for the 32 properties studies is estimated to be $63,066. We
estimate emergency medical services costs to total $80,432. This represents a total estimated
cost for Fire Department services for these 32 properties to be $143,498 or $71,749 annually.
Cash Cow is a 69-unit building on the East Side of Saint Paul with 51 fire suppression and 38
emergency medical service calls within only rivo years. This means Fire DepaRment services were
dispatched to this location an average of about once every two weeks. In seeking to understand the
very high number of both fire suppression and emergency medical services calls, it is important to
understand that when responding to a ca}4 for emergency medical services, the Fire Department
dispatches the neazest unit. Commonly, this nearest crew is not a pazamedic crew, but rather a fire
crew. They also dispatch a paramedic crew. This is to ensure that response time is a fast as
possible. This does, however, mean that they often dispatch two crews to a single emergency
medical service ca(l. So in this case, 38 of the 51 fire suppression responses were probably "first
responses" to emergency medical service and not responses to actual fire alarms. The fact there
were 13 fire suppression calis without emergency medical service calls does, however, suggest
comparatively frequent fire alarms. There were clearly significant problems at this property related
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Cente�
�2 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
Case Study: Misplaced
76
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson 3,?j�,�hronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons VO ` '
,,
�;k;: ,.
f Th cost of
The "Watering Hole" is a baz with bad managemeni,
resulting in license and crime problems. It is in a mixed-
use azea sutrounded by a few other businesses, some
residential and lazge indush tracts. Initially the dish
council did not realize this properfy was within their
azeas of responsibility. This low profile is puzzling given
its long history as a problem property, except that it is
physically isolated and it may not have generated a
significant number of complaints to the district council
from i[s immediate neighbors.
Licencing problems resulted from failing to pay licensing
fees, and for serving alcohol and tobacco to minors. At
one point, they owed $3,769 in delinquent license fees
and LIEP had to initiate adverse actions to collect fees
several times.
The Police have been called to this bar, on average, more
than once every week for the past two years. They had
dealt with all types of criininal behavior from public
drinking, alazms, child abuse/neglect, disorderly boys,
domestic assault, fights, theff, assault, vandalism,
aggavated assault, auto theft, fraud and nazcotics. The
Ciry Council closed the baz for five days in 1999 because
of mmderage drinking and refusing admittance to police
officers. Police officecs were again refused admittance
in 2000 resulting and another closure and a$1,000 fine.
The owners, a couple retired from traditional 9-5 jobs, do
not seem to caze about the problems at the baz and have
occasionally been belligerent with police and Ciry license
inspectors. They oftrn hired patrons to tend bar, but the
patrons seemed more interested in drinking on thejob
than managing the business. Management operated
under a` just let things happen" atti[ude and not
surprisingly, things did. Towazd the end of the study
period, the owners had both financial and health
problems. At their last appearance before the City
Council they promised to sell the business. This came to
pass. Unfortunately, the new owners have had a similaz
run of problems and the business has again been closed
down the City �
As a post script, it is interesting to note that in 200! the Police Department made 3 visits in May and 2 visits in August to
work with the new owners to solve these problems prior to the most recent clasure.
to fire safety, arson and false alarms reqmnng frequent responses from ue crews. e
these Fire Department services to Cash Cow aze substantial. The 38 emergency medical services
calls cost an estimated $17,366. Adding to this an estimated cost of $23,307 for fire suppression
yields a total cost for Fire Department services of $4Q673 over two years or $20,336 annually.
Since the property paid only $9,145 a year in municipal tares, it is appazent the financial drain
the property creates for the City.
The Motel Califarnia generated 31 £re suppression responses and 30 emergency medicai
services. As with Cash Cow, these probably mostly represent two Fire Department responses to
the same incident. Nonetheless, this is still a very high level of use Fire Department services.
Adding together the cost of fire suppcession response of $14,167 and emergency medical services
of $13,710, yields a cost of Fire Department services of $27,877 for two years or an average of
$13,983 annually.
Fire Prevention - Certificate of Occupancy
The Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O) program managed by the Fire Department is a powerful
weapon in the City's war against substandard buildings. Under this program, all buildings with
three or more dwelling units and all commercial properties are required to acquire and maintain a
C of O. For an owner to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, Fire Department inspectors must ,
find it to be in full compliance with State laws and City ordinances regarding fiie safety and
property maintenance. Inspections are conducted every two years unless complaints result in ,
more frequent inspections. Failure to maintain a current C of O can result in a building being
closed. Both the City and most building owners take this program very seriously as the lack of a
Certificate of Occupancy can have serious financial consequences for the property owner if the
building is ordered vacated.
Thirteen of the 32 chronic problem properties in this study aze required to maintain Certificates
of Occupancy. All these properties have experienced C of O inspections in recent �ears and six
have had their Certificates of Occupancy revoked. Misplaced, Watering Hole, Alligator Alley
and Cash Cow all had their Certificates of Occupancy revoked once during our two-year study
period. Old and Ugly and Case Case experienced four C of O revocations each during this time.
Despite the vigor with which the Fire Department manages the C of O program, it alone is
insufficient to eliminate chronic problem properties. While it seems the revocation of a
' Cedificate of Occupancy would be a powerFul tool in attempting to deal with substandard
buildings, its effectiveness is limited by the Fire DepartmenYs reticence to order tenants to vacate
a building because the owner does not have a current C of O. The consequences of effecting
such an order can be devastating to tenant� who have no where else to go. This is paRiculazly the
case with large buildings where vacation could result in the displacement of lazge numbers of
tenants. Recalcitrant owners who are willing to challenge the Fire Department can often continue
to operate their substandard building despite the Fire Department's refusal to issue a C of O.
Also, as is apparent from the properties with four revocations, the owners may comply briefly
only to revert to their earlier unhealthy ar�d dangerous behavior. �
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
Besides the regularty scheduted bienniat inspections, Fire inspectors respond to complaints about
safety and property maintenance in building subject to Certi6cate of Occupancy inspections. Not
surprisingly, they have received complaints about twelve of the thirteen C of O properties in this
study. The highest number of complaints came from The Case Case with twenty. La
Cucaracha, Motel California and Cash Cow were the next highest with eleven, ten and nine,
respectively.
Ciry Council Research Center
„
Watering Hole
78
.. ll�I ca+l0'179
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons `�{�onic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
"Alligator Alley" is a relatively new 30-unit apartment
building in a central and highly visible ]ocation withm
its neighborhood. It has been a problem properiy for
many years. Records show concems about the behavior
of tenan[s going back 10 years or more. Maintenance
of the properiy has also been a continuing problem with
regulaz reoccunences of gazbage and abandoned
vehicles on the outside. The interior of the building has
exhibitedjust about every possible property code
violatioq resulting in the Certificate of Occupancy
being revoked on two occasions during our study
period. Upon one of many visits to [he building, a City
inspector found one unit occupied by seven pit bulls
and an alligator, in addition to its human occupants.
Behavior problems aze evident. The police aze called to
this property on a regulaz basis to deal with
misbehavior principally emanating from five living
units and the pazking lot. The behavioral problems,
such a domestic assault, runaways, disorderly boys,
tbeft and other minor crimes, aze symptomatic of
troubled family situations. The pazking lot has been the
source of many police responses for lazgely minor
offenses. There have, however, been allega6ons of
prostiturion and drug dealing in the pazking lo[. The
general situation is that a few tenants regulazly rngage
in minor criminal behavior that scazes and intunidates
the o[her residents and neighbors. The police response
to most calls has been to advise with few repor[s being
written. During our study period, 3 units and the
general azea of the building generated 55 percent of the
calls to the building while 11 of the units generated no
calls whatsoever. In the yeaz following our study
period, a similaz level of calls for police service came in
to the City.
Some of the occupants, but certainly not all, aze not
fulfilling their responsibility [o behave in a responsible
and law-abiding ma�ner. This continuing misbehavior
poisons the living environment for most of the residents
who do not cause problems. These neighbors have
attempted to respond to these problems by calling the
police and even considering a tenanYs remedy action to
seek court assistance with building maintenance. These
efforts have been largely unsuccessful. While the
police have responded to literally hundreds of calls to
this building, they have not affected the continuing
misbehavior of some tenants. Similazly, the occupants'
effort to initiate a tenanYs remedy action failed due to
the complications in [rying to invoke this unwieldy
remedy.
There is little evidence that the owners and managers of
this property are interested in fiilfilling their obligations
to their law-abiding tenants and neighbors. The owners
have been uncooperarive with City inspectors and have
refused to make needed repairs or have made them in a
substandazd fashion. The CiTy has inspected this
property frequently and issued many corzection orders
which have, for the most part, been ignored by the
owners. This led the City not only to revoke the
Certi£cate of Occupancy, but to issue a citation when
occupancy continued despite the revocation. However,
when brought before a judge, the matter was disposed
of with a$100 fine and a brief lecture.
As may be the genesis of chronic problem properties,
all of the responsible parties have been unable or
unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities. The tenants
continue to misbehave, tenants' organization is lacking
or ineffective, the police mostly advise, the landlord
poorly manages the property and City mspectors issue
orders that prove to be lazgely tooffiless. The only real
teeth in those situations aze in the mouths of the seven
pi[ bulls and the alligator who, at least for a while, were
seemingly happily residents of unit 307.
The high number of repeat inspect�ons required m response to the high number of complamts
from these properties greatly impacts the Fire Department's costs in administering this program.
It is also further evidence of the resistance of some property owners to maintaining their
properties in a safe and healthy manner.
We estimate that the cost is about $150 per call. Of the 13 properties studied, subject to
Certificate of Occupancy requirements, twelve were the subject of complaints to Fire Prevention
during our two yeaz period. A total of 77 additional inspections were required for a total
estimated cost of $12,150. This is an average of $1,000 for each property or $500 annually.
These calls were not, however, distributed evenly among the subject properties. While most had
more than one, the Case Case was the leader with 20 inspections in two yeazs. Also in the
double digits were the La Cucaracha and the Motel California with i l and 10 respectively. The
cost of these additional inspections is notable but not extremely high. For the worst offender, the
Case Case we estimate the additional wst to be about $3,000. For the other two high cost
properties the costs were $1,650 and $1,500 each. For all twelve of the properties, we estimate
the additional cost to be about $]2,150. This is a significant sum but it pales in comparison to
the cost of Police Patrol, Fire Suppression and Fire Emergency Medical Services costs.
CITIZEN SERVICES OFFICE ' �
The enforcement of the City Code of Ordinances dealing with building maintenance i� divided
between two agencies based on the type of property. Regulations regazding the maintenance of
one and two unit residential buildings aze enforced by the Code Enforcement Division in the
Office of Citizens Services. The Fire Prevention Unit of the Fire Department enforces
regulations regazding the maintenance of multi-unit buildings and commercial establishments.
The inspectors in these units are empowered to use wide array of sanctions in seeking to achieve
compliance with property maintenance codes. Most of these tools are available to all inspectors,
except the Certificate of Occupancy Revocation which applies only to multi-unit and commercial
buildings.
Correction Notices
Correction notices are used to inform property owners they may be violating a provision of the
property maintenance code and instructing them to correct the violation by a specified time. This
is the most frequently used enforcement tool and is effective most of the time. Generally,
property owners will make the required correction within the specified time and, upon
confirmation, the inspector will close the matter. Conection notices are often written but may
also be verbal. In either case, wrrection notices are subject to appeal to the City Council but, in
practice, relatively few aze appealed and even fewer appeals are sustained. The correction notice
is used frequently because it is relatively easy, inexpensive and usually effective. It also has the
virtue of being more like a reminder than an official sanction.
Interestingly, despite their popularity with inspectors as a response to code violations, correction-
notices were not often used with our group of chronic prob(em properties. Only four properties
received five or more correction notices: La Cucaracha (�), The Watering Kole (5) and Dog
House (6) and Dirry Business (5). Ten of our 32 properties received no correction notices at all
during a two-year period. Since these properties aze all notorious with neighbors and enforcement
agents, it is most likely that inspectors are electing to bypass correction notices and immediately
invoke more aggressive sanctions. Analysis of these more serious sanctions in subsequent
sections will support this contention.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
�2 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
P9:.
Case Study:
Alligator Alley
80
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso
"Bad Boys" is a cute bungalow style single family
home. Two women own this home, one of whom
has iwo teenage boys. One of the boys Is her son and
the other a nephew. They pay the taxes and the home,
at least on the exterior, is in reasonably good shape.
Conection orders have been issued for relatively minor
violations involving paint, doors, windows, house
numbers and gazbage. The owners have responded to
the orders promptly. A summary abatement order was
issued for a junk vehicle, in addition to a gazbage
aba[ement, but both were taken care of before the City
needed to take further action.
Because of misbehavior by the two teenage boys, the
police have been called to this address an amazing 81
rimes during the two yeazs studied. Occasionally they
have responded to several calls within a few hours.
The greatest majority of [he calls have been about noise
and disturbances. Initially, the responding officers
simply advised the occupants and left. This changed,
however, after a gun incidrnt in the property's front
yard. From that point foiwazd, most of the calls
resulted in reports being written and, in a few cases,
azrests being made. Police ca11s later involved —
besides the noise and disturbances — weapons,
vandalism, disorderly boys, hassling neighbors and
hazanguing neighbors. There were also arrests made
for auto theft and assault. The FORCE unit conducted,
or rather attempted to conduct, several "knock and
talks" at this address. Once they d�d have a
conversation with one of the boys in the yazd. On other
occasions the occupants were uncooperatroe. There
have also been a number of extraordinary incidents
involving neighbors. Once one of the boys was
involved hit and run in front of the house and on
another occasion they dischazged weapons in a
neighbor's backyazd. The neighbors aze afraid and
intimidated by the family.
The mother was unwilling to cooperate with the police
and very defensive of the boys. She and the boys, aze
said to be very sheetwise and know how and when to
exercise their rights to thwart Ciry interoentions aimed
at cooperation. The boys are lmown to be gang
members and the mother is seemingly supportive of this
affiliation and is absent from the home much of the
time.
The City even took the exfraordinary step of having the
City Attomey meet with the owners but this was futile.
The City also attempted to apply its ordinance
regarding excessive consumption of police services, but
this was also ineffective. This failure lead to revisions
in the ordinance but this did not happen quickly enough
to address this situation.
This case cleazly illusfrates the limitations of Ciry
interventions in the face of sophisticated and resistant
property owners. To this day the City has never
succeeded in entering the intenor of the home and all of
its other efforts have been lazgely ineffective. It seems
the only real hope of resolving this siNation under
cuirent law is to incazcerate these bad boys.
As a post script, police calls to the properry diminished considerably ajter September 2001, when a warrant arrest was
made at ihis property.
2002 Saint Paui City Council Research ��
..„ . [�01 �-l�(O`1 81
s��'"": �ironic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
<"�;�;.
�
Abatements
Abatement orders aze used to correct pubtic nuisances. An abatement order directs the owner of
� a property to correct a nuisance situation and advises that failure to act promptly may result in the
City taking corrective action and assessing the cost of such action to the property owner.
Abatements are a more aggressive action by inspectors because they not only advise of a problem
in need of correction, as do good neighbor letters and correction notices, they also contain the
threat of City action if the property owner fails to eliminate the nuisance. There are three types
of abatements used by inspectors. Summary abatements aze used when they expect the
conection to cost ]ess than $3,000. Enforcement officials may undertake summary abatements
upon proper notification and after an opportunity to correct is given to the property owner.
„�,_:.. Substantial abatements aze used for wrrections anticipated to cost more than $3,000. Substantial
abatements require prior approval by the City Council. Exceptions to notification and approval
processes can be made in emergency situations, but emergency abatements are subject to appeal
by the City Council.
"$�
�;;.
wt��
iY:.�.
y�,z,
e:i,
s4G
:,.c,.
:�;
�,�;..
`�_^�.;,
As might be expected with chronic problem properties, abatements aze more frequently used than
the more benign correction notices. Twenty-four of our 32 propeRies have experienced at least
one abatement during the study period and some have had many. Errant Investoril had twelve
abatements within two yeazs and Empry Promise and Errant Investor II had eight and seven,
respectively. Several properties had five or six abatements. As a group, our 32 propeRies
experienced 85 abatements in 24 months. This is an average of more than 3.5 abatements each
month for our 32 properties. Another way of looking at this is to see this as an average of more
than 2.6 abatements per property within two years or more than 13 abatements per year for each
property.
While it appears abatements aze the response of choice for City inspectors when dealing with
chronic problem properties, it is useful to cazefully examine the cases with very high numbers of
summary abatements. Errant Investor I and Errant Investor li were both in the hands of a
compietely irresponsible owner. The owner was drug addicted, unresponsive and difficult to
find. Likewise, Empry Promise was a vacant duplex owned by a crack addict and frequented by
drug dealers and drug users. Cleazly, inspectors concluded correction orders were a waste of
time with such owners and elected to conduct an abatement whenever problems got out of hand.
Orders to Remove or Repair
The City is responsible for eliminating public nuisances. When the City determines a structure
constitutes a public nuisance, it may order the structure to be repaired or removed within a
specified time. If the owner fails to make fhe necessary repairs or otherwise remove the nuisance
condition, the City may remove the structure through a substantial abatement process. Under this
process, upon approval of the City Council and the Mayor, the City removes the nuisance and
assesses the cost of this demolition to the effected property. This process is mostly used for
vacant buildings in a serious state of disrepair. None of the properties in our case study have ,
been ordered to be removed or repaired by the City through this process. The City typically
invokes this authority about 30 or 40 times each yeaz. The City actually razes about 10 to 15
such buildings each year. Since the cost of these substantial abatements are assessed to the
propeRy, the City often recovers the cost when the property is sold. However, when the property
goes "tax forfeiP' the City like(y does not recover its wsts.
PaW City Cou�cil Research Center
Case Study: Bad Boys
82
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson
Table 27. Citation Summary Table for Code Enforcement (CE), Certificate of Occupancy
( C of O) Program and Animal Control (AC)
Code Name Tag Disposition
Alligator Alley C of O tag: ATSP, $100
CE tag in July 1999 for violarion of minimum property standazds (exterior): warrent for failure to appeaz,
Dirty Business $IOQ bail.
CE tag in Mazch 2000 for violation of minimum property standazds (exterior): found guilry, $400 fine.
$ 3���� problem PropeRies in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons L��S-��t! L 83
���� � Citations and Housing Court -
r'„n�::
�,.,
�'.k'�'w��A?<
+An� n
';�'s ;
Criminal citations or "tags" were not often used for our group of chronic problem properties.
>*��g e Only 38 tags were issued to these 32 proper[ies over a two-year period. This is only slightly
��� more than an average of one tag each over two yeazs. They aze even more infrequent when it is
realized six were issued to Weird Neighbor and five to Empty Promise. Excepting the eleven
tags for these two proper[ies, only 27 tags were issued to the other 30 proper[ies over two years.
The multiple tags to Weird Neighbor were the result of the owner-occupant's recumng
challenges to the inspector's orders. Once he fought a City order to remove a vehicle and won.
�"`��'' In other cases he resisted inspector orders to complete home repairs and clean his yard. It is clear
�;F>
that multiple tags were issued not because of the particularly severe nature of the violations, but
rather because the owner continued to challenge the inspector's determinations. The many tags
for Empty Promise resulted from the owner's absolute refusal to respond to inspector's orders.
Interestingly, even given the problems with this property, the judge, upon the first conviction,
only fined the owner $700 and suspended $500 if there were no same or similar violations in the
future. There were, of course, similaz violations the following yeaz for which the judge again
sentenced the offending owner to $700 with $S00 suspended. It seems the earlier suspeaded
sentence was forgotten as the previously suspended $500 was not ordered to be paiil. �'
Gangster AC tag for dog running at lazge and no licence or shots.
Boyfriend
}�:.:. em �o7le��� n � u � YO �' '7Ci� O ���~n' �s� :uu nK ' �et� .:a=
;?� wm.kg�. ' 6xms.i ��.:. �t ;�" � � tma.._s �' �t��rs � �'�� � _.��.f'����
Nasry Four C of O tag in 7une 1999 for nuisance conditions: dismissed and retagged new owner.
Over the Edge C of O tag in December 2000 for faulry/missing smoke detectors: ATSP," $75.
The Brothers CE tag in July 1999 for violation of minunum proper[y standards: wazrant for failure to appeu and $200
� bail set.
CE tag in May 2000 for violation of minimum property standazds: wazrant for failure to appear.
�aiTiw ' i IKnRn..��.r P�*e'^ ^a€ �s �'i+� � s'y�.'" AF�'
�� �ase E �� ` w S 00 kit 10U�� �`,„�* �tNlr �, � t � �`�' �
� _ �_:t�� � ,��,�.._ 4ti:. _�. u,-�.. � E�� � � �
Through the CE tag in January 1999 for violation of minimum property standazds (ex[erior): wazrant for failure to
Cracks appeaz, $50 bail.
.r. �;t,'�;-?o-F:m}ta".;i ....
� f`
Wate�pg.,F,�'q�e�';' .
�;�;,€�.,sn�.w,.a.. .
CE tag in September 1999 for nuisance conditions: 3 court appeazances resulting in court order to
complete work in 6 months.
Weird Neighbor CE tag in September 2000 for nuisance conditions: warrant for failure to appeaz, $500 bail set.
CE tag in November 2000 for violation of minunum property standards (exterior structural condirions):
w azrant for f to appeaz an $ bail set.
Z � ATSP is an agreement to suspend prosecution, where the City and responsible party agree there will be no
prosecution of the violaTion for one year, if there aze no same or similaz offenses, there is compliance with the relevant code and
the responsible party pays court costs.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Cer�
Because of the time and difficulty involved in prosecuting tags and the generally unsattisfactory
results, from the inspectors perspective, tags are seldom used and housing court is generally
avoided even with the serious chronic problem properties selected for this study. Unl�ss
prosecution can be speeded up and the sanctions selected by the judges become more severe, tags
are unlikely to be a major Code Enforcement tool.
Condemnations
Both Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement inspectors have the authority to condemn a property
as unfit for human habitation and order it vacated until needed repairs aze made or essential
services restored. The most common causes for condemnations are loss of electrical, gas, water
or sewer service. Buildings can also be condemned based on gross unsanitary conditions or
unsafe conditions caused by fire, high winds or other forces. When a building is condemned,
occupants must vacate the propeRy. It cannot be re-inhabited until inspected and approved by
the appropriate City officials. Condemnations aze also sometimes used as a sanction of last
resort when owners refuse to correct serious threats to the inhabitants' safety. Inspectors aze
loath to issue condemnations because it means occupants must vacate and often have no where
else to live. Inspectors aze very reluctant to make people homeless.
Nonetheless, eleven of our 32 properties were condemned at some point during the study period
and three were condemned more than once. Misplaced was condemned three times and Double
Gross and Nasty Four were each condemned twice. Misplaced is a commercial towing service
which was fire damaged. Condemnation of this propeRy did not displace any residents. The
owner did, however, continue to try to use the property for business despite it having been
determined by Fire Prevention to be unsafe. The repeated condemnations were required because
the owner seemed to refuse to "get the message" he could not continue to do business at this
location. As the names would suggest, Double Gross and Nasty Four are residential properties
where the owner did not maintain the properties to a level that they were fit to live in.
P'+�� City Council Research Center
1) CE tag in December 1999 for violarion of minunum property standazds: pled guilty. $700 £ne, with
$200 payable and $500 suspended if there aze no same or similaz offenses.
Empry Promise 2) CE tag in January 2000 for violarion of minimum property standazds and illegal pazked abandoned
vehicle: pled guilty. $700 fine, with $200 payable and $500 suspended if there aze no same or similar
offenses.
84
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessop
"Danger Island" is an eleven-unit apartment built in
1961. This apartrnent building is in a remarkably
isolated location. It is sunounded by a bridge, railroad
tracks and open space to the extent that there aze no
immediate neighbors at all. The lack of neighbors
probably accounts for the fact that nerther the Ciry
Council Ward Office nor the Dishict Council were
awaze the building was in their area of responsibiliry.
Police and Fire Prevenrion aze, however, very awaze of
the problems at this building.
The cunen[ owner purchased this building, along with
about ten others, in 1999. He appazently had no prior
experience in the residential property management
business which seems to have con[ributed to the
problems here. Most of the buildings he purchased were
disfressed when he bought them and remain so. While
the owner has been generally cooperative with City
officials, his properties aze suffering from poor
management. Almost hatf these properties have some
level of tax delinquencies and most have problems with
bad tenants.
This apartment building has experienced numerous
interior and exterior code violations. Such problems as
water damage, overcrowding, broken smoke detectors,
holes in walls and heaUfumace problems have been cited
by inspectors. Similazly, they have noted exterior
violations for such things as gazbage, walls, paint and
retaining walls. The owner has; however, responded to
all these problems when cited and has maintained a
Certificate of Occupancy since acquiring the building.
During the study period, the owner hired a cazetaker for
the property, but an inspector noted the odor of
mari�uana emanating from his doorway.
The compelling problem at this property ts that the
tenants bektave terribly. Drug dealing and violence aze
the order of the day. Police have been called to this
address 213 times during the study period. They have
confronted drug users, violent altercations and other
criminal behavior at an astonishing level. They have
dealt with narcotics, fights, assaults, vandalism, fraud,
azson, auto theft, burglary, stalking and other offenses.�
The FORCE Unit has raided the building twice
yielding guns and drugs on both occasions. Tenants
deal drugs, figh[ and engage in all sorts of criminal
activity on aa amazing scale. When evicted they aze
sunply replaced with others who aze similazly
predisposed and the problems condnue. In some cases,
where drug dealers have been evicted, their girlfriends
often remain behind and provide retum shelter as soon
as the heat is off. More than 50 of the police calls have
been to general azeas rather than specific units. Most
of the drug dealing activity seems to be in the
building's common azeas along with £ghts and other
disturbances. Much of the violence, however, goes on
within the individual units. Every unit, except one, had
calls for domesric violence. Some units had as many as
twenty to thirty police calls in only rivo yeazs. The
high was 33 calls with other units having 29 and 23
calls each. Mental health issues are also appazent in at
least one unit with the police needing to transport a
disturbed resident to mental health facilities.
Despite the very high level of police activity at this
addtess, offier City staff aze Iazgely obIivious fo the
problems az this address. Even Ciry building inspectors
were lazgely unawaze of the behavioral problems that
plague this building. They see the owner as a generally
cooperarive person who just does not know how to
manage residenrial rental property. The police,
howeve�, see this as a hotbed of criminal ac[iviry. The
lack of immediate neighbors seems to prevent this
proper[y from coming onto the radaz screen for either
the Councilmember or the Dishic[ Council. It is
obvious improved communication among City agencies
is needed if the causes of these problems aze ever to be
resolved.
� In 2007, the police call level was comparable with previous years. Reporis were written on incidents relating to
treatment ofchildren, theft, domestic violence, runaways and vandalism.
s '� problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �"'��� 85
It is informative to note that although they issued orders of condemnation-for eleven of our 32
;''` properties, no one was ever actually forced to vacate. Every time, the placard was lifted before
- one actuall had to move out This is not always the case as there are instances where
any y
vacations do occur. Condemnation orders usually result in corrections being made, at least to the
�r+� extent that occupants aze not forced to evacuate the premise. Whether this is because owners
make needed corrections or inspectors relent, when faced with actually making occupants
homeless, it is difficult to know. It is the case, however, that condemnation orders do have a way
of getting owners attention. The prospect of being forced out of their home or losing the income
from tenants can be a very effective enforcement tool when nothing else seems to work. It is not,
however, very effective with lazge apartment buildings as owners know that the City is loath to
make large numbers of people evacuate.
�
Rental Registration
Rental Registration is a City program requiring properties with one or two rental units to register
" with the City. It does not, however, apply to homesteaded properties or three or more unit
buildings included in the Certificate of Occupancy program. Registration requires basic ownership
�; information and the payment of an annual registration fee. The ordinance provides for the denial,
;";� or revocation, of a rental registration certificate when owners aze observed violatiqg City maes an3
regulations regarding the management of their properties. The ordinance also gives City officials
expanded access to inspect these properties when violations of City codes aze found or suspected.
i"r';
�;:
.�..
tYl:,
�-.
<:��„
�.
i
t..
u
xn.
q.;r..
f.�
,�a:;�
2002 SaiM Paul Ciry Council Research Ce�
T'here have been several attempts to implement parts of this ordinance. These attempts have been
rather half-hearted and generally ineffective. It is clear the Administration, during the study
period, had little interest in enforcing the requirements of this ordinance or in using the powers
granted to them thereunder. For example, the fact only three of the eight chronic problem
properties in this study, that should be registered were actually registered, despite their notorious
histories. Notably, there have been no appeals to the legislative hearing officer nor any criminal
prosecutions under this ordinance. Presently the City has a Rental Registration Progam in name
only, and until the Administration decides to take this ordinance seriously, the powers granted to
enforcement agents under this ordinance will remain largely unused and, therefore, ineffective.
Problem Properties 2000
"Problem Properties 2000" was an initiative launched in the yeaz 2000 largely in response to a
series of newspaper articles raising questions about the efficacy of City Code Enforcement
activities. The idea behind this program was there were thought to be a few property owners who
owned many problem propeRies and Code.Enforcement officials should identify these owners
and given them special attentiott. This initiative began by identifying some problem owners
through a process Code Enforcement officials have been consistently unwilling to document or
even describe. The general sense was they Imew who to include and establishing explicit criteria
might not always select the "right" property owners. It was also apparently feared that
documenting the selection criteria might pl�ovide a basis for those selected for special attention to
challenge their inclusion. Since the selection criteria were unknown and undocumented, there
could be no basis for challenge. While there can be questions raised regarding the
appropriateness of such an approach by a govemment agency, it worked to the extent that no one
successfully challenged their inciusion. Code Enforcement officials consistently denied they
were "targeting" selected owners although the fact they were seemed obvious.
Council Research Cen[er
Case Study: Danger Island
86
Chronic Problem Propertiesin Saint Paui: Case Study Lesso�
The PP2000 approach was to call selected propeRy owners in for a meeting with Code
Enforcement o�cials. At these meetings they told the owners the City was "fed up" with their
irresponsible behavior and intended to do something about it. It was believed these meetings
were successful in convincing some problem owners to "clean up their act" or to "get out of the
business" by seliing their Saint Paul properties. In cases where these owners were unresponsive
to City coercion, Code Enforcement activities were "stepped-up" for their properties. It is widely
believed by the Code Enforcement ot�icials involved in PP2000 that they were effective in
dealing with many of these problem owners. No data was collected regarding PP2000, so
assessing the effectiveness of this effort is impossible. No matter whether it was effective, the
program just faded away. There was no formal termination of the program, it just stopped being
discussed. [ts proponents claimed it ended because they had successfully dealt with most of the
serious offenders. Others suggest it was just another fad program that fell by the wayside when
media attention moved to other azeas of interest.
Table 28. Property Interventions
Residential
In[ervention 1-2 Unit 3+ Unit Commercial Total
Properties in Croup (N =) _ 19 9 4 I 32
Code Enforcement Citations
Average Code Enf. Citations
Abatements (Summary & Vehicle)
Average Abatements
Conection Notices
Average Correction Notices
Condemnations
Average Condemnations
CeRificate of Occupancy Revocations
Average Enforcemen[ Actio�s
Problem Properties Task Force ,
PP2000 Program
Tenan[ Remedy Act
Housing Court Outstanding Warzants
In Rental Registration Pro�am
11 (57.9%) 4 (44.4%) I (15.0%)
1.6 0.7 0.5
17 (89.5%)
3.6
13 (68.4%)
1.8
6 (31.6%)
0.4
N/A
10.5
2 (10.5%)
4 (21.1%)
0 (0.0%J
8 (42.1%)
3 (15.8%)
5 (55.6%)
12
6 (66.7%)
1.9
4 (44.4%)
0.6
4 (49.4%)
] 0.8
5 (55.6%)
2 (22.2%)
3 (33.3%)
I (1/.1%)
N/A
2 (50.0%)
1.5
3 (75.0%)
23
1 (25.0%)
0.8
2 (50.0%)
6.5
2 (50.0%)
0 (0.0%)
N/A
0 (0.0%)
N/A
16 (50.0%)
1Z
24 (75.0%)
2.7
22 (68.8%)
1.9
11 (34.4%J
0.5
6 (78.8%)
10.1
9 (28.1 %)
6 (18.8%)
3 (9.4%)
9 (28.1q)
3 (9.4%)
Good Neighbor Notices
Two years ago the City began experimenting with a progam where inspectors train citizens to
identify certain exterior code violations such as tall weeds, snow removal, trash and abandoned
vehicles. Following this training, citizens would conduct exterior inspections of neighborhood
properties and send or deliver form letters to proper[y owners who may not be meeting code
requirements. The program began as a pilot program in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood and
was deemed successful with about one-half of the "good neighbor" letters resulting in
2002 Saint Paul City Council Researoh Cence+
,?:�:.
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Q�` ��� $�
correcfions. Because of this perceived success, the program was expanded to three additional
azeas in 2001. It is unclear at this point if the program has continued to enjoy success. This
program 2�as recently been reviewed by Council Research. In any case, it is unlikely this
program would be effective with chronic problem properties due to the serious and enduring
exterior, interior and behavioral problems commonly found there.
Problem Properties Task Force
The Problem Properties Task Force (PPT'F) is yet another attempt by the City to address chronic
problem properties. The distinguishing characteristic of the PPTF is its overt focus on
coordinating the enforcement acrivities of all City agencies engaged in dealing with problem
properties. The basic premise of this effort is that City agencies meet formally and regularly to
exchange informarion about problem properties. To this end, a formal PPT'F was created and a
high-level City official was designated as the leader of the task force. It is now lead by a senior
Fire Prevenrion Inspector.
Emergency Medical Services!Fire Cost Average
FORCE Arrests Costs Average
FORCE Knock and Talks Average
Licensing Average
Total Costs Average
$130
�'� �`�' 7�1`:W-
$380
� ae�rg�� tt i���:
�.e�i«.., $Z0�'r.
$136
$75 .
�1,,717
Zl Medians aze provided only for Police, Fve and Code costs. In other categories, the medians aze either zero or lack
arive sigoificance and, therefore, aze not presented.
Counal Research Center
The task force continues to meet monthly and discuss specific properties to coordinate agency
enforcement efforts. Again, no data has been collected or analyzed to evaluate the effecriveness of
the PPTF. The general impression of the participants is that it is a good idea and;has sometimes'
led to more effecrive enforcement. The extent to which this is true has not been documented. �
�
- - - - - . "' '. .. , v �
,
es `�`
Chronic Problem PropeRies in Saint Paul: Case 3tudy Lesso� � A�"'���';,�Ghronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL Case Study Lessons Q�, 0�09 89
e; -..,
owner challenged this determination and was successfui in achieving a court ruling de[erminating
OT H E R C ITY E N F O RC E M E N T AG E N C I E S �at he was not in violation as he did not actually use the vehicle in question for commercial
purposes. During this dispute, zoning staff conducted 11 inspections of this property for an
Animal Control
estimated cost of $1,650.
Animal Control is the activity within the Licensing, Inspection and Environmental Protection
(LIEP) responsible for the enforcement of City ordinances regazding animals. It also engages in
wildlife protection activities by capturing and relocating wild animals that mistakenly venture
into the City. Animal Control also handles animal licensing and is responsible for the hand]ing
of dangerous or abandoned animals. Animal Control is almost entirely complaint based. They
respond to calls from citizens and other City agencies where animals are involved. While an
Animal Control o�cer may observe and apprehend a stray or dangerous dog while on the street,
the overwhelming majority of their work is in response to a call for service.
While animal problems, especially dog problems, reflect a general disregazd for the peace and
safety of their neighbors, animal problems aze not the sole cause any of our chronic problem
properties. The reason may be that Animal Control can and does directly intercede if problems
persist. They issue citations for repeated failures to comply with City animal control ordinances
and seize and impound dogs when warranted. There is a dear identifiable source for animal
controi probtems and cleaz and direct interventions the City may use to immediately stop the
nuisance. This clarity and focus make it relatively easy to effectively intervene when animal
problems occuc It is much easier to stop a 6azking, or even dangerous, dog, than to prevent
domestic abuse, drug dealing or prostitution.
Fourteen of our 32 chronic problem properties generated calls for animal control assistance
dureng the two-yeaz study period. Most of these calls involved dogs. An interesting exception
was the alligator for which we named Alligator Alley. The greatest number of calls to a singie
property was to the Dog House. Not surprisingly, a11 of the Animal Control calls to the Dog
House involved dogs. These included dogs mm�ing at lazge, dog bites, abandoned dogs,
unlicenced dogs, stray dogs and dog fighting. These calls reflect two episodes involving two
dogs and two dog owners. Empty Promise generated six calls regarding dogs to the Police
Department and Animal Control. The neighbors stopped calling when Animai Control seized
and impounded the dog.
The cost of respond to animal contro] calls at the chronic problem properties in this study does
not represent a major expense for the City. At an estimated $150 per call, the 44 calls created an
estimated total cost of $6,600. While this is swely a cost above that of most properties in the
City, it does not constitute a major financial burden for the City. The Dog House was the single
most expensive animal control property with nine calls for an estimated cost of $1,350. Many of
the chronic problem propeRies, however, involved no animal control services or costs.
Zoning
The City of Saint Paul, as almost all large cities, has zoning ordinances which define the types of
land uses and activities permitted in each geographic azea of the City. City zoning staff aze
charged with the mission or ensuring property owners comply with zoning ordinances. They do
this by reviewing proposals for new uses and by responding to complaints regarding possible
violations of the Zoning Code. Three of our chronic problems have been the subject of zoning
staff inspections. YVeird Neighbor was storing a commercial type vehicle on his residentially
zoned property. Based on the presence of this vehicle, he was deemed to be in violation of the
zoning code banning commercial activity in a residentially zoned neighborhood. In this case, the
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
�sptaced is a towing garage that bumed. Subsequent to the fire and the Failure of the owner to
make prompt repairs, zoning staff determined this was a non-conforming use that could not
continue under the zoning code. Nonetheless, the owner continued to try to operate his towing
business at this location. The continued illegal use precipitated at least two visits by zoning staff
for an estimated cost of $30�.
Dirty Business is a classic example of a zoning violation. This is a single family home in a
residential neighborhood where the owner decided to operate a landscaping business in their
driveway and backyard. Not surprisingly, neighbors complained and zoning staff were
dispatched to remedy the situation. Despite directions from zoning inspectors, the homeowner
persisted in trying to operate this business which ]ead to more complaints and more visits from
zoning staff. In total, three zoning inspections were conducted in the two yeaz period at � cost of
$300.
Licensing
7ust as a newspaper pundit said "almost everytliing is illegal in Minnesota." Almost everything
that isn't, requires a license. Two of the businesses requiring licenses are operating a baz or a
towing business. In the case of Misplaced, discussed in the preceding section on zoning, the
owner of this towing business persisted in trying to operating this business without a licence to do
so. Not surprising this brought complaints from neighbors that brought licensing inspectors.
They made ten visits to this property over two years and despite, explanations, wamings, orders
and citations, never really succeeded in convincing the recalcitrant owner he could not do business
without a]icense. These ten visits aze estimated to have cost the City $1,500.
The two bazs included in this study, Fight Club and Watering Hole both had serious license
problems. Fight Club was ultimately closed because of license violations and the Watering Hole
was sold under threat of being closed for license violations. As these two experiences suggest,
revoking a bars license to operate can be a most effective way of dealing with a chronic problem
property. The difficulty, however, is that it generally requires a series of serious violations for a
long period of time to justify revoking a baz's license to operate. City licensing staff responded to
I1 complaints at the Watering Hole and eight complaints at the Fight Club before the problems
were deemed to be sufficient cause to commence license revocation proceedings. These license
inspections are estimated to have cost $I,fi50 and $1,200 respectively. As is appazent from the
cases in this study, licensing revocation can be an effective tool in seeking to eliminate chronic
problem properties but it is slow and only applies to those relatively few chronic problem
properties required to have licenses. � �
�Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Center
�
90 "..
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessoq �; .,a:onic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Q� -o�(p g�
�
SUMMARY
An overview of the extent and manner in which chronic problem propeRies use City services
shows the Police Department beazs the greatest burden. Within the two years of this study, the 32
chronic problem properties required 2,488 visits by Police Patrol, with an additional 121
interventions by the FORCE Unit. The Police Patrol services are estimated to have cost $323,440
or $161,720 annuaily. Adding to this estimate is the cost of FORCE Unit services equaling
$55,315 or $27,657. This means these 32 property aze costing the Police Department an estimated
$189,377 each year. That equates to $5,918 spent per chronic problem property per yeaz in police
service alone.
The Fire Department expended an estimated $143,498 responding to 138 fire suppression and 176
emergency medical services calls to these 32 properties over two years. This was an average of
$71,749 each year or $2,242 per year per property. In addition, fire prevention responded to 81
calls at a cost of $12,150 or $6,075 annually. On average, this represents a cost of $1,898
annually for each chronic problem property in the study.
Table 30. C6ronic Problem Properties Total Costs b
Cost Category
Properties in Group (N =)
tudy Period
Rental Total
17 32
Police Costs
Emergency Medical Services/Fire Cost
FORCE Arrests Costs
FORCE Buys and Surveiltance
FORCE Knock and Talks
FORCE Warsants
Code Enforcement Costs
Certificate of Occupancy Costs
Mimal Con[rol Costs
Licensing Costs
Zoning Costs
Commercial
4
$59,670
$32,447
$o
$650
$260
$0
$900
$1,200
$150
$4,350
$300
gory for the
Owner
Occupied
11
$63,500
$5,941
ss,2oo
$5,525
$1,690
$5,200
$9,000
$1,OS0
$4,200
$0
$2,100
$200,720 $323,440
$]05,110 $143,498
$7,280 $12,450
$9,100
$2,210
$18,200
$9,300
$8,850
$2,250
$0
$0
$15,275
$4,160
$23,400
$19,200
$12,150
$6,600
$4,350
$2,400
$566,953
Total Costs
$1OQ997 $102,956 $363,020
The Code Enforcement Unit of the Citizens Service Office responded to 128 calls about these
properties for an estimated cost of $19,200 or $9,600 annually. The average for the 32 properties
is estimated at an annual cost of $300 per property. While this cost is notable, it pales in
comparison to the costs borne by the Police and Fire Departments
The costs associated with providing animal controt, zoning and licensing services for these 32
property are comparatively small. The total estimated two year cost of these services were
2002 Saint PaW Ciry Council Research Cenre�
$6,600, $2,400 and $4,350 respectively. This amounts to about $103 for animal control, $50 for
zoning and $68 for licensing per property per year. While these sums aze undoubtedly higher than
average for propeRies in the City, they are comparatively minor when compazed to the almost
$6,000 the Police Department and the almost $2,000 the Fire Department spends on each of these
properties annually.
Curing chronic problem properties is an expensive business. Not curing chronic problem
properties is more expensive. We know the 32 chronic problem properties we chose for this study
have consumed, and in most cases continue to consume, an enormous amount of City resources.
They generate thousands of visits each yeaz from police officers, fire fighters, pazamedics, fire
inspectors, code inspectors, zoning inspectors and animal control officers. These services are
expensive. The "cheapesY' of these properties for the City received an annual average of $1,289
in these City services during our study period. The most expensive received an annual average o£
$34,534 during the same time period.. Based on our estimate there are between 220 and 284
chronic problem properties in Saint Paul and our finding the 32 properties in this study consumed
in excess of $250,000 worth of City services each yeaz, we estimate the City spends
approximately $1.95 to $2.52 million each yeaz attempting to ameliorate chronic problem
properties. This cost might be acceptable if these expensive interventions were effect'ive but we "
know, for the most part, they aze not. At best, they keep the situations at these properties from ,
getting completely out of control. They do not, however, resolve the underlying �rqblems nor
relieve the pain these properties cause for surrounding neighborhood. � ,
While the direct costs to the City of attempting to deal with chronic problem properties are
impressive, the indirect costs of the continuation of these problem situations aze surely higher.
The social costs of the violence, drug dealing, domestic abuse, public disorder.and neighbofiood �
disruption must be many times the direct service costs. The costs of emergency room visits, lost
jobs, missed schooling, sickness, work absences, out-migration and reduced pioperty values can
only be imagined. Other costs that can not be quantified are the lost of the loss of peace, comfort,
and freedom caused by these chronic problem properties. We know from the cases studied here
these chronic problem properties often cause people to live in fear- afraid to venture out of their
apartrnent or into their own yazd. This loss of public peace can not be quantified but we all
understand this is unacceptable if we aze to provide citizens with the quality of life they expect in
Saint Paul.
Ciry Ceuncil Research Center
92
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Les�.
CURING THE PROBLEMS
Curing the problems associated with these properties means moving beyond reacting to the
individual symptom presenting itself, such as garbage, a broken window or disturbances. Rather,
it has to do with finding out why problems remain unmitigated for so long and keep recurring
even after they seem to have been handled. Part of finding these answers is to look at all of the
problems, and therein may lie the answec If there aze several children, a lack of money, drug use
and domestic violence, it is little wonder that replacing a window or picking up garbage crops up
as a probiem. In this chapter we wiil examine the role the various actors can play in resolving the
ongoing recurring problems at these properties, and the tools they can use to assist them in this
effort.
UNABLE AND UNWILLING
Eazlier in this study we established that in order for a chronic problem property to develop, the
key actors must be unable or unwilling to fix the problems at these properties. It is more likely
that a problem will develop if risk factors aze present which predispose the property towazds
chronic problem development. Clearly the key to curing lies in making the key actors able and
willing to fix the problems at these properties, and minimizing the risk factors for problem
development.
On the surface making someone, some group of people or some agency able and willing to engage
and fix a problem or problems seems like a relatively straight-forwazd proposition. If they are
unable, then they need the resources and where-with-all to deal with the problem. If they aze
unwilling, then rewazds and punishments can be put into place to persuade them of the error of
their ways. As simple as this seems, figuring out whether it is the actors' inability or their
unwillingness that is preventing them from fixing the problems on the property is difficult. If that
is figured out, the next step is to choose the correct tool(s) to enable or persuade them to take
action.
A case-in-point comes from the stories of Errant Investar. Here was a property owner who, at
one point, owned nearly thirty properties in a several block azea that were not problem or chronic
problem properties.'� However, as the owner fell into drug addiction, the problems at these
properties were not resolved when they surfaced. Surprisingly, not all of his properties became
problems, although many of them did. A review of calls for police and code enforcement services
shows a distinct point in time when some of his properties began to slip. As the addiction
deepened, he became much more disconnected from the neighborhood, and networks of people
with whom he had interacted. He also began to sell off some of the properties to finance his drug
usage. Clearly, this property owner was both unable and unwilling to deal with problems as they
azose. In the end, it was a combination of incentives and punitive measures which brought these
propeRies back into control.
�� Owners who own multiple properties are no[ necessazily problematic. But as this case demonstrates, if the owner
"goes bad" the impact is broad, and in a small area such as this, deep.
2002 Saint Paul City Gouncil Research Cei
oblem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �a �.�o 93
ACTOR INTERVENTIONS
Each of the case studies presents a story of a chronic problem property. [n these stories,
presumably, lies some explanation for the choices people and organizations have made. It is
evident from the 32 case studies that each suggests its own, idiosyncratic set of solutions. The
cure for the chronic problems has to do with changing the motivations of the actors involved, and
in some cases, providing them with the new or improved tools for dealing with chronic problem
properties. Using our current tools, we seem to have a 63 percent likelihood these chronic
problem properties will show up again, as was demonstrated in Table 8. Indeed, 63 percent of the
case studies would have been defined as chronic problem properties in the five years preceding
our study period.
It has generally been our contention that owners are ultimately responsible for the physical
problems a property experiences, and occupants are generally responsible for behavior and crime
problems. Government, of course, is chazged with making and enforcing the laws that govern
these actions. The following sections will address these groups and tools, with an eye towazd
suggesting possible improvements. Possible improvements relate to the role local
can play. However, it should be noted that all levels of government, neighborhood organizations„
neighbors and individuals have options for improving the way they deal with chronic�problem
properties. " ,
Government
The term govemment, as it has been used in this report, covers a broad array of functions and
services. These include law and code enforcement agencies, the courts, elected officials and
service providing agencies. Given the broad definition we aze using, it is cleaz that the public
sector has the potential to interact with chronic problem properties at many levels an� at many
different points in time. Therefore, there aze many approaches and tools dift'erent parts of
govemment have the opportunity to use. We will discuss these as existing tools and approaches
which may be improved. In this discussion we will present ideas that seemed logical based on the
case studies, but there aze, no doubt, additional improvements which could be made. We will
then discuss new tools and approaches which may be developed.
Improvement of Existing Tools and Approaches
Knowing About the Probiems
The first, and perhaps the most impoRant, thing govemment needs to do with respect to chronic
problem propeRies is to become aware of them. If a complaint-based method of law or code
enforcement is being used, then govemment relies primarily upon occupants and neighbors to
alert it about problems. This also holds true for the periodiasystematic approach, in that
problems occur between regulazly scheduled inspections, and govemment needs to become aware
of those as well. The health and vitality of the household and neighborhood likely play a role in
how occupants and neighbors relate to government and its ability to help them address the
problems in their areas. As discussed eazlier, a neighborhood or individual may be fatigued from
having dealt with similar problems for so long, or they may be afraid of reta(iation. In the case of
Errant Investor II, an eleven p.m. shooting on a front porch elicited only one call from a neighbor.
There are likely many cases of domestic violence where the victims do not alert police. Also,
there aze many tenants who fear losing their housing if they complain about conditions.
Additionally, there aze some who have
Paul Gity Council Resea'ch Ce�rter
::,:��'.s.,
94 Chronic Problem Pro erties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lesso p rties in Saint PauL• Case Stud Lessons E7a,'c�,(P 95
P Y � �.�� ^��,onic Probtem Pro e y
"Double Gross" has a long and co]odul history as a
problem property. It is an older, extremely low-value
duplex in an azea with a lazge Hmong popularion. This
property is located in a poorer neighborhood, but not a
"bad" area except for this property and [he house
adjacen[ to it. Double Gross has been the scene of
major problems for at least the past six yeazs. The
significant problems seem ro have come in waves
cresring in 1995, 1998, and in 2001. In the yeazs
preceding our smdy period, the FORCE unit raided the
property on fout different occasions. These raids were
provoked because of drug dealing and pitbull (dog)
fighting. Both the upstairs unit and the downstairs were
condemned in 1998 because of gross unsanitary
conditions, including excess animal waste in the upper
uni[— no doubt connected to the resident fighting
pitbulls. More recently, the property was condemned
because of a gas and electricity shut-off for nonpayment
of utilifies and meter [ampering.
In 1999 and 2000, the police were called to ffiis address
40 times. These calls involved nucotics, disturbances,
disorderly boys, domestic assault, vandalism, fraud and
animals. Many were prompted by illegal business often
transacted on the front porch. In 2001, police visited
the duplex 60 times (a 94% increase over 2000), mosdy
for nazcotics and domestic assault. Other police visits
involved burglary, "other sex offenses," the ezecurion
of seazch warrants, warrant arrests, violations of court
orders, and "other violarions.° Some of these reports
may indicate that someone on pazole or probarion was
either living there, or a frequent visitor.
The owner of this proper[y is a notorious slum landloid
who owns 16 other one- and two- unit buildings in
older, poorer inner-ring neighborhoods in Saint Paul,
including the aforementioned problem property
adjacent to Double Gross. He is variously described u
a diunk, stupid orjust incompetent. He also appears to
be exploitarive of some of his tenants and is recalcitrant
about completing order to repairs in a timely fashion.
He daims not to understand why the City is picking on
him and somefimes calls City staff for help in managing
his properties, specifically looking for City staff to
condemn units so that he is not bothered with an
eviction process. Since the owner chooses not to
manage his properties, he seems to think City staff
should do i[ for him. Repeated efforts to educa[e him in
property management have failed despi[e the best
efforts of City staff and Saint Paul Association of
Responsible Landlords (SPARL).
Despite his appaent lunitarions, he seems to have a gift
for acquiring property and making money in the
process. He is, for example, credited with buying a
property in the moming and reselling it in the aftemoon
to another notorious slumlord for a$10,000 profit. He
does not, however, seem to have any interest or aptitude
for managing these properties once he acquires them.
had a bad experience with govemment and aze hesitant to bring forward their concems. For
example, a particularly serious set of tenant concerns was calied in to the City.about Through the
Cracks. In this case, there was mis-communication within the department and the complaints
were not investigated. It is hazd to imagine this tenant wi11 turn to the City regarding similar
concems in the future. At a very basic level, govemment needs to invite the participation of the
community by encouraging communication on chronic problems properties.
Citations, Prosecution and Housing Court
In the area of Code Enforcement, we found there was a distinct tendency of inspectors to tum to
<, using the "tooP' of abatement as a first or second resort in dealing with chronic problem
properties, rather than the issuance of conection orders alone. This response by staff in the field
is reflective of their experience working with given propedies, people and situations. Issuance of
abatement orders is, in their experience, more likely to rectify the problem situation quickly. No
doubt, this is connected to the fact that once an abatement order is issued, owners have a given
amount of time to clean up the problem situation before govemment moves in to clean.it up for
them— and assess the cost to their taYes. �
Experience has taught inspectors (and in some cases police officers) that using a citation yields
little, by way of results, in fixing problem situations. Table 27 provides information on citation �
activity for our 32 case studies during the 24-month study pedod. It shows a pattem of the court
system not taking seriously the chronic problems at these properties and the adverse affects these
problems have had on their neighborhoods. This may be reasonable, in the sense that the typical
approach of govemment interventions is to look at the individual violation at hand, rather than the`
entire situation. Additionally, enforcement officers consider citations a tool of last resort, rather
than one which is commonly used when approaching code violation situations. However, the
courts tend to view citations as the beginning of their experience with a particulaz property or
owner.
The court system is uniquely positioned to consider situations broadly, and id the context of their
history. They must also be presented appropriate information about the entirety of enforcement,
and possibly service-providing, agencies' experience with a property. An excellent example of
the court using its "bird's eye view" to deal with a chronic problem property found in the case
studies, Errant Investor I and IL Here the courts specifically took into account the role the drug
use of the propedy owner played in the deterioration of his many property holdings. The court
did this by staying imposition of some of the penalties, if the owner were to undergo a chemical
evaluation. However, the fine levels and jail time ultimately imposed seem pale in comparison
with the devastating effect his properties had on the neighborhood.
The situation in Empty Promise is typical of the frustration with the citation process. Here code
inspectors had conducted eight summary abatements (clearing the exterior of the property from
"everything imaginable" and some vehicles� and written five citations. The police had also been �
very active at this property, with 72 calls for service in a 15-month time period. They responded
to many concems, but almost all rooted to drug use and suspected drug dealing. In December of
1999, several Code Enforcement tags were disposed of with a$700 fine-- $500 of whiCh was
suspended if there were no same or similaz violations. In January of 2000 the other citations
received an identical disposition— with apparent disregazd for imposing the previously suspended
fine. Additionaily, it is not clear whether negotiated "ag'eements to suspend prosecution" if there
aze no same or similar ofFenses are revisited to determine if there have been no same or similar
offenses.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center '� ��^t Paul City Council Research Certer
;�.;+u'�5����'
Case Study: Double Gross
96 Chronic Problem Pro erties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lesso perties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lessons f� :��o 97
P Y ns ,<"�ironicProblemPro y
"Duty Business" is a nice home in a nice
neighborhood. The current owners, a fanuly with
children, have homesteaded the property for more than
20 yeazs. The City has been trying to address the
problems in this property's yazd for years. During our
study period, the property owner has had interactions
with Code Enforcement, License Inspection and
Environmental Protection jLIEP], Animal Contro] and
the Poiice.
The basic problem is [hat the primary owner is trying to
run a]andscaping business out of her home.
Consequently, there aze recucring complaints from
neighbors about storin$ landscaping ma[erials in the
driveway and yazd. In response to these complaints the
City haz ordered cleanups of garbage, hash,
]andscaping materials and wood. The City has, at one
time or another, used virtually every one of its
enforcemert tools to address the exterior code and
zoning violations. It has issued correc6on orders,
condncted snnvnary abatements, issued citations and
sen[ nofices of zoning code violations. Most recenUy,
the ovmer was fined $400 for exterior code violarions.
On several occasions Animal Control has also had to
cite the owner for dog leash law vio]ations and failure
to cleanup dog feces. The owner finally bougHt a dog
license, but violations cominue on a regulaz basis. The
property continues to have some sanitary problems and
the City may again need to cleanup the property.
The neighbors have been sensitive with this woman.
She suffers from depression, seems unable to work
from time to time, and reports she has been in
treatment. Neighbors have periodically hied to help
and also asked a priest to intervene. She seems to have
little outside support to help her run her business in
accordance wi[h property and zoning codes that apply
to residential areas. The City's interventions aze
unlikely to be effective in the long-term as long as her
mental illness remains untreated.
"�" � Finally, another additional frustrating aspect of using citations to deal with code violations is that
in many cases defendants do not appeaz in court. This results in the issuance of a warrant for
s failure to appear. Four months following the conclusion of our study period, in April of 2000, six
of the seventeen case studies which had received citations continued to have outstanding wa�rants
for failure to appear.
�
In summary, these concems speak to the initial preparation of citations, the context in which
citations aze presented to the court, the seriousness with which the couR views these code
violations and follow up on citations which have been brought forward—including pursuing
warrants for failure to appear. Each aspect of this process should be reviewed for improvement to
better deal with the problems presented by chronic problem properties. It may be the City should
pursue "presumptive penalties" for violations of these codes (as are used for license violations),
that the process and reasoning for using citations be changed, or that the current processed used by
Housing Court need to be evaluated. All of these ideas, and more from the actors involved,
should be considered to improve the effectiveness of governmenYs use of citations in handling
chronic problem properties.
Improvement Using New Toots and Approaches
Knowledge in the Field & Referrafs
In most cases, if there has been no complaint on housing or building conditions, the first
govemment staff to become aware of those and other problems are paramedics and police officers.
In both cases, they have been summoned to the propefty to handle a particular crisis. However, in
the process they often see other problems. These front line staff need to be awa�e of the dynamics
of chronic problem properties, and the process for communicating information they came across
needs to be simple and effective. For example, a police officer sent to a proper[y to investigate a
domestic violence situation who observes housing conditions that clearly violate codes, should be
encouraged to pass this inforcnation on to insgection staff— without spendingan inordinate
amount of time filling out forms and dealing with bureaucracy. This communication may take the
form of a simple "check-ofY' on the standard reports used. Additionally, photos could be taken if
the situation permits.
Information Systems
A possibility that could be used on its own, or in conjunction with case management, is the
"flagging" of chronic problem properties in the City's information systems. This would be
initiated at the department level using a pre-determined definition of chronic problem propedy.
Code Enforcement may wish to flag, as chronic problem properties, all propeRies which have
required five or more inspector visits in the past year. A similaz system is used by the FORCE
Unit in the Police Department, where suspected drug-dealing properties aze flagged and when
patrol officers are dispatched on calls for sen%ice, reports aze mandatory. The same type of system
could be used on a city-wide basis, and wbuld provide all staff with better information to deal
with the problems they are confronting at these properties.
2002 Saint Paul City CouncJ Research Gente�
�2 Saint Paul City Council Reseaech Center
_ _ .
Case Study: Dirty Business
98 Chronic Problem Propsrties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessap '.. anic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons D� c�Cn� 99
"Overwhelmed" is a nice 1920's Cape Cod style house
in a pleasant neighborhood. A nonprofit developer
recently rehabilita[ed this pmperty. A woman owns it
and lives there with her two older boys and a younger
girl. She works full-time in a third shift job to support
her family and battles a chronic illness. A boyfriend
somet�mes lives there when he is not either in prison or
with another girlfriend. He is currently in prison.
This property has a]ong and colorful history as a
problem property. Problems go back unfil at least 1994
involvmg both property maintrnance and criminal
behaviors. This property always comes up in
neighborhood meetings as a problem.
The owner is a poor housekeeper, and while the C�ry
has not conducted an inspection of the interior of the
home, i[ is reported by a neighborhood police officer ro
be a mess and the upstairs bathroom has been called a
"disaster." The exterior has received considerable City
attenrion. The City has issued orders to clean up
garbage, vehicle parts, a bathtub and weeds. In all, the
City has wnducted five summary abatements during the
study period and issued one citation in April 2001.
The boyCriend and the two boys aze sources of ongoing
criminal activity requiring continuing police
interventions. During our study period, the police
responded to 36 calls at this address. These calls
involved child abuse, child neglect, d�sturbances,
domestic assault, thefr, auto theft, vandalism, burglary
and dangerous conditions. The boyfi is trouble. He
is la�own to be involved in auto theft and is a drug user.
When he is in residence, he assaults the mother and,
perhaps, the children as well. Ironically, while he
abuses the family he also seems to create some level of
discipline as the yazd is kept clean and the boys aze
more under control. In essence, when the boy&iend is
there, the exterior is neat. However, on the interior
there is violence and intimidation. VJhen the boyfriend
is not there, the exterior deteriorates, but the violence
inside the home subsides and the boys seem to run wild.
The boys often refuse to go to school and they aze an
unending source of disturbances and generally tenorize
the neighborhood. The schools have been ineffective in
dealing with this truancy. However, given that police
calls dropped off dunng the school yeaz, some
neighborhood benefit from the school is obvious. By
way of fo]]ow-up, a similaz pattem of calls for police
service continued through 2001.
The police have attempted to intervene in this si[uation
and have organized meetings with the woman and [he
neighbors. These intervenrions have been lazgely
ineffect�ve because of distrust and frustrarion from both
sides. Things may have improved somewhat after these
interventions only to retum, after a while, to prior
pmblems.
The core of this problem property seems to be the
mother who is simply overwhelmed. Because of her
work schedule, occasionally incapacitaring illness, out-
of-control children and an abusive partner, she finds it
difficult ro cope. She is said by staff who have worked
with her, to see herself as a victun and is ashamed of her
situation, but seems powerless to do anything to help
herself. She has financial problems and may also have
alcohol problems of her own. She needs personal,
fmancia] and mental health counseling, plus personal
and financial assistance. No one seems willing or able
to effectively intervene. The scope of the fanuly
problems aze so broad and deep that nothing short of a
ful]-scale, long-term social service intervention has any
hope of addressing these problems. No one seems
willing to take on this challenge.
2002 SaiM Paul C'M1y Council Research Ce+�
Cross-Departmenta� Case Management
Communication on issues concerning specific chronic problem properties across different
agencies within local govemment tends to be spotty. Part of this is likely due to the fact that a
chronic problem propeRy for one agency may not be one for another. Currently, the main
mechanism the City has for communicating on these properties is the Problem Properties Task
Force. In order to solidify communication procedures, two ideas present themselves. First, a
"case manager" system could be developed where there is one central person responsible for
uacking problems on particular properties. This manager would be responsible for "flagging" the
property for all staffwho interact with it, as well as working with the owner and other involved
parties on plans to resolve the problems. This person could also be responsible for gathering
appropriate background information for prosecutors and the couRS to be used in the pwsuing
citations.
Changein Focus
One particulaz featwe of case management that deserves further discussion is how govemment
approaches its work. The majority of situations enforcement and service providing agencies are
faced with respond well to standard intervention tools, such as citations, abatemenfs and acrests.
However, as we have discussed, the case of chronic problem properties is different and they
require a more "in-depth" approach that takes into account the many problems occurrirtg at the
property. This change is approach represents a fundamental change in focus from "dealing with"
or "handling" the problems— to solving them. Whether this change should be made exclusively
using a case management system, or across all staff groups, we cannot say.
Knock and Talks
Another activity which could be urideRaken using a wmprehensive "listing" of the City's
interactions with a chronic problem property is the equivalent of a"knock and talk." Here City
staff would meet with the relevant owners and occupants to discuss the magnitude of the problems
the City is observing, the costs of responding to these problems, and possible ways to resolve
some of the problems.
City-Initiated Interior Improvements Using TRAs
The City almost never conducts abatements to improve, and bring into code compliance, the
interior of a property. The exception to this is that the City sometimes removes interior garbage
build-up that has led to gross unsanitary conditions. Almost always, correction orders and
abatement notices are geared towazd the owner ensuring that conditions aze in compliance with
relevant codes. Several of the propeRies in this study had Tenant Remedy Actions (TRA) brought
to fix interior code violations. State law provides that TRAs may be initiated by tenants, some
community organizations (such as district councils) and the City itself. In Saint Paul, these
actions are brought by tenants and community organizations, often with the assistance of Southern
Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS). However, the City has not pursued this type of
action. Staff for the City of Minneapolis report success in using this tool, and it merits serious
consideration by the City of Saint Paul as well.
Paul CiCy Couneil Researoh Cen[er
Case Study: Overwhelmed
100 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Study Lesso ' '' Y �^�G 1�1
ns ��r ... rbn�c Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lessons
"Career Criminals" is an older, owner-occupied
single-family dwelling on a corner of a troubled
neighborhood. The owner is an old man who, of
late, requires a wheelchair to get around. Living
with him are two nephews and several women. Most
of these women are prostitutes including the owner's
daughter whom one nephew reportedly pimps.
During the study period, at least seven women who
were airested for prostitution-related offenses listed
this property as their home address for police
records. The nephews aze cazeer criminals with drug
abuse problems. The nephews aze involved in drugs,
pimping and street crime. They aze also believed to
be involved with gangs. The owner claims to be
unable to control what goes on in his house, but he
may actually be facilitating what goes on there. His
cooperation with the nephews creates a stable living
situarion, which is, as a po]ice officer said "close to
work." In addition, police officers who have been
inside the house say the old man is a"collector" who
has tumed the interior into a floor-to-ceiling maze.
Since this is a single family home, City inspectors
have been unable to conduct an inspec[ion of the
interior, which could lead to a correction order or a
condemnation.
The exterior has received the attention of City
inspectors because of things in the yazd. Two
summary abatements have been conducted to
remove propane tanks and appliances. A vehicle
abatement was also done to remove an abandoned
truck in the backyazd.
The police had been called to this address an
extraordinary 46 times during the study period, or an
average of almost twice a month. These calls
involved domestic assault, theft, vandalism, fraud,
stolen property, auto theft, loitering, disorderly boys
and warrant arrests. The FORCE unit had conducted
surveillance and attempted buys of illegal drugs.
Seazch wariants have also been served at this
property resulting in the recovery of drugs and guns.
Atrests were made for operaring a disorderly house
and possession of drug paraphemalia.
The role of the owner in these criminal activities is
uncleaz. It is noteworthy that this property was not
considered a chronic problem property before the
nephews entered the scene, and the o]d man was
more or less capable of owning and managing the
house. It was only when the nephews entered the
scene that his household management skills were put
to the test and he failed. In any case, the neighbors
aze afraid of this property and the ]eve] of criminal
activity in the azea reportedly drops off significantly
when the nephews aze in jai] or prison. However, on
the whole, the Ciry's efforts with this property have
been largely unsuccessful in altering the behavior of
these cazeer criminals or improving the feelmgs of
safety and security among the neighbors.
: ��.
>s -.
*°;
��R,
Sr
�u�;:
>,�:.
k`.;:
Interior Inspection of One- and Two-Unit Rental Housing
The lack of an inspection system that allows predicable access to the interior on one- and two-unit
rental dwellings continues to be a problem. Rental Registration, as has been discussed, has not
facilitated inspector access to even some of the worst condition one- and two-unit rental housing
in the City. This problem needs to be engaged. Policy discussions need to take place which
address the need to expand City inspection powers in these cases, whether it 6e through a revised
rental registration program, landlord licensing or a CeRificate of Occupancy Program for one- and
two-unit rental housing.
Government Role in Dealing with Abandonment
There were two cases among the case studies where the properties were, for all practical purposes,
abandoned by their owners, but continued to be occupied. These were Errant Investor II and Old
and Ugly. In both cases, tenants were not paying rent, and problem behaviors of these occupants
went largely unchecked. There seems to be no "in-between" category for ownership that
acknowledges this abandonment scenario. A method of govemment "conservatorShip° of �ese
properties should be explored, whereby necessary repairs aze made, basic services�are paid for, ,
behavior and observance of standard lease provisions is monitored, and rent is cotlected.
Neighborhoods
Central to our definition of chronic problem property is the idea that the neinhborhood is
adversely affected by the property in question. Neighborhoods themselves are not in a position to,
ensure problems are addressed, as aze property owners and govemment. However, neighborhoods
aze not without power in helping to cure the problems. Developing a strong sense of
neighborhood cohesion and shared values/expectations plays an indirect, but overarching rote in
identifying and dealing with chronic problem propeRies. Relatedly, battling the fatigue of dealing
with chronic problem properties is best shared as a neighborhood, rather than individual
victimized households. City and neighborhood actions that can be taken to work towards the cure
of chronic problem properties.
At another level, once a chronic pcoblem property has "come into being" and its groblems have
been addressed by relevant agencies, there still remains a tear in the fabric of the neighborhood.
This teaz is exemplified by the boarded vacant former drug house which stands as a reminder of
past troubles and a lack of reinvestment in the present. Clearly, housing rehabilitation and
occasional demolition are a part of inending the fabric of the neighborhood. Beyond that, there
aze many cases too where the housing or business continues to be occupied. For example, in
Career Criminals, the house is occupied and the young men are in and out of law enforcement
� custody. The cases of Bad Boys and Overwhelmed aze similar. The experiences of these
properties are that the neighborhood will continue to suffer and occasionally be traumatized. The
concept of restorative justice' holds some promise for repairing the relationship of the neighbors-
to the property, its owners and occupants.
�
� 23 Restorative Justice is a vaVue-based approach to crimina3 justice with a balanced focus on the offender, victim and
'� the community. Involves the creation of programs designed to serve the needs of victims by providing a holistic approach to
� healing the hartn suffered, while offering opportunities for offenders to realize the hartn they caused, apologize for the wrong,
n.
„ help repair the harm, and eam their way back into good standing in the communiry.
Cye�
N;.,,
M;:, .
2002 SaiM Paul City Counpl Research Ce� `�'a� ��� P�� City Council ReseaKh Center
w;t"'-
Case Study: Career Criminals
102
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson
"Nuty Four" is a four-unit apartment building that was
recently "deconverted" from an eight to a four-unit
building. This property is located in an historic
preservation distric[ on a block known by the
neighborhood to be a"problem azea." It has been a
problem proper[y in its own right for at least the
decade. Members of the same faznily have owned it.
Notably, members of th�s family own many properties
in th�s neighborhood and throughout the City.
Maintenance and sanitary conditions have been a
conrinuing problem There have been exterior
violaTions involving siding, trim and fencing in need of
repair, as well as uncollec[ed gazbage. On the interioy
problems have been found with holes in the walis, mice
and cazpet damage. Unit one was condemned after a
fire causing $15,000 in damage in February 1999. Unit
four was condemned after a fire in May 2000. In all,
four coirection orders have been issued for gazbage, the
broken fence and mice. 11vee citations have been
issued, rivo of which were for the broken fence and one
for failure to vacate a condemned unit. The later
citation resulted in a$50 fine. Inspection staff
indicated they have tried both cooperation and gettmg
tough, to little avail.
The police have been regulaz visitors to this address,
responding to 47 calls during the two-yeaz study period,
and 45 in [he one yeaz following it. Residents of a114
units have had at least some interactions with the
police. Fifteen calls were to unit one involving
vandalism, theft, landlord/neighbor situations and
domesric assault. The police also conducted a"]rnock
and talk" at unit one during which they recovered drugs
and drug pazaphemalia. Unit rivo had the least activity
wi[hjust three police calls involving auto theft and
domestic assault. Unit three had I S calls about assaults,
theft landlord/neighbor and domesric assault. An
occupant of unit three was also arrested for driving with
drugs in the vehicle. Unit four expenenced 10 police
calls for such offenses as assault, theft, familyJchildren,
runaway and domestic assault. The general azeas of the
building produced ten police calls for fights, assaults
and dangerous conditions. At one point, the owners
asked the police to azrest trespassers— ostensibly to
discourage unsavory chazacters from hanging about.
The core problem here is the ]andlords aze "jerks."
They are very clever and wholly uncooperative with
City efforts to protect the inhabitants and neighbors.
They seem to have little regazd for the neighbors and
kttow how to evade the system. In one interv�ew, it was
said "they could write a book on how to exploit tenants
and evade Ciry intervenrions." In an example of this
behavior, the landlords hired a cazetaker during the
study period to help to keep this and some of their other
properties well-maintained. While this has been the
case, we also heazd reports that the cazetaker acts as
"muscle" to see that rent is paid on time. They aze also
said to rent to "bottom of the banel" tenants and take
advantage of them, often by tuming over tenants while
azranging to keep their security deposits and last
month's rent deposits. 'I`his allows them to maacimize
income from an otherwise undesirable properiy. They,
themselves, may be involved in drugs and alcohol but
aze said to be "too smart to get caught at it " The
simadon was thought to have improved recently. The
landlords said they were doing more screening of the'u
tenants and tuming away the worst prospects. The near
doubling in the level of police calls to this property
suggests these efforts were parricularly ineffecrive.
There was, at one point, speculation that a neazby
college would acquire this property with expansion
plans. At this point, however, problems with this
property continue to plague the neighborhood.
Interestingly, this 4-unit building generates 10 times the
calls per unit as its 20 unit neighbor, Down `n Out.
However, the neighborhood takes a somewhaz dimmer
view of Down `n Out.
Y.r
e:, �o Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons (`')�, 103
�','< -�i Ultimately, these relationships must be restored. Almost all offenders are released and will retum
' ���.�
3 ,,�, to the same property or azea. This is the cuaent experience of Los Mgeles neighborhoods as
��' gang members aze released from prison and re-enter their neighborhoods. Restorative justice
;_:�.. for neighborhoods could involve sentencing practices that work to restore and rebuild the
'�"� dama ed neighborhood or facilitated oeighborhood-based mediation. Whatever tk�e approach,
.'�E.
.re
, �,,
> sn:.
;':`„
`.' -
';_
g +
attempts to mend the neighborhood when the offenders remain in the midst of those who were
harmed is important for the existence of neighborhood cohesion.
Owners
Owners aze an essential component of curing chronic problem proper[ies. Recall that the essential
elements for the development of a chronic problem propeRy aze the owner and the govemment
being unable and unwilling to solve the problems. There are a huge variety of problems the
owners could be experiencing, and the solutions to these prob(ems aze also varied. If it is the case
that the owner lacks the resources or ability to effectively address the problems at hand, options
which empower owners and provide them with necessary resources aze called for. If it is the case
that the owner is unwilling to effectively address the problems, then options which provide
incentives and penalties for noncomp(iance should come into play. Unfortunately,
problem properties, owners are usually unwilling and , to some extent sometimes unable as well.
At the simplest level, is the option of bringing a new owner into play. In Yhe Case Case, many
believe the new owner was key to tuming this complex around, and the initial reports aze good. In
other rental property case studies, such as Cracking Up and Alligator Alley, new owners have not
brought about changes in the situations of these properties. Changes in ownership for owner-
occupied propedies also have the potential of changing the status of these properties from being ,
chronic problems to good neighbors. In both cases though, it is important that the new owners aze
cleazly awaze of the history of the property and the community standards which were violated.
Direct provision of services may help some of the owners in ow case studies with the problems
they aze experiencing. In the case of Dirty Business, assistance in securing an altemate site for the
landscaping business would likely help. In the case of Overwhelmed, a broader range of services
may be needed. What seems to be lacking in our service systems is the ability to provide these
people with the services needed, with strings attached to ensure they aze addressing the chronic
problems. For example, if money is provided for removal of gazbage, the rebuilding of stairs and
a new roof, it seems reasonable to need assurances that the money will be spent on those items.
SOCIAL & PERSONAL PROBLEMS
Overall, one is struck by the profound impact of social and personal problems in the lives of the
owners and occupants of chronic problem properties. Issues of poverty, violence, alcohol and
drug abuse aze riddled throughout all of the case studies. Not surprisingly, this research process ,
did not provide us with profound insights as to the ultimate solution of these problems. However,
we will summarize some of our findings on how these factors act to make owners and occupants
less able and willing to deal with the probiems which confront them.
' LA. Gangs Are Back, Time Maeazine, August 26, 2001.
�23ai�H Paul City Council Researoh Center
20U2 Saint Paut City Council Research Ce���
��kw;
Case Study: Nasty Four
704 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso o r�. c�,C0�1 105
ns ; : `���ic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
Case Study: Fight Club
"Fight Club" was a downtown baz w�th a restaurant and
entertainment ]icense. It was ]ocated at street level ai a
lazge building used for residential, office, light
manufacturing and retail. The surrounding buildings
aze priman]y commercial but there aze several lazge
residential buildings in khe immediate azea. The
residential neighbors were very feazful of this baz and
its customers. In fact, several residential neighbors
reported being tiveatened by employees and customers
of the baz. This business had been a problem almost
since it opened and was on the problem properties task
force working list.
The Fire Deparhnent and Code Enforcement issued
orders regazding maintenance for this business dealing
with gazbage, doors, sprinklers and blocked exits. The
primary problems with this business regazded crimmal
actrvity and failure to pay app]icable ]icense fees.
This baz had been the site of serious criminal problems
involving shoo6ngs, assaults and gang activiries. The
police responded to I 12 calls during our study period.
This means the police were called to this business, on
average, once each week. These police calls involved
narcotics, distutbances, domestic assault, fights, theft,
aggravated assault, vandalism, weapons, hazanguing
and hassling. Eighteen of these calis involved fights,
in addifion to four aggravated assaults, tluee other
assaults, domestic assaults and disturbances. Because
of this high level of criminal activity, the City required
metal detectors and video cameras to deter weapons
and other violence. These requirements were not
always met— resulting in a series of adverse actions
against the liquor license. This license was actually in
the nazne of the manager's mother as he, himse]f, was
ineligible to apply because of his criminal background.
The manager of this baz, at best, tumed a blind eye to
criminal acnviry in the baz. At worse, he allowed and
encouraged criminal activity. Certainly he catered to a
bad clientele. He was also chronically ]ate in paying
his City license fees and, when he did pay them, it was
always in cash. He was very sophisticated in working
City license and police agencies, and seemed to Imow
just how far he could go and yet remam out of [he
reach of City enforcement agencies. This abiliry has,
however, broken down m view of a recent series of
adverse actions resulting in the ulfimate closure of the
baz.
The presence of poverty, and its concentration, is a factor in many of the case studies. It is
demonstrated by the high level of delinquent taxes, ufility shut-offs and relatively low market
values of these properties. In some cases, this poverry turns into an unlikely tool for removing, or
temporarily removing, chronic problem properties from a neighbarhood. For example, a utility
shut-off will result in a condemnafion, and orders to vacate the premises. In other cases, unpaid
tases will lead to the eventual forfeiture of the property to the state. Or the inabiliry to keep up on
payments in a conh for deed will lead to the occupants losing the pioperty. However, these aze
not real solutions to the chronic problems of these properties. Urility bills are almost always paid
again at some point. Tax forfeiture is a very long process, and leaves a neighborhood stuck with
problems for years at a time— as is demonstrated by The Brothers Grim and Old and Ugly. In the
case of properties sold on a contract for deed, if they end up being ceded back to the original
owner, they are typically resold on a contract for deed under very similar circumstances. In all of
these cases, poverty undoubtedly brings more problems than it solves for these properties.
Alcohol and drug abuse were strong influences on the owners and occupants in the case studies.
Although we have no drug use/abuse statistics, the stories of the people involved at these
properties aze indicative of high levels of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as addicrion. In Dowtt
1V Out, it seemed the majority of people in the riventy-room building had these problems, with the
building being characterized as the "first half of a half-way house," meaning it �vas occupied by
people prior to recovery from addiction. In the Errant Investor stories, we saw ho� Yhe property
owner has ulrimately lost most of his property holdings and seriously damaged the neighborhood
through mismanagement and neglect related to his drug addiction. In the Brothers ,Grim, the drug
abuse of the two brothers was a primary contributor to them ulrimately losing their family home
and hurting the neighborhood. Similazly, the drug abuse of the man living in and attempring to
buy Empty Promise made his occupancy of the property untenable. And certainly the many times
police officers were required to transport people to detox are indicative of serious problems.
Drug dealing in chronic problem properties is often connected to the drug abuse of the occupants.
There also seemed to be a number of case studies in which drug dealing was reported to be a
problem, but where the occupants were not reported to be using drugs in a way that led to police
intervention. The Police Department had founded calls conceming drug dealing at 59 percent of
the case studies. These situations varied considerably. Errant Investor I involved drug dealing,
both open air and within the premises, with the lmowledge and complicity of the property owner.
Cracking Up was occupied by one, and sometimes two, women who likely had serious drug
problems, and were believed by some to be assisring local drug dealers by allowing them to use
the property. Danger Island is a mulri-unit apartment building where it seems there is
considerable drug dealing activity in the shazed, general spaces of the building. This also seems
to be the story with both Alligator AIZey and Case Case. The fear and despair iniroduced into
these properties and neighborhoods related to drug dealing is immeasurable.
Violence, in particular domestic violence, turned out to be nearly a hallmark of chronic problem
properties. As has been stated frequently in the report, 88 percent of the properties had founded
police calls for service related to domestic violence. Police were also called to two-thirds of the
properties studies to handle `bther violence" situations, and to 38 percent of them for fights. The
sense of chaos one gets from the physical disorder pales in comparison to the social disorder
associated with drug dealing and violence. Damage clearly occurs within the household where
violence is present. Damage also occurs for the neighbors of these properties. One need hardly
imagine that hearing, and sometimes seeing, repeated episodes of domestic violence is just as, if
not more, harmful than dealing with mounds of gazbage or junk vehicles on the neighbor's
property.
2002 Saint Paul City CAUncil Research CentN
Ciry Council Research Center
106
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Le
Case Stud_y: Case Case
"The Case Case" is a IZ-unit apartment building and is
one building in a four-building complex. It is neither
the best nor the worse of the four buildings. This
aparhnent complex is in a fairly nice neighborhood
made up of primarily single-family homes neaz an
elementary school on a block of generally good
buildings. The owner of this building owns three of the
fwr buildings in this complex and has an attomey
manage the buildings. There is no on-site cazetaker
although the condition of the ownePs 36 units seems to
justify such a service. This landlord owns other
buildings in Sain[ Paul and manages them in what City
staff generally cons�dered to be a peculiaz manner. He
seems to reflexively resist City efforts to address
problems in his buildings for reasons known only by
him.
In recent years there have been some violations of Ciry
building maintenance codes. In the interior there have
been problems with heat, locks, doors, cazpe6ng and
screens. Exterior violations have involved such things
as paint, lack of ground cover and abandoned vehicles.
The ownePs failure to respond to City correction
notices has lead to the Certificate of Occupancy being
revoked rivice, once in 1999 and again in Z000. The
building also experirnced an azson fue. The reluctance
of the owner [o make prompt repairs from this fire
damage has caused great frustration aznong some
tenants. There is a genera! feeling of the building being
overcrowded with 1(ttle space within which to ]ive.
The beliavioral problems in this building are
considerable. The police have been called to this
building I 14 times during our sNdy period. These calls
have involved quite serious matters such as dmg
dealing, prosritution, burglary, fights, nazcotics and the
reported murder of a drug dealer in front of the
building. Foriy-three calls have been to the common
areas of the building such as halls, entrances and the
pazking lot. Notably, all drug and narcotic-related calls
have been to the genera] areas of the building. Three
units account for another 44 calls with one unit
responsible for 28 calls. The calls to individual units
aze lazgely for domestic assault along with other family
and child-related matters. The FORCE Unit has also
visited this building in 1997 and again in 1999. Blatant
drug activities, along with physical intitnidation, have
kept many tenants in a state of atixiety regarding their
personal safety. Some forty-sis percent of the
bui]ding's units aze responsible for generating zero [o
three calls for police service each. This crowded
building is cleazly occupied by some who do the crime
and others who aze intimidated by them. In response to
the extraordinary demand for police services, the Ciry
sent two "excessive consumption of police services"
letters to the owner. Tt is not apparent if these letters, or
anything else the City has attempted, have resulted in
any improvement in this unhappy situarion. Indeed,
police calls in 2001 were 25 percent greater than had
been experienced in either yeaz of the study period.
Six months following the complerion of our study
period, all four of the buildings in this complex were
sold to a new ov✓ner who has installed a caretaker. It
remains to be seen if this ownership and management
change will result in safer, healihier ]iving spaces for
the tenants and a better neighborhood generally.
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons f��.-D�C61 107
CONCLUSION
Almost everyone, at one point or another, has had experience with chronic problem properties.
They aze occasionally on the evening news, as was the case with the McGuckin family of
Sandpoint, Idaho in the early summer of 2001. This family was living in a remote cabin with few
resources and the father had died earlier in the spring from multiple sclerosis and starvation. After
the mother was removed from the home for felony child neglect, the children, aged 8 to 16 holed
themselves up in the cabin with the many family dogs— fearful of all outsiders, as their (probably
mentally ill) mother had been. The property was poorly maintained, with a build-up of household
garbage and dog feces inside.
Not all chronic problem properties receive such wide media coverage— in fact, the vast majority
do not. However, the McGuckin family situation, of which most of us became aware, bore some
of the hallmarks of the chronic problem properties we have studied. These include the loss of
control of one's surroundings which is exemplified by the gross unsanitary conditaons, an dwner
who is both unwilling and unable to deal with the problems, as well as the predisposing and
complicating factors of poverty and poorly constructed housing. `,
Chronic problem properties aze chronic because of the number and complexity of the problems
concentrated in the property. These problems can be lumped into the broad categories of social
and physical disorder which have an adverse affect on the surrounding area. These problems
range from the domestic violence we saw all too often, to drug dealing to junk vehicles,
appliances and mattresses. The over-riding themes aze these are cases where people have loss
control of themselves— with drugs, anger, violent acts and victimization by violence. They have
also lost control of their surroundings— with poor or little maintenance of the household, doors
and windows often being broken allowing intrusion, auto theft, theft and burglary predominating.
Chronic problem properties, in some form or another, seem almost a given as a part of the human
condition. There will always be some level of deviance— those who do not share and will not
abide by the expectations, values and laws of society at lazge. But in urban areas, the impact of
these deviant actions is too broad and deep to allow them to go unchecked. It is incumbent upon
society to minimize and eliminate the chronic problems of these properties whenever possible—
not only to decrease the vast amount of resources the public spends handling these problems, but
to improve the general health, safety and welfaze of the city. The challenge lies with individuals,
community organizations and govemment to make owners and govemment itself able and willing
to engage, resolve and cure these problems. Preventing the creation of more chronic problem
properties is the next challenge. If chronid problem propedies never "come into being; ' they will
not hazm the community. The rewazds of engaging these challenges lie in the improved quality of
living residents and visitors alike will enjoy.
�
Saint Paul is a typical city. While remarkable in many respects, it is no more predisposed to
...... develop chronic problem properties than most cities. City of Saint Paul analysis of the 2000
Census Supplementary Survey indicates that Saint Paul is perhaps the "ultimate middle class
city." This is based on income levels, poverty rates, unemployment rates and housing
affordablility— both rental and owner-occupied. Saint Paul also ranks very high in retaining and
attracting middle class. Yet Saint Paul has chronic probtem properties, not to the extent of some
cities, but certainly its fair shaze. The question that now faces the City is: with what we know
now, can we meaningfully lower the number and severity of chronic problem properties in Saint
Paul?
�'"F'7 City Councii Resaarch Center
2002 Saint PaW City Council Research Cenre� ��;,;,
'5����,,`,�.
, o�-� 9
j APPendix Page 2
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Appendix P ` ' p Y
age I �,�'; ..��¢ problem Pro erties in Saint PauL• Case Stud Lessons
APPEND/X A: CHRON/C PROBLEM PROPERTY CASE STUDY REFERENCE LIST ` " City Services Problems Page
,,.:� :�
'°' "` Name Property Information Information Experienced #
Ci Services `
tY Probiems Pyge Rental Duplex Bml[ in 1893 Absrnt Lhug-Addicted Landlord,
Name Property lnformation Information Experienced # ���ro�I CityTa�ces:8219
;' i MV $$53 600 MV per Umt Drug Dealmg InSm�dat�on Iater page 28
Cost for Mnual Calls to C�ty $2,985
$26,8�U a Vacant Property
30 -Uni[ Rentai Built m 1967 �.��
AlLgator � Ci Taces: $2,242 . � x �e�i' °t a m ss �.z ry C�' 3: s � 3 :' �+ „ .t v��n c. -sr ,_ �;`,�
�� MV. $618,000 ty UncoopemHve Landlord, Code ' - " d,t , � ui*1� i� � 's �"" � �
MV per umt $20,600 Cost for Annual Calls to CiTy: $13,829 Violafions, Tenant Crime p �$ n � �, °Px "� 'L0� � � s':: 4 i � ` ��'" 4 _� �age�?" ' ,� Y �� ��' � t�;
� �� � :.; k i� ' � a ,n � : •s�:a .,t �v �� � r' � � �'�':,�a �R �%� it¢: ccasi .. amsrs
} .ik`� h. „> t , �'�' C .�i:.�t � i . ,.,.�. � ,..z� ,�, u•,�. . 5 ,. s . g�� _ _ ' . '
fi _ �s � ��� n � p . , . ,,. ¢5 1t ik: Y55p 2x
. �t ru '. , �,t }I� ',�; ,'. ` � '.,g:� Sj . A :zi' ; � ; - �t d�t� .: , ,:� C„ �. { ,�t , :� , ,a � � ey . .� �. � h � 1�..F'Y . . � _ _.< � . _. , _. �. , . _
,�i. t� �� , n, •�'�; �� . ��t , �. ��mkS �' �' !�` 7:;� '9'' e .. 7'. � "' '�` � , s �. } i .c. ",��`'� s�. � s-�,s . � ..:tia, >��:i� .�V � .. , ...�a .,t�. � `<.»G
�$a'3$ �r � ome'&�il@Yn' . ... � �+ s it x - `e` " �� ... �, $ `� ..,,`,` 4 i�: �,.��, ��' �� , . o- . D 5,�.� OwnerOccu iedSin leFamiL ... :z ��
�
,�� ���,,(� '�.:� p� ���f 5 9y,' 3 � � 1� l;t "'yf.� � ,.a����C�'t�f� . � � ��! �u� 4 ,�, : 9 P� ,� a � ., ` P g Y CiTyTases:$793'� , . � ,..,:; .., .
�_, �..�e '�,'x '�t IF� ���. t�.�t' ,.?�.3�€ r.d� � t� ��� ��� i� ���� . � n r Fear FaMOr Home Built in 1909 Garbage� Lhugs, Int�mida6on Page 50
. ,t, .. Ut'„,y. at,,., �..{a�„ �� s �� � Cost for Annual Calla to C�ty. $1,259
a�..�l.:N�, w,� ,��+;1 ,a�t� �i � .;' � ���`��'.�� Mv sss ieo
BrotNers Owner Occupied Single Family � � y � , .
Grim Home Built m 1924 CiTy Taxes� $471 Drug-Addicted Brothers, Garbage, � q :� z �`� [ '���=3��{pCEi � '� � � ' � �`'��'"� .. �. � � �o ilY'4 , . ���. �.,.m
MV. $] 19 000 Cos[ for Annual Calls [o City: $5,891 Sewer Line Break in Basement p � S ��" �'$' �,� g b� �} �� �` � � � I I t� � �.�a ryy
{ �i" "r-gifr �5� .�`', ? �"��ry° .�,:dY'.�}'i` i t;,t�g �;.�9 n +� t w. n , } � .<1 Is �" ?y� >{ - 1' ..t� - �, :u+�' .s.� �tm' .._. m� _�. su �RWw _ ur l4., .a. PE_ v. i� , � 4�..�!� �z��:�� .n:�:,:' �..,i.L'� �7� ,..�„e �fi
G�� : :��"� up;ed��S, am r4 ,� �;tr�(�� � { c: tt �yS { .�� .�1 �!�} �1 . �i �'� �Y� : p� 43 � t � i � i �: j, .'p; _ � CriminalCompanion,Disorderly .
� a.;�m'�ina�Ts� �,� {� � �� �� ;�� � `�{i `., '�'� �t` f ��' .. � �i' i;'�H� "'1t ":4l "�y} i 'g i R'��' i . ' �. �` T�' t `�{� �='1{=�'t{� � �� Gaugster Single Family KenTal built in 1888 City Taaces: $150 Boys, D`uSs, Probable Child and Page 32
,„ ;#,. T3r"> ,''nC!'ji�.,�yH ;����� `��; ���(+i '���'����4�F �' t r� ?� T � + r. �. � �p % '. � � A i yt ° Boyfriend MV: $42,300 CostforAnnual CallstoCity: $2,845 AmmalNeglect
�' cx, t.s41�, t��!�: �� •. ' :���8'"�����`'����k��',y ` "�..' tl �''., t pv' �s n'�m ��� �:�
u�„•,� �t,�, �
�� �' � '' � �
12 Unit Rental in a 4 Buildmg � a , a . op a ,� ��,a
Complex C� Taxes: $708 Esterior Violations,Criminal �� � ` � �' { y � ' � � � .. Gu ,� �d! �
CaseCase t7' - �;� t�d S �,�^ �s s "° � - 1 � �"
MV: $ 200,875 Cost fot Annual Calls to C� $15,179 Activity, Domesdc Abuse, page 106 + ' R '�
tY� �n e � � Ei .�° G:::. � 9 '1� nn �;s � :.., s!r ��...z:�
MV per Unit: $ 16,740 Unresponsive Owner �' JvfY ntt�� OQ � ,.; '��� i w � ., t . .� . ���
" fl" S 94Y'�p , t .. s , ,_. ei. >, ....;aw�r .�,...�;d ��4 <. -...inS' n a.' Kw..a(' �a�'� _� �, � u�...�Nw� d.!�
{ � 4
�',� �� `4�'� � � 1;�69�� �'� g�' �" r 'H � �`" r �` � °' N " ' "' 4 . �� 24 Unit Rental built in 197t MV:
� �� s �a�,��4"������' > ,� � : � g a .:i� t � `� ' �I CiTy Taees: $4,245 Coclaoaches, Crimina] Acrivity,
� t �( A tt 5 �tF j� q ����'�� � + ` r t : i� ' La�Cucaracha $1,107,800 Cost fos Annual Ca1ls to Cuy: $19,696 Prostitupon, Drugs page 70
�t�';� t �'�Pn�i�f .: R s va�� k���3' ���,.',"_, �. i��� x, . • �� � . t K �' � .{ s 4 ' MV per umt: $39 564
� i + i t � {�.� I
;
{� a
. §':. .: _ th _ .3t . .i{:�a,_.A.. a� ' < �� .. i � �` � �Y��� � �` y ul& `iw�#';�XB s4 �'� b p9 "V.t � �,n (��°, �IC .y°^i �s4 Nr � ��'1
� ", �f .a �k ' �}i ��x � �. s'$r Si� fr� .}. � �Y� ��15..
Rental Dup7ex Built in 1893 � � ^ � � ;
Cracking-Up MV� $59,000 C ��' T��� $Z�A Slumlords, �minal Achviry, :� k: ` � _ ,�
MV per Unit $29,500 Cost for Annual Calls to C�Ty: $13,294 Drug pealing, Proslitu5on p g 6 t �
3 � �. .:: .� w . . .. r � .. . � M '' 4 .. . «. _<v .. , vx� id. so'2. . ��GtI ��6�.:w v.>�a�.
a e2 I;'",.���� � �� sel' �`�� �5•, -'" �r��.� r9 a " k.�.
,`' t'�S `p ' ` � ,{'� . , '� , � '�� - n { _ " -' � � t °' ' � Commercial Motel � Uncanng and Possibly Comtpt
i i '� ',� ��� i � �'. rt ; F Motel City Ta�ces: $3,028
_, o � �r S �� � F r �" ��� t .� . '� 1 , '. „ MV: $303,400 Management, Code Violarions, page 20
; �*��.�F�� h . . .. ,.t; �� 3 i ' t n ,�. � C, r. �. > � '� � } '�. Califoruia CostforAnnualCallstoCily:$34,534
.. ; '.� r •;. . , � � ' � ". MV per Room: $2 408 Crime
. .. ' d .� � .. . :� . � ' w. ..5 , .� : . a � . w . >. .." .. F`�t�� � .,� � . ' x ��,. �.- _ ..
1 I Unit Rental Built in t 960 Inexperienced Owner, Code t +.,'::�° " � k `� ?
DangerIsland MV:$273,600 . �� �•� � rr:. � ffs � .�.�:
City Ta�ces: $993 Violations, Roperty Isolation, ' C "`.,y3 ,�,� ^2i� . .� � .�+�
Cost fot Annual Calls to Ci $23,289 Hi h Tenant Criminali Dtu s, Page 84 z�� �. � ='$2' � ; � � � �, , i�, � � �p ',, � �. � '.��� ;��� `�o�
MV per Unit: $24,873 tY� g Ty: g � t�
� Violence .�' � �4 Unit Rcntal Buil[ in 1888 �
p��y� qp , e, '"� r: -� City Taees: $d70 Absent I,andlord, Drugs, Interior
(�i �'` '��}'� �•*�,N," i � � ; „ '� � � ' ,;. � �, . r ; ; , s f � , Old aod Ugly MV: $54,000 Page 54
p ��� '� s � � � . ; . � ±,; S Z �p . . ;' � . ,' �' '� 3 Cost for Annual Catls to C�Ty. $9,5'75 and Esterior V�olarions, TRA
4• a ' s . �_.-, ;#t i } '� ,.:��� +, . ' r a � ; ;� �(, MV per Un�it: $13 500 , ,,�,..,�:, qi. . �•°;�. i �'_'
,�i :�� ��' ..� ,,, Q � ,�
����,.�u �b.� e ��Gl� - '�` `. •� �������� � c . �� 4 ��i ` ;'r �t rl ��i � : y^ = g � tu '" � ,� ..� C 1 s ." r t : ,,.. t`�-�. ::"� zi F �:.
. . . �� . � .. _ .��. ��. z. . ,:, t:.3 .< ' '. ?:�� a ;s . `:;:�5,�� ' 't' �m�";� �°� �6AP1 4" r ' Gy s ;�' N �;�' +��.�f x ��..�. � l��I'.Yi..
Owner Occupied Smgle�Family CiTy Taxes: $221 Caoss Unsanitary Condi4ons, y= y � i�a � a :. � d s�� ��.; ��C ... �� 4 ` � ' 43 ;�I. �� 1� PosSi p a e�
Dir[y Dealing Home Bnilt in 1889 . " '' i.. rc �. pn . �� �
�s,�, "
MV $56000 CostforMnualCa]1stoCiTy:$13,131 OccuionallyVacant,Crimma7 page58 , .. w, . ;d �,��`" , :�tF.,�...�...��... ki.�'�k�i ,tP"'«'.'.. �.,, .._ .F�....,.„� U_. .=NV� in�,.'� e..,.� ..._... ....�.:::to.. E...4.�
� � ,E� . � �
„ � � # ; £ n � ` Nu�sances, Rac�st Neighbors � ' Owner Occup�ed Single Family
y, y, k y�,�,, z ', 4 �.m t ;� .� , �k<� CiTy Tarzes: $234 Gazbage, Abusive Boyfiiend, a e 48
j? � s , � i � i3 �: �� �i&� ���� � •: � dt��;� i� � ' �'"� .�.; � , t�i � ��.. "jfi 1 ; , - Overwhelmed HomeBUiltin 1919 P S
� �, = Cost for Annual Calls [o City: $2,790 Disordedy Boys
D�u , oUS'e�E` , p c , ..�, �''�,;-.:� , ,,�}c.� r: , . . , � s a 4 ,: T �1�;'�� � t" � $'i � ? MV:$68,900 '
�A
t. .it�3..�{F . P, �t�� Ct •tR ' � x . �' , s , �;.. ,: ,t`• . "'',��, s ' 1 _ ..n;;:-� au;;.. � .N;J
,, r ;� ; �' . ,1;,,. 3:. � � � � " � � .. � � t; � : � 4 6 . W. ,.:.: , ' 3. . .; a � . . �.r y � ,• :� ,- .�; ;. . .. c.�::.m 7,,� ri f r� . � i� . `�' ' �� �` � �: :
,,:r „a ,t ..t,.::+., � ���.,� ,,�.,,,� . ���� , ., ..� ._ ,. .... ti.. „>, .� , �.,; `; �h .��j"'... i s�'k� .';"+I �`d lt� �q �.� r� !� o Tenaii�. �t .rca.
.,r�; . .x .f ��",'n, . �. . �«��j ., ,.. ,�. a .,._ "1��,�g� a' - - }'�,- . � . � e..��,, y , � � f�r,, . •12#`�t3�3. �tm d& { ,s';��� �� 3+�. : r., af�� ros ' }��� .v�.t� g � j
,��.� a,,. , z , ,, , . , �r".. . �I�'� ; ., .:, ��s > .,fg � �,.: ,. .���?•. .��. : � ..� . . , .: ^ ,:.:.. b ; TLeuu the, ; ,, y �� w . i ;n:i[� - t .City'. �:!$1 � �j� �.r,� ;�s�:
:,� , �u�.�:a 1 �`��_:� , �.:����:.�� E ����..�w.�..'�i_ ° � : ����:��r� t:u+ .�.+�'�.'�`������."��. . . t` � .r..�. .� $4 �c�#a.-: �El. { � T �..� ��.�.� Vff'�'<i �".°..�� on .� E F�.3.¢i,'�
' u.�s...�i�' , _��'S��sa �Craq7c�, �� ��� at��� �.�I� �' . C<rs�fi�Aim�Callsfi���y $Cy�Q� .�. °�,� � . . r'f�
.. _ , : . r ,s�., .. ,.
.._ , � �: .,�
Double RentalDuplexBuiltin1885 loiriveLaztdlord,Criminal ' ��a,,,..ii. "� ' �F�4Umt $24?$0� ,- x• t t -,. � ,: gg , �p�edB� ,� �
MV: $49,700 City Tarzes: $298 �P ... � , .u3...,� :tS4,,;_r�' �.�,a�t,n�a...�..� ,,•. _:,.,;�ta.�vs. :.,;�."�asr �...'`�'d�'�, � rk:s+��, . :..�.a.�k�E�:�iw� �, _.. +� . .,, awt�mn� �1i�...�' .. .;.a�' _�
Trouble Cos[ for Annual Calls to C� $8 523 Behavior of Unscreened Tenanfs, page 64 � � License Roblems, Public
MV per Umt $24 850 ty E e V I tl µ, Commercial B Bmlt m 1949 Ci Tazes: $664
. ,, �,_;� � ; xterior Cod io a ons atering Hole MV: $94' OO az Cos[ for Annual Calls t� Ci $6,307 �^nldng, Assaults, Indifferent page 76
:,, ., .,� ';� *' ��1➢npfe�xf3'urlcin:$'v�3"^�" �"'�� �`'�`�;��'��'�'3��!'`-�'T >�. �'• . ..,r:- 'L � owne� -
:D6uble Gross .: . �. ', `.'� ...� y;.. � G'i ,� aXes:.fi123 ; , 4 > E .. .t;=�l r ; : ��� . ., ,. � , f� ., _�';. - -� .. ,,.� ., .....� . . r.-.; . .,�. . .,, a ,...,.,� ,, c , �,,..,,y� .:.
s
_. ... 338�0. �t? �,. :r �• .:�. •� �r�`�;.:�, q . a ,�
- ,� ..+ ..�.. .,_ 3 ,.._ ...,.--,,..„� �?s . �,`r��..;,.: ;� .wcz:.,.,, �.. . a. ��°=.
- �r .:: � .. . > . . . ; . : .a „m I�. ; �: : a �. .. . �7.�, . : �! i � ...H. X� ','� '�k 1;# . �.;;; `�.-4. v . � . ..;_ �.. .i �r�'��.. . >. �... x �
.. : :. . �. � �,. � . :,, '� ;. � u5e�or�Av!aai�Gatisfo�C} .,$6534� ����: �._ �. ; ,.,:. �� ,A ;t. a e94,:.; .. � ;",:. , lePamily �, .� .� . ,rau��,Elt'•+ .<�:.� , �� .. � - .:.:?�.�„i�,s�o '
,_ . � . h4Y�perUmt $�L6.9C10 . � �-. -_.., �Y' � . � .. _ . . . y ���� � , e -,��., ���,,� . �_ q
,: ..,_ . : . w.,.....�, .. �.. et�,. � .n„ E�.'��. 7K .� �,,� { ;. "' a ,.. �:� ,: . s , x x,�. _ a � �. ..� . ; � y . �',`y�'eqd_ � � ..,s:tar , . � �4+t,ty;Tases.`�394 ,r�� . s . , nv[�erc�al Vetucl������' 'Se�� ..
.� ,.. , ,,.>_�� � .z.,.�i._ �i�:k; .u't� .�. �,..._ �S �'A��: �.��:�' � �; ,-..��! . . ° ., � � , "'amu m t9zo , � � � Pm�ecq Co �� �- � t� � '� r��s;�
.Su=' K.�.... ss�..!a�^ ..0 - +�iqgqbor Cd�.£a[AffiU9bCa7Lrtto�City:$2;21fl �'.:ssa ����t � �; .r�
� ''_ .� ., . �, �. ": � , .��. +.��;:.,.. '-StoiaBe �:.`s.�r, s c ."'"o�v.3�... ' `='
20Uni[RrntalBUiltinl867 TenantBehav�ora]Problems, � ` <.*z.,. �MV.S.IOk;800' - -
Down •N Out MV: $121,300 Ciry Taees: $440 '�
Cost for Annual Calls to Ci $11,017 ��°g� �sorderty Boys, page 44
MV per Unit $6,065 Ty " Into]erant Neighbors
e � *'�`
..Empty �-.;� OwnaOccup�edDuplexBmltl$&9�% :�<=�s; � - u� �.. y ..-"'�'„. �-"'�::-.,,,�` �a��"`; ,�`��e i .r {��
� Promise ' _ . MVc u$i3,90U .�,. � � `�YTazcc"$319 z '� Code �olahops, VacaptBmtdmg, � �.
,
.,'. Costfor`A�uaiGa115ta,Glty$$.062 > IhugS%leslUse,`3quatfu&�'"'` > `PaB�:� �..
_ , _ . MV per TTnifi$�6,�� ; . � ° ' . � .. _ . _ . . . _ _ _ .. _, _ �. . . ,
i NIV is the mazket value for the properiy used by Ramsey County.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
APPEND/X B: B/BLIOGRPAHYAND REFERENCES
JOURNALS
Dubin, Robin. "Maintenance Decisions of Absentee Landlords under Uncertainty." Joumal of Housine
Economics 7 (1998): 144-164.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Margery Austin Tumer. "Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing Recent
Evidence.° Housine Policv Debate 8.4 (1997): 833-866.
Goetze, Rolf, and Kent W. Colton. "The Dynamics of Neighborhoods: A Fresh Approach to
Understanding Housing and Neighborhood Change." Joumal of the American Piannine Association
46 (1980).
Greenberg Michael R. "Improving Neighborhood Quality: A Hierazchy of Needs." Housine Policv
Debate 103 (1999): 601-620.
Grogger, Jeff, and M. Stephen Weatherford. "Crime, Policing and the Perception of Neighborhood
Safety." Political Geoeraohv 14.6/7 (1995): 521-541.
Kutty, Nandinee. "A Dynamic Model of Landlord Reinvestment Behavior." Journal of Urban
Economics 37 (1995): 212-237.
Labott, Elise. "Slum Offensive: After Yeazs of Inaction, Governments are Starting to Crack Down on
Blighted Property Again." Govemine July 2000.
Megbolugbe, Isaac F., and Marja C. Hoek-Smit, Peter D. Linneman. "Understanding Neighbourhood
Dynamics: A Review of the Contributions of William G. Grigsby." Urban Studies 3310 (1996):
1779-1795.
Perkins, Douglas D., and Ralph B. Taylor. "Ecological Assessments of Community Disorder: Their
Relationship to Feaz of Crime and Theoretical Implications." American Journal of Communiri
Psycholoev 24.1 (1996): 63-107.
Sae� David. "Discerning Where They Are: Understanding Current Housing Trends and Related [nternal
Processes of Six Minneapolis Neighborhood Organizations." Conducted on behalf of the
Minneapolis Neigltborhood Eazly Warning System. December 2000.
Smith, Steven Rathgeb. "Partnerships, Community Building, and Local Government." National Civic
Review 86.2 (1997): 167-174.
Taylor, Ralph B., et. al. "Street Blocks with More Nonresidential Land Use Have More Physical
Deterioration: Evidence from Baltimore and Philadeiphia." Urban Affairs Review 311 (1995): 120-
136.
Temkin, Kenneth and Wil(iam M. Rohe. "Social Capital and Neighborhood Stability: An Empirical
Investigation" Housin¢ Policv Debate 9.1 (1998): 61-86.
Vidal, Avis C. "Reintegrating Disadvantaged Communities into the Fabric of Urban Life: The Role of
Community Development." Housin2 Policv Debate 6.1 (1995): 169-230.
Pa<
�blem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. "The Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows."
The Atlantic Monthlv Mazch 1982: 29-38.
GOVERNM�NT DOCUMENTS
oa-a�9
idix Page 4
Bratton, William J. "Great Expectations: How Higher Expectations for Police Depar[ments Can Lead to
a Decrease in Crime." Measurine What Matters: Proceedines from the PolicinQ Research Institute
Meetin¢s Ed. Robert Langworthy. United States Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice,
July 1999.
Kelling, George. "Measuring What Matters: A New Way of Thinking About Crime and Public Order."
Measuring What Matters: Proceedings from the Policin¢ Research Institute Meetin¢s Ed. Robert
Langworthy. United States Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice, July 1999.
Memphis Shelby Crime Commission. "Best Practices Number Ten: Fixing Broken Windows -
Strategies to Strengthen Housing Code Enforcement and Related Approaches to Communtty-Based
Crime Prevention in Memphis." By Phyllis Betts. April 200L
<http://www.memphiscrime. org/research/bestpractices/bestpractices- l 0.hhn1>
�
Saint Paul City Council Investigation and Research Center. "A Study of Remedies for Chronic Problem �
PropeRies." March 1995. ,
Skogan, Wesley G. "Measuring What Matters: Crime, Disorder, and Feaz " Measuring What Matters:
Proceedines from the Policine Research Institute Meetin¢s Ed. Robert Langworthy: United States
Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice, July 1999.
Stephens, Darryl W. "Measuring What Matters." Measuring What Matters: ProceedinQS frorri the
Policine Research Institute Meetines Ed. Robert Langworthy. United States Department of Justice:
National Institute of Justice, July 1999.
Taylor, Ralph B. "The Incivilities Thesis: Theory, Measurement, and Policy." Measurin¢ What
Matters: Proceedines from the PolicinQ Research Institute Meetinps Ed. Robert Langworthy. United
States Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice, July 1999.
United States DepaRment of Justice, National Institute of Justice. "Crime and Place: Plenary Papers of
the 1997 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation." July 1998.
---. "Prevention Through Community Prosecution." By Catherine M. Coles and George L. Kelling.
1999.
---. "Reseazch in Brief: Controlling Drug and Disorder Problems: Oakland's Beat Health Program.°
By Lorraine Green Mazerolle and Jan Roehl. M�rch 1999.
---. "Research in Brief: Crime, Grime, Fear and Decline: A Longitudinal Look.° By Ralph B. Taylor.
July 1999.
---. "Research in Brief: Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods-Does it Lead to Crime?" By Robert J.
Sampson and Stephan W. Raudenbush. February 2001.
---. "Research in Brief: Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising." By
Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris L. MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and
oa a�9
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
Shawn D. Bushway. July 1998.
---. "Reseazch Preview: Attitudes Toward Crime, Police, and the Law: Individual and Neighborhood
Differences.° By Robert J. Sampson and Dawn Jeglum Bartusch. June 1999.
---. "Reseazch Preview: Neighborhood Collective Efficacy-Does It Help Reduce Violence?" By Robert
J. Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. April 1998.
---. "Research Report: `Broken Windows' and Police Discretion." By George Kelling. October 1999.
---. "Research Report: Physical Environment and Crime.° By Ralph Taylor and Adele V. Hazrell.
January 1996.
REFERENCE
City of Madison, WI "Chapter 32: Landlord and Tenant." Municioal Code
< http://www.ci.madison. wi.us
Minnesota Attorney General's Office. "Landlords and Tenants: Rights and Responsibilities.° October
1999 < httn://www.ae.state.mn.us/consumer/housine/Uct/LT htm>
Reynolds, Osbome M. Jc "Chapter 18: Local Control of the Use of Property: Zoning and Related
Methods." Handbook of Local Govemment Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company.
1982. 352-414.
---. "Chapter 19: Municipal Acquisition of Property: Eminent Domain and Other Methods."
Handbook of Local Govemment Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company. 1982. 415-
443.
---. "Chapter 30: Local Govemmental Liability in Tort and Related Theories." Handbook of Local
Government Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company. 1982. 670-722.
NEWSPAPERS
"A Blight on the Cities: Problem Properties Series." Pioneer Press 1999.
Beckstrom, Maja. "State Leads U.S. in Youth Issues Index: Kids Count Measures Dls Linked to
Poverty." Pioneer Press 20 June 2000.
Burson, Pat. "Neighborhood Info in the Bag: Frogtown Activists Have Compiled Details About
Programs and Resources that are Available in the St. Paul Neighborhood. On Saturday, Volunteers
will Fan Out to Distribute Bags of Information to Each of the Area's Households." Pioneer Press 7
May 2000.
Burson, Pat. "Neighborhood Seeks to Take Back its Pazk: Residents Say Some Visitors Make it
Unsafe." Pioneer Press 7 August 2000.
Char�en, David. "Woman in Gazbage House Chazged with Child Endangerment." Staz Tribune 13 July
2000.
Coleman, Toni. "Finances Hobble Tenants Union: Funding Problems Force Reduction in Activities."
Pioneer Press 8 June 2000.
Page 5 `:i 5 �� problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
Duchschere, Kevin. "St. Paul Appeals Federal Decision to Save HUD House." Star Tribune 19 May
2000.
"Fatal Shootings by Minneapolis Police." Star Tribune 15 June 2000.
Graves, Chris. "Woodbury Police Shoot, Kill Man; Chief says Man Tried to get Officer's Gun." Star
Tribune 5 June 2000.
Hayes Taylor, Kimberly. "Landlord Agrees to Relinquish Rights to Building." Star Tribune 28 June
2000.
Kazlson, Kazl J. "Tenants Tum up Heat on Housing Issues: 1�` Landlord Singled Out Says Fixes in
Progress." Pioneer Press 17 April 2000.
dix Page 6
Laszewski, Charles. "Cleaning Up the Property Mess: Initiative Developed Locally and Elsewhere Offer
Hope for Fixing Chronic Housing Code Violations in the Twin Cities." Pioneer Press 7 Recember
1999. '
<
---. "Frustrated Neighbors Seeking own Solutions: Groups Pressing Landlords, City on ProBlem
Properties." Pioneer Press 3 December 1999.
---. "Housing Inspector has Thankless Task: Demands Come from All Sides.° Pioneer Press 7
December 1999.
---. "Housing Plan gets Cool Reception: Commissioner's Bonding Proposal Stirs Tax,Concerns."
Pioneer Press 7 June 2000.
---. "Housing Sweep Brings Arrest: More Were Sought; Letters Prompted Some to Pay Fines." Pioneer
Press 18 December 1999. _
---. "Management Problems: Landlord: School Official Owns Problem Sites." Pioneer Press 6
December 1999.
---. "Problems Move with Residents: City's Empty Homes not all Crime-ridden." Pioneer Press 4
October 1999.
---. "Putting Screws to Crime: How Much is Enough? Frogtown, Still Troubled but Better, Duels for
Resources." Pioneer Press 5 June 2000.
---. "St. Paul Focuses on Problem Area St. Paul Housing Code Inspectors and Police Began
Concentrating Tuesday." Pioneer Press 16 June 2000.
.
--. "St. Paul Lists Names of Violating Property Owners on Intemet." Pioneer Press 13 September
1999.
---. "St. Paul to Start Arresting Housing Code Violators with Court Warrarits this Weekend." Pioneer
Press 14 December 1999.
---. "13 TaY-forfeit Properties Transferred to St. Paul." Pioneer Press 7 June 2000.
Laszewski, Charles, and Janet Roberts. "A Blight on the Cities." Pioneer Press 3 December 1999.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
---. "Problem Properties Owners: HUD, Ramsey County Draw Complaints." Pioneer Press 6 December
1999.
Lundy, Walker. "Hell-raising' Policy Keeps Public Officials on Their Toes." Pioneer Press 19
December 1999.
Mayron, Amy, and Lisa Donovan. "Confrontations with Mentally Ill Can Overtax Police: Recent
Deaths Raise Concern Over Training." Pioneer Press 18 June 2000.
Moore, Natalie Y. "Resident Down to Last Chance to Keep her Home: West St. Paul says House Isn't
Fit to Live In; Inspection Today." Pioneer Press 17 July 2000.
Ngo, Nancy. "Fire Blamed on Methamphetamine Makers: Damage Leaves 18 Units Uninhabitable.°
Pioneer Press 28 June 2000.
Olson, Rochelle. "Study: Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program a Stabilizing Force." Star
Tribune 20 dune 2000.
Powell, Joy. "Police Confrontations with the Mentally Ill aze Common." Star Tribune 18 June 2000.
---. "Police: 911 Caller Wanted Crisis Team to Calm Woman." Staz Tribune 15 June 2000.
"Problem Properties in the Twin Cities.° Pioneer Press December 1999.
"Resources: What Can You do if the House Next Door Has Trash Piled on the Front Lawn, a Car Parked
in the Yazd, Peeling Paint or other Problems, and your Pleas to the Owner that Something be Done
Have Not Been Heeded?" Pioneer Press 7 December 1999.
Roberts, Janet. "698 Edmund Avenue Tells Tale of Long-running Neglect: Inspection Record Says How
Problems Lingered Six Years." Pioneer Press 7 December 1999.
---. "Some Local Landlords Fault Tenants for Their Troubles: But Others Dispute that Contention, Call
Their Actions Lacking." Pioneer Press 5 December 1999.
---. "St. Paul Inspection Data Proves Hazd to Track." Pioneer Press 5 December 1999.
Rybin, Virginia. "St. Paul to Fight Decision on HUD: Judge: City Can't Force Housing Code on
Federal Agency." Pioneer Press 19 May 2000.
Sherman, Amy. "Council to Discuss Rules for Problem Properties: Plan Addresses Exterior Condition,
Vehicles, Sheds." Pioneer Press 2Q June 2000.
Stassen-Berger, Rachel E. "Code-violating Property Owners Face Crackdown: Those Who Ignore
Waming Letters May be Arrested." Pioneer Press 16 June 2000.
---. "Minneapolis Apartments Illustrate Complexity of Problem: After `98 Homicide, 1818 Pazk
Redone; Complaints Continue." Pioneer Press 3 December 1999.
Wildeboer, Kathy A. "E.L. Oks Inspection Firms." The State News: Michiean State Universitv's
Independent Voice 9 April 1998.
Page � ,,,� ic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
APPEND/X C: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Abatement — The process by which the City takes action to put an end to a nuisance condition.
Summary Abatement — The process by which the City intervenes to put an end to a nuisance
condition where the cost of the City's intervention is less than $3,000. (example, removing gazbage
from yard, removing an abandoned vehicle, boazding a broken window, etc.)
Substanrial Abatement — The process by which the City intervenes to put an end to a nuisance
condition where the cost of the City's intervention is more than $3,000. (Example, removing a
delapidate building, removing heavy machinery from a lot, etc.)
Broken Windows Theory — A theory, developed by James Q. Wilson and George Keiling in the eady
nineteen eighties, which holds that if physical and social disorders aze allowed to go uncorrected in a
neighborhood, others will be emboldened to create more disorders. Eventually, this environment will
attract criminals, who thrive in conditions of public apathy and neglect.
Buy and Sells — For purposes of this study, the process of having a police informant attempt td buy or
buy drugs or nazcotics from a suspected drug dealer.
Calls for Service — These are the telephone calls which come in ttuough the City's 911 line requesting
police, fire or medical service at a particulaz location.
Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O) — All non-residential buildings and non-owner occupied residential
building with three or more living units are required to obtain a certificate issued by the Fire Marshall
ceRifying the building is in compliance with applicable codes. `
Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O)Revocarion — The Fire Marshall may revoke a certificate of
occupancy if it is determined the building is not in compliance with applicable codes:
oa-ac��
dix Page 8
� Chronic Problem Property — Chronic problem properties aze properties with serious (founded and
substantial), repetitive (at least 3 instances of problems in 18 months) and enduring (active as a problem
�•` �_• property for at least 18 months) problems which adversely affect their neighbors and/or the community
� �� � as a whole.
Code Violallon — A behavior or condition prohibited by Code. (occupying a building lacking in proper
smoke detectors, failure to provide heat in winter, maintaining unsanitary conditions, etc.)
Collective Efficacy — The level of mutual trust among neighbors combined with the willingness of a
�"�s individuals to intervene on behalf of the common good; for instance to supervise children arid maintain
«�r., public order. �
x„ Community Expectations/Standards — A set of beliefs expressing a community's vision, derived from
°.:- �' the historical and leamed framework of shared assumptions, values, norms and local laws that a group
;;i�.... of interacting individuals, in a common location agree to abide by as an expression of their tolerance
;° for behaviors within their community.
Complaint-Based Enforcement — A method of ensuring property, housing, health and building codes
aze followed throughout the community by responding to specific complaints or concems cititzens or
others informed inspection o�cials about. This is considered one of the three basic approaches to
ensuring codes aze observed in the community.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
CondemnaHon – A determination by City officials a building is unfit for human habitation and ordering
the buiiding to be vacated.
Conflict Theory – One of the major theoritical approaches to sociology which traces its roots to the
work of Karl Marx and his critique of capitalism. In general, conflict theory assumes that social life is
shaped by groups and individuals who struggle or compete with one another over various resources and
rewazds, resulting in particular distributions of wealth, power and prestige.
Correction Notice – A notice issued to the property owner by a City inspector noting a violation of City
Code and directing the violation be corrected.
Disorder, Physical – Physical conditions, such as broken windows, junk cazs, and garbage houses, that
aze viewed as troublesome and potentially threatening by its residents and users of public spaces.
Disorder, Social – Social conditions or activities, such as prostitution, drug-dealing, and loitering, that
aze viewed as troublesome a�d potentially tl�reatening by its residents and users of public spaces.
Disorderly Boys – This is a term used in the Police DepartmenYs call-management system which refers
to sowdy and/or disorderly youth.
District Council – City of Saint Paul citizen participation process whereby the City is divided into 17
districts which set up advisory councils that plan and advise the City on physical, economic and social
development of their azea, as well as on Citywide issues. In addition, they identify neighborhood needs,
initiate community programs, recruit volunteers and inform residents through community newspapers,
newsletters, flyers and community events.
Domestic Violence – Acts of violence, sexual assaults and or child abuse directed against family
members, relatives or roommates, by another family member, relative or roommate who lives in the same
house or apartment.
Exterior Code Violafions – These aze violations of City and State building, housing, health and
property maintenance codes which occur on the exterior of the building or in the yard/area surrounding
ffie building. For purposes of this study, we have have divided these violations into two categories:
1) structural code violations— broken or missing windows and screens, broken or missing ]ocks on
doors, paint or siding in bad condition, roof/fascia/soffits with holes or leaking, outbuildings in poor
condition, building walls with holes and stairs which are broken or in bad condition; and
2) garbage/yard violaHons— gazbage or trash build-up, junk vehicle, tall grass and weeds, junk
fumiture, mattresses and appliances.
FORCE Unit – The Focusing Our Resources on Community Empowerment (FORCE) Unit of the Police
Department was established in 1992 with the mission of providing a comprehensive approach to drug-
related problem properties. Its purpose is to work with the community to reduce the level of drugs,
narcotics and disruptive behavior at the neighborhood level. The FORCE unit has staff dedicated to
crime prevention and block club coordination, code enforcement and street-levei drug interdiction.
Good Neighbor Program – A program administered by Code Enforcement which trains citizens to
identify certain exterior code violations such as tall weeds, snow removal, trash and abandoned vehicles.
Foliowing the training, citizens conduct exterior inspections of neighborhood properties and send or
deliver form letters to property owners who may not be meeting code requirements. The program began
Page
;;y, .
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
as a pilot program in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood and was deemed successful. It has subsequently
expanded to three additional azeas in 2001.
Heavy Enforcement Activity for Thirty Days (HEAT) – A Saint Paui Police Department effor[ to
cancentrate law enforcement activity on a padicular area in order to fight street level crimes, such as
narcotics dealing, prostitution and tra�c violations, which effect neighborhood quality of life.
Housing Court–A part ofthe Ramsey County Disctrict CouR system which exclusively handles
housing, health and building code related citations and complaints. It was formed with the intention of
providing a venue for hearing housing code cases which was expert in understanding the impact of code
violations.
oa �t�9
idix Page IO
InciviliNes (see disorder) – Incivilities, also known as disorders, aze social and physical conditions in a
neighborhood that are viewed as troublesome and potentially tiveatening by its residents and users of
public spaces.
Interior Code ViolaHons – These are violations of City and State building, housing, health and pLOperty
maintenance codes which occur inside the building or dwelling on a property. For purposes of this study,
we have divided these violations into three categories: <,
1) house systems violations— heaUfumace, electricity, water shut-off or malfunction, gas shut-off or
malfuction, refridgerator failure, water heater failure and stove/oven failure; '
2) structural code violafions— floor coverings, missing and broken doors, holes in walls, water
damage and stairs which aze broken or in bad condition; and
3) hea(th-related violallons— rodent or insect infestation, gazbage build-up, overcrowc�ing, missing
or malfunctioning smoke detectors.
Intervenfion – Government action to address the practices and or habits of its citizens and businesses
that aze perceived as violating local codes, nuisance laws and or community standards.
Knock and Talk – For purposes of this study, the activity of police visiting people, mostly in their
homes, where the police discuss the concerns of drug dealing and use with the people thought to be
involved.
Market Value – The assessed value of a property calculated by the County that uses the current real
estate activity in the surrounding azea to determine the property's value. This value is the basis for
determining property taxes for the propeRy.
Minnesota Gang Strike Force – A state-wide law enforcement agency created to identify, investigate,
, arrest and prosecute gang members engaged in "cr�minal activity."
Nuisance Crime – These aze sometimes also called "quality of life" crimes. For purposes of this study,
we have labeled the following types of criminal activity as nuisance: disorderly boys, nazcotics/drugs,
disYurbances, public drining, prostitution, loud music, harraaguing ofpassers-by, dog £ghting, and
bazking dog problems.
PP2000 – A Saint Paul Code Enforcement program which existed from January – December 2000 which
sought to identify property owners who have had repeated complaints against their properties and
assigned these owners to an inspector who case managed the owner's properties.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
Periodic-Systematic Inspection — A the method where buildings and conditions are comprehensively
reviewed on a regulaz basis.
Problem Properties Task Force — This is a group of City staff representing a wide range of City
activities which meets on a monthly basis to discuss problem and chronic problem properties they are
working to devise strategies to fix the problems.
Property Crime — For purposes of this study, we have labeled the following types of criminal activity
as property crime: theft, vandalism, burglary, auto theft, dangerous conditions and arson.
Remove or Repair (Order to) — An order approved by the City Counci] determining a property
constitutes a public nuisance and ordering the owner to remove or repair the nuisance condition with a
specified number of days.
Restorative Justice — Value-based approach to criminal justice with a balanced focus on the offender,
victim and the community. Involves the creation of programs designed to serve the needs of victims by
providing a holistic approach to healing the hazm suffered, while offering opportunities for offenders to
realize the harm they caused, apologize for the wrong, help repair the harm, and earn their way back into
good standing in the community.
Saint Paul Association of Responsible Landlords (SPARL) — An non-profit organization which
educates landlords in effort to make them more successful and responsible members of the community.
Slum Lord — A slang term referring to an owner of rental property who behaves in an irresponsible and
exploitive manner.
Social Cohesion — The degree to which participants in social systems feel committed to the system and
the well-being of other par[icipants.
Social Capital — Social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and
social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS) — A law o�ce for low income persons and
senior citizens which provides free civil legal assistance to eligible persons in Saint Paul. SMRLS
provides help in the following areas: housing, public benefits, family law, education and consumer
problems.
Structural Functionalism —A theory that suggests a society functions best when individuals share the
same norms and values because it promotes solidarity. Subsequently, because a society has established
nonns and values, that society will also have deviance because the rules ofthe society witl not be agreed
to or shazed by everyone.
Surveillance — For purposes of this study, the process of police observing people suspected of being drug
dealers, or locations where it is thought to occw.
Symbolic Interaction — A theory that attempts to explain the development of one's identity through one's
interaction with others and how acts in response to what one perceives of what others think of oneself.
5ystem Failure — When govemment, community and family interventions fail to keep a household or
business from becoming a chronic problem property.
P;
�roblem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
�a a�9
endiz Page 12
Tenant Remedy Acrion — Also known as a TRA, this is the means by which a tenant or group of tenants
may take action through the court system to get needed repairs and maintenance completed on their
building or in their units. This is accomplished by the tenant(s) paying rent to a court-appointed
administrator, rather than the landlord, who then oversees the correction of problem conditions.
Vacant Building, Registered — A legal term used by the City of Saint Pau( to mean a building that is
unoccupied and meets one or more of the following conditions: unsecured, or secured by other than
normal means; or it is a dangerous structure; or is condemned; or has multiple housing or Building Code
violations; or is condemned and illegally occupied; or is unoccupied for a period of time longer than one
year during which time the Code Enforcement Officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions.
Viotent Crime — For purposes of this study, we have labeled the following types of criminal activity as
violent: domestic violence, assault, fights, aggravated assault, weapons, missing persons, stalking and
robbery.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Stutly Lessons Appendix Page i3
APPEND/X D: CALLS TO C/TY, BY V/OLATION, BY CASE
Licensing -
Name Code C of O Po6ce FSre EMS Animal Zoning
Alligator Alley 0 5 146 4 10 5 0
�s 9%F�.�iC�' ���-�..'�,-�� z " ° - s �� �: , '�
-.S . :`£ c..�#��.:'.`��sE k i ' � . :3
Brothers Grim 6 0 46 0 3 I 0
Case Case
Cracking Up
� 2�
5 s .i � �
114 5
164� �� � 2
9 1
� � H
4 1
0
0
Danger Island 4 2 214 5 19 0 0
< � .
;, a u ! � lt� . .�.", ..t�� � � ., � v: t �� :�. v� ���u��{6.� .'�
Dirty Dealing 13 0 I50 0 1 0 Q
F : � r , a
£ -0 �t
� . �a . . ., u ' 4. , . '� f
Double Gross 2 0 40 0 4 1 p
�" �3 Fq
� { :. . ... . p �„c �+ . �� .a �... � � 1's .' . 5P
Down `n Out 0 0 91 10 12 1 0
- .. • ' ` z�;. : � .. : , � a� : : ... � . .
Emnt Investor I 6 0 29 0 0 0 0
� . � ... s �^... -�m^�4 � � �'u'�It'���`�s��� ��"�#ett�'ti�` �;tAAE'.L�k� "�fl..�.+�slffi6����+r .
Feaz Factor 2 0 14 1 0 0 0
e , a s a,
��� �
s .� ,� .m! .� , � � �m��� ., , �������
Gangster Boyfriend 3 0 24 0 0 � 2 0
'K � Z� - w � p ��
� i � . � _ ,. . � .. .. > ' 3.�1� . � � LLk�;` .,� � r,�� � -`S�4 �F.��3.«��� �:,�a"��
L.a Cucaracha 0 11 1 SS 13 8� 0 0
„t�"<,�vv. ��� ` :� e. .,: � . A � ��� ix .,��: ,����� y�,.. °.�.,���
Motel Cahfomia 1 10 296 31 30 1 0
� � �� .. a����� d.m-, ����l�`����-0���"F`��j'�� 3�l x E,� n
x �� }
� �,.� ..,3,,.,a,. - �..��-.�..�.:,����...»� �;�..a,n ,�_
Old and Ugly 3 � ^- 6 55 5 12 1 0
e ��t ��� ���..��}?. : ., C §.� t�' .����+£�. � _ � ) T$ ..� ...�
S � e � .�� ��=��� � ��.afi�.�:'�s.a.n�..��€��.:�..�.u��'a�'���'.��,� ���'; w..;.
rcS�.' 6 ..w.:'rv3l� �� S
Overwhelmed 6 0 36 0 0 0 0
k.t c- �'
SLa ;, ��K ��.' a � 's "�.��. , ..,,,.� 4 I � � � ^i- �� 1`°y , w � s�"'��, a � h� ��� � �, . �.,:�„ .� ...
�
�_.. �;. �" ,.�.,>�.�.._,...�...�..�<:�...;......�,.. .,:.-..w.a, _� �. �' .� �
Wazering Hole 2 0 75 0 2 0 I 1
� � � �, � �� � ,� - °
�cad'Ne�hb ��„�� p `� y ' �"'��_,.��, ��,*�?0� '�s�..-:�..�q '0 0 7:� .'II � "
i
�
�a a�
problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Appendix Page 14
APPEND/X E: CALLS TO CITY, TOTAlS AND A VERAGES, BY CASE
Plame Total-Study Period Average Per Year Average Per Month
Alligator Alley 170 85 7.1
srothers Grun
� a. � r�
Case Case
e � :a
h � w, � ,. , y �
Cracking-Up
�.`;2 �
Danger Island
��N f *�'"��� {- p s
� �
�
k,s
Dtrty DeaUng
�7: �
Qi 't
Double Gross
�' :
Down `N Out
� � �
m
Ettant Invest I
, 4jx � . `b�
u4e�. �:JeA�_
Feaz Factor
�c: i . �- ;_''
Gangster Boyfriend
�3 F
IDE ..�. s ...�.
La Cucazacha
r - �
r,.. �.
.� " >
Motel Califom�a
�5;' ��
f j
ast3'�. �,.�
Old and Ugly
, `""�.�..�'.����,�- �.
rs;
� _ _ .'� �.,�, t
Ovetwhelmed
Thron ;,�
Watering Hole
u
��
42
:�
156
N'
176
t
90
�P4
164
�:
47
���
92
35
�
17
p€
29
217
�aar
����
369
un-.,
�57�
2
2�
90
13
21
��c^rx
78
["'
88
R4
�
45
82
24
�^'
46
�,
IS
:�
9
�.
15
�
�a
109
185
�
��:iu`n
41
��
��._3,'�'�..-.
45
io
�._ Gi
�, d:�., a�.,: �
1.8
� (34+.
65
�•,. � z,_�1��€
: 73
F �; � ?ri»
�ar t
4 :t��?
3.8
> -x�
3 RF : 3.
6.8
�"` 9k�, s 3
� w
2.0
��:���' ..�
3.8 � �
e'€ q� N�
3im �
1.4
;�.t:.. � rr
0.7
}+ a+
.. ... r,.a .::�
12
»� �,� •�
s�� i
., � t � �5'�
9.0
�
�:vZ�Q'§''�tu. f�"�:'�
15.4
�;���(�'� `3,�°�S� �-
3A ��F
� 1.0
y � 3.8 ..�.. � _.�_
.:�3,. .<�F -- - -
_;n;.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons A
APPEND/X F: PROPERTY CODE INTERVENT/ON, BY CASE
Correction Housing Ct. Condem-
Name Notices Abatements Citations Warrants nations
Alligator Alley 0 4 1 no 0
.�',� rv+ :. � '� ' ` ,f.-'�
� tu;:;'.. � '�-`'' � �'. :� � . KK „.� ° `�.a . Z;' �
�..� . . v � � � �� � � � �
Brothers Grim O �:._ . �.....,. O s. ,. c, ,� ,.�,. 3 :4 ���, . P 3!�,:� Ye SZ.a i_� mn � 1,; `.
� ,� ,... ej' "*t- .. t' e
.:a ' .. `_stu:4. �.�i� _... F �t 4 a.� x ��� �"" � E O C � '; �„a « ,,. �'#4
Case Cue ,� 0 . . ' .,.., ; O , -,' no p .,
:.: �� � ... � ,
...,iA� . -',�,' ,a� ...,;,:�; �'s� a. „�'��' .�,Y'`�� n._ :�;. v. � � ,�
Cracking-Up 3 6 0 } no �� � 0� µx
�9 x ` �� I'' (� tpx t� 2'4YtG ry e . � 's`� 't 4K tt ,^ Y .
F 3I° 'rv�.. .xl #1�`Js� .�:,. [`�� .A4� 3 t.,, � : �L � 0;:s" {�uui� „F '.v„ ` �
Danger Is]and 1 2 0 no 0 ��
� 3 � i' d�R 4Y. ff
� ., 1' T :� £ ':�
� , � 5 : t ,�.� , � s �' -' ' ��u . -. �, l�" � R' '" `
34t�l:.�' hlm,... , r�� �'<' � ,� `.:<qt $ .;a � ..�� .., w �. a... :: . , �'az
D'uty Dealmg 3 6 2 no 1
�p r. .y �„ jy.: �-:, �.� ..,. ° n
k �v� 4 � �°�'
�»��. .s.o t ���� �� nv. .xxA T � �"�' �d ��� '� ....,2�4 c2 f ���� 4��
Double Gross 0 � 1 � 0 ��yes � 2
d s«
, ; .,�. r. . . �.. ���� �� �t������ .
. ..' _�� :. � .
a„ t"' � ... ,.z� .,� `ru..'.�,m�:,a:x��� ' � � 6 'a�i �'u' �yty � '�z�
Down N Out 0 0 0 no 0
g.. �+e� . , 4�,
�n ?ink..t ��. .�..x a�'... 4 ..."% �.i. �'ry {i @y.�� f$t. �
. d e u
Erran[ Investor I 2 � 12 1� yes j
n�..: v �;.. »..... i v ; . �,�.,�. `3 �::' �4'T'� .ei 4�:E
Fear Factor + '�. &r..: o , . .� � � � O � `� �}I:�n�.�' ,., :,. �r,. ....
� .4=;��� t;. � �� .,. � � „ m � �'� a�' s��'"'a
,.. :,a.�'� .� ,,n ., w ,. ... ,��
GangsterBoyfriend 1 2 . , 2 . .. no .... 0
�°.. � ai t? • a• ;.�,.
d�Y As' I, �� rv �, "�{,� �: a � -� �n5.
� .. u.. �;�Edt�:L�m„'�'��� .�,. , . n � � ip �'*r,..,,. 8.-:. � �....z� ""`� .,-�#.. � „� 4 V � ,
I,a G�caracha 7 p , 0 no �.. ,� :.: �,
� ���"' k �" � - :�;a �'� - 3 � •• , .,z R �'i. ` s '.i ����+h `�':a
�]���. , �' ' 3;, e r' ,s <; 6: �, � �o t`�
, .� � .. .. : :a.� ".. &. v:x C., «. .. �t: v}:;. � �4.: y� . C!'._.,; d S. p: . �e�.w. a z'' .f�
Motel California 1 1 0 no 0
� 'V-;` �z �+��,�¢
� tyc.��0� ?.:fi°. .fk Y� t';` 4 �. '�' � ;. :d !{"i; �} ,. _3I tu� .s�.� � � 'At:O
x 4?.. 2 t`4 ,.. N. P3.'.=t
.3 � ..,x,.�E ' 'm..` ' F ..,:�G . '`�."-...', �,.��'� t.�:-.. . O .. 'r}. a -_, k.�'y�
Old and Ugly 1 3 0 yes 1
�:� d?�] �
;, � ° �"' < .. _- �
"� ' � � y r^ r� � €. .n
..a' �,.,fjl uQ�$�@.._�� t ,>'"� ,..,,�:� 'fi.. � i.'I�: n � .:'f.'' a ' �y� 7 t4�j� ....�., . � ., .:.�` .
..t� ..ss:.=.��S.,,t,..x, k.,.:.'�}���'�:: , wa_���."".�.�.......:� ��:.� ..., � �.��:::, ..,3...:.:'
Ovecwhelmed 0 5 0 yes 0
�„ , r
1lutitigh �Saoks x�' �i`�'` �`. D�#�E"r � � �,r `p�` � y� '�' �.�� � 3s�` � ar� ��'�` ...k; � ve� � � �
t e .� ,_ �.<Ye �'e ��.�. 9�.
-.:r ,_m,.,.,..-.. ».0 - .ww�._.,.�oc,... � . ... _ - .�,'. ".
Watering Hole 5 0 2 no 0
� � - >,:�s ;- :� ..:: , -_.� ,-.- ,_ . �.,, . . ,
VTe�rdNeigTibo[��-.< . .� _ � . 1�-. 6 -,� r... .Y� � . . ,,.- . . €Q�:,� `,��r
Pa9e
oa-a��
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Appendix Page 16
APPEND/X F: PROPERTY CODE INTERVENTION, BY CASE �CONTINUED�
C of O Rental Problem Prop.
Name Revocation Registration Task Force PP 2000
Alhgator Alley 1 no yes no
., � ay ..'� 'i G.�" Yz .�'� � �. 4 �
� �'
ef h��H�.� fi '.P. �] ,9 , ' �� 4 ' y .... . �
�� �'a �ri., �'k.,. _?�!�,��.�i'u,�,.:s c,. �.,�� E� �;`� .., as'.;fl ,�n qa �.a *.," t `N ...d A��
Brothers Gnm 0 no no n �
� ha �s . �:z�,. � -'����A.P' tS+l '. �i `-;s ,� �S ��.� g:; ' .,. �.e;�����
: u�:;, �� . a,�'.� ���v..x'�., ����...� ��"�� .�, a. ., a.A x..�"`l� hL ... �`,zri . ,+ �".c
Case Case 4 no Yes Yes
., � � � �����,.�, �"�fi tk.., � �;: i °;' n aa,p� �� J� �. �;k }�. .
ld;:: �. Ik.«.. .F�...l. s,�S ti`.. .� x..�' � ,..- . ,», �;.:� .� .v,
Cracking-Up 0 no no yes
� �, �.;; �'n t :?� u �� `z K;: �„ h;: ��'�.rr m ue;� � �., '`��
r
;;. �.�.. � , < .�;'�� ' � ":"� � �, � :sc r,.a .',�ti �'4. ' �..� s�:' G' s� ..__s
Danger Island 0 no no no
µ� � r .� Rnttte pu1•i•• 'fl .. .r
�#'-`n s. � . f ,�' 3 I �`..- � s, �I .. �. .':_�t x I. � ii sh�'� � k .�� a� �� }r-�
� �s_x.� `�..+" .,.,.�.' .. � ����. �.�.� u�.n ri�.t . ,� .s .�. r.. .
Dtr[y Dealuig � ° II0 �� ��,
qI '£� �iN' 7 :4� p .
:.� � ;� � � ��'' �-:t �� � ��� E .: Ge .., '-_ b b
x« a�«. ''P.! �' ^. 'u. �5.. 'ms9 , i+., a ���� !s; ii.., ��... 7Ge.,
Double Gross 0 no no yes
fi .:'f .,. x"„y, Ss �
� ^..� ^n .� � .v� �, . 'e. f a ar. `� � !a �.e°,�
. �.J' �.�.A ra •.u. 3^,MF .. • �+ ��'. ��, �� ' �'
k'
mJ II
Down N Out 0 no no no
{
A( ' 'c'Mr „ aF t t�,.
�� _ ' � ..:� Fj . NN g� �a�{ S ,� S � .:.q � a. ��
�,� .:' � � 7 �' '. .� �'3� , �3%: t ^ , , f.e. .tal �'u' �. �..' `; . _.
Eaant Investor I 0 yes no yes
�a mt .�.f ..Ht `$e' ki �; S� y� ir. � r ��a. �i;I; �
�'✓ ..F Ss4 .� . �� .':: �t'�H �S� Cv �,: {w: '.. .i � 4 r�� ` � �" �. . ..
Feaz Factor 0 no no no
n, : � , . � M u�, ,.
F � � ��. �:;. �Y. r FY ,, , '
�Zn.. � �,.,.. ���..u� �,�,.�. � w "�;. , _ � �, .�. �... �� �^R �.�, � � � �„ �
Gangster Boyfnend 0 no no no
;`}• 3+(' f .�'k:.`� 3(. �t m^.� A �( F',� �r .i.. U' R.9 �la�:j . .f� ,� 4-,� ..:
',�.�,���.a.�,�J�i„ ��r.'��u��'� IfRcx�.���ftu!��.,;� �� �e�� �,.;"�. .� .m...:;I ...� �i ., ... , }i
La Cucazacha 0 no no no
; ! , ir�: m,' �'r } � r '� +". i�(�,p �' I ' {k t�F '3Sf�� {.: L�it g ` �a�{�f➢� G ..�,2�
�' I �+.. IP �`a!' O r,,, l
�' "' �' � I "�� ¢� .. W � - na �
r��w��. , .}��,,.�'�L. ����.:� ,.�3Ii�G.Aw '�`���v,...'.!���!uva..i� ..u.' .?..., n G �z w. � .:,i.«Y �a.ac �
Motel Califom�a 0 no yes no
' �� ,1 � ✓Y
_� w u� � `�`'�' �N� i�,�"�F� �e:., `I �. ,��'�' �.. � ����r .��� �+�� �:'"� �a M �",��"c`'7� zd _ z� .�� � �" �'%'a�
�,..... �'s��'u�, "��,e�...,�' `,,.v,,�'k,'��.��, f�t�t�r�t'� _���.�:�. :.a��:,� ����.����:., x" �.. ,.
Old and Ugly 4 no yes no
n °^'� x : �' . .
v P y g
`:�Oveitha ' � ' � '$e ..,� ��' ., 9 �.,r ��� ,'�� ��'tvC. �.�....,:.,. � �� ��. n�n� '��. ��. � ,,. ..� -...�:
�Ovrnvhelmed 0 no no no
,..a� �.�w '� Ta ���;� —, �``<�� � � � t x "� .�� J ���_� t,.,�� � .� s ��.� . � �
p °Tlimu �1a theCracks - s- p.� �no rno ,� �:; .
.u....,.,.` s.'�..�. 4 ,,,_.. �`.F �i �_:r_.w.�.. :,,,:w�:::,...��...�. �_�,�...�v:;;..;:u�:�`.
y �
Watering Hole 1 no no
_ ,..—. _ .- '�"°�"-
�, WevdNeighbor, �'0 x . . , . , ., no �"� _ ,,- �'.°O��-.�:...,� .� .
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Apper
APPEND/X G: FORCE INTERVENTIONS, BY CASE
Buys n'
Name Knock n' Talks Search Warrants Surveillance FORCE Arrests
Alligator Alley 1 0 2 0
ti . ""-'�' 1 ,�,z �'. � �` �.� e � ; � , ; �a
. ���.�.�%_ . �� ����f30�.......��_. ��;a�.��i ��`�`.�cS' ,�. ����e
Brothers Cmm 4 0 4 3
. :�.. ...�:�;-= axu .. �a.: a�
� ..�. =.=�.a= �. ��5.. � �..iz�:�� '�' ��.� '�
Cash Cow 2 0 0 �� 0
,. �� ° ++ .., . � s� wc._.., ., �,�'a? "�;{�' ; � � y �s z � { :., I �R1�{„C�
F ,� �... vC �� ��k`t�Mq EL.�,'�`� �a�L� � �lAI��.:.5� m��,�.�futt�,'�i
m A
Cracking Up 0 I 1 0
� �� ��:bCE1 � ���'? � �.'��s� E �H#��?� � <� . , � . ..,�, ��.� ..;a,� .
If . 3E __,..:�1 " �;, : .� ...va � �
_u_rci?.3sut:. . ..._ _ �: ftlf' _..ux�+tPit ?!
Danger Island 1 4 0 3
'�` . . �'� �"� i��;Y�'i� , s� ��,. + E�� �.: , _ �
� . �- w �� aa �.�, . _:- . ,:.
Dirty Dealmg 2 1 7 1�
�-.�m....� , r,__ .� � . .. . ; uc� �_° rm�»c: �_-
s = �, �
.�.���°' .�....:a'..;�� . ._...v..�`.'S.° ' ' _.,_::.::�,u�'s�,°`�`s�l �
Double Gross 0 3 2 2
'�'� �" v�'. '� k«sn4%.ae�: �.�_ , ��g g L ,�k�`. � y �,�,° *
,.. . , t �
„ °' �`�''.�,..`= "� � . ,�a.a„:a.. jB".a�?*�:.v�`,.�.
Down `N Out 0 0 0 0
u �' �".' . � �i �, �'�`��''�"' ��'" �a�., �'�
�:�:.�;:�. .. �s�� �. *.:54 � � ° � .s_._b�::�u ���
Enant Investor I 0 1 0 0
�.;,.�;x._.., ��{��":_ _ti «a.�+d� � �-`.`� t a
. , , t . . ua�:�.�' �� :��;� i'
Feaz Factor }��' 0 0 0 0
� m"4,� a>w£�.. � , �t�:.:, , 3� �.- ��� . 'a$.3"�'hx��,_ �Cml�
.. ,�M"�sP.raa�a._ .. atr�..:�'tl_!�� � ,ar.tss:a.,.�s�.c. � '
Gangster Boyfnend 0 1 0 1
3rF .
t � F t �, � eFrz w�#AI , I ..'ie'� �"' � ., ���
�..'.'�e� _�� �?si�,.'`_ � �......_. �e«.m,s,�»»,�,
La Cucaracha 6 0 7 2
� fl �,€� �'S ,�'^Na � s� �"".m^°' (It3`�R€(n:u : '� �i � �J�;
ti� 49E����i�����,'�`m� Ia�._,.�.:.sa k ��.;., . ���.���r.,u.x,.s_�.:g�. . � .
' . ��.�.:.:� �
Motel Califomia 2 0 2 0
g` � �'��s��
'y �95F�� � - � �m�a,i�a� . i��'U' �"������Zra7u�t � . � � .. t��
W�'.L��h c �,�1...a rws�u �� � a 3 .�,�.,�� �tm;�..a3�'� s`� s .. � , iir .��i `� � � t .. �
. «��:�
Old and Ugly 1 2 0 0
�,Qve�T�f1�2� e:r # ���� 1 �� n srf ;;; i� �' ������ . �s�"���t!*r�.`�'"c'�`.: a� s�s�.a;,��e� m.�e�ne .z
; Q • � ���k z e a'.�
� �r�uS�F' . �� sA �,�..��ia: ' �� �L' ' ��t�{!�9.��'�_'"�-"�+ . ... � 7 . . . �� �'?{u: * ::. e . ?
_ . �.,. _..-�.. �:� _
Overwhelmed 0 0 0 0
' -,_ —�--�; 't�s - a - �. � -
��Ltapgh the GYac� !fi� ,� k "^ ': � iFu.� �' � ��,� �- � 2 � � t : „ �,:
3_-°��ro�.:±x.,..�.Y .. _,�
t��u:d._._%_.�.� ,. .., _._`_.�....�.._.....r.t._.�...,:,�. _.-,:.�..�,.,...,....._ ., _._�:._._.,..,..`�__..
Wazenng Hole 0 0 0 0
h.s}-�"� � �' '�"°'..$ � � ; a .�� ��. .. : T ; - .
'1 ;•'�,_�, ., u �?' z 0 0 0 . 0
Pa9e 11
�
pppendix Page' 18
problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
APPENDIX H: COSTS FOR COMPLAINTS, CALLS FOR SERVICE AND
EMS/FiRE RuNS, sv Case
Police
FORCE Unit `�
Name Calls Arrests Buys/Surveillance Knock & Talk Warrant Control
$650 $130 $750
AlligatorAlley $15,980 +_ fi � ��_ : �` j Z ,;� �,g
$ � j ,3�. j ��: �!:� � ��'�� � �����a��.:�26���,�t�'�.'#� ��e, e��£"�fi�:'r
��� ���.�� g�tP'�.��� ��j����� � . ���'���I;�E��P; �.,i,�� $520 $I50
Brothers Gnm $5 980 $1 560 $1 300
„.�.. �. ,��.' ., ��': f '' � 0 �: $�". ���� �...,, " ��.� ��" �. E �i'S . ����> . ��'�'������:
CaseCase , ,.: fi �m $14,820 ::' $1,040... 3 � J '.�.$1300 ! .�� y. `�..... ;� i ` ,$2�600 , r.# $15��
���, �' a �v��.��.'�.�� 4' s_ ...9� `'g�:��s��� �� tt����r;t������'����`� '' ;�. _ a 3 , .1 . � .; �: . �:�:K!
Cracking-UP $21,320 , .: . . m. $325 .`. i . ... 2 $1 F 3'_ i � $150
; „" '� �!", � ; ..7 E `'3 e, ('3 .., �f $ E.. ��� � � � . � � ` � � �{�.���� ir��f ���.���M..�l�'f�� .� :."k�C�.i�":�tl�����.�f�.
' : ���;,���e '� ",r�l?�" .�,, _ � ra��u���.,� ��.�ii�.���i.�� $130 $5�200
Danger Island $27 820 $1 560
���. ����K���� 4 � �� � ���t��^�����i.
- '' '
`` . �: � du��
� � � � ! M # - u ' E .' {
��: ���, . � �� �. ° $2 275 $260 $1,300
DirtyDealmg ���$19500y.. � $520 < r r :.�. ' �. '��±1� ,.'��� �� ��� G����'.'�u�.�}i
� ', �� ��m ,. �.; k � . .�
..p���DoubleCttoss� $5200 �� $1040 ` $650 ' { , $3,900 ..... .. $150 ,
�.r� ?��`�. ,e ��; �.:tt� ,i���k"::. � � µ� ..%' u ae�' +�� � ' ��i��u' " u` <� �: :��i, k, �r ,' .. � $ ;�O ��`�
H
Down NOut $11,830 f(f ��((�. F�
a ���� � i ��? M $ �� ���f�: �Y'�.� c �s��°��'��' .��� ° �, t A��iY��� ��7
�' �; � _ ��.' �� :�: ..` ' $1,300 •
Ecrant Investor I $3,770 � . _ ��,���
� e � � � ', � , ��, . i Lx �� .� F � F 6, r _ ..- �i"t7d���i;
�� . .a' .. a �, . , . `
FeazFactor j $1820 �[` Q � c Q p�1 9 j
. ����* ., ti.. . ���� � k�y���GR��:'.WF.��+..���;'Nt£.M�N4ii��3 G u � 6��� 3 � �
v � �
$1 300 $300
�GangsterBoyfnend $3,120 $520 , :, i �, ; ° a" J (��` t ' ���y „ � � �p k ��' � �
�0�������,�e�.���WC}�Nt? ���„RJtYc � ��� ��... U'rl��Hf"ctt�:a�t1". 3 .Y��. n�:�!'.��� �1!€�'.:+t&.��"5�.���to-.�:.:i�.��_ L!. ,
$24 O50 $1 040 $2 275 $780
La Cucaracha , f` . �. ?( � , � � � ��' '#�t � �� �#;
.x•�;;5ry .� $�;,i� " +':.;R�,. ',� '�i ' � � � ��§ � �+�p��,'��'',7� f �,i� ¢! I �������.,8..��.'4_...1�` - :: 7 Lt 7�� �� Nii:
., �P:.:.���i::�_�.�.���€.��..��J.�:4�.':bdc�.IN.�+J37.�., ������,�.�tv�'�������.:�9"�:��.,.��.i�ik.��§I�L.�iL. $1S�
�650 5260
38 480 f
Motel Califomia $ � ; ,� �: � -
p��} „ g{� a { {((��j�`�i . ( �, �' � n4: ^ �t � F �t 7 ' Sp§ 7%f�� � ..
,. .r Raa: n=9r .'n '. �:. }�i", E' � .,',� L;� .elE;�.r �p�,� �: `� e �D.H�. b�t� � �,1R �` �i �
mf ..::$' .. . ... �i.�.. iT. ...'9 �, � . ° i',"..� , e..i".e4�,�� .... .. .._ ...� �. ...r.
,.vi. ; ,..,P nx.� .iiF,i..�' . . .n�.. , . ... .� F . � .( t .�; . + ,.?'4, �,�'.. ... ., � . r .. .{ttr.�c....ra.. r.t.l:'
, R�`. �,. '�`{ ,� z..�;a.,4;�,� �,1 �' 1' 5�.-. z:..�F �,�: �a ��� : �.#.S�S;�
j����
bt����.:n;�.�r�''`.�$roit�::.� :.��t��:�::,sf8._��:��s,.���Wr :!.,...��,.wc $150
Old and U 1 $130 $2 600
$7e1S0 ,^ `ri"'!Y.-d 9#. �. '�, ,��i'2�`R t$f ' Em'ffe `"' � ..
8Y �..�� ,; „f. �t ��
c, °,r, - n�,.. ".�'t, ` �. - e:h � ; �' ? s- 0
„� 13
.„�- r= .
S
,m _. _� s =
; �;�. .:c�. r ..... ,.
. ;; , .$ .s.�
;�st3ven���.exl�� (� s�: 1�'�$2�f3�,'i � $�'044. sn �.'�i��'�'��._�'�r,.��_�?i � ��: .�.._ ,,,k.....' ��.::�� .�..._�: �: '" �
:,'�.:.:..:,�. -.._._...._.. ..._..�... , _.. .w . _._ �,.b., -.. .. . ..,.. . - -.
Overwhelmed $4 680 - �
. � --�s . � � �.�'+�, � � .,,.. .TM - s :, v. r
, '-
� - a � Cracks . : $L 95Q $52Q � � $b56 �� � � _:. � - -
:��.�.�n..4^s -K . r` P. s�..rzz.'..... � _
$9 750
WazenngHole � � � $1;050�
-� .�;�, -?-
�-*�zr�. �, ->�.: y .�.� � ?� � . ° . , _ ., r,�r . _ . _ . . _ � � , . _
�.,,•w
*k;
f
; �,�.
i a?
�t�d,�—
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Appendix Page 19
APPEND/X H: COSTS FOR COMPLAINTS, CALLS FOR SERV/CE AND
EMS/FiRE RuNS, BY CASE (CONT/NUED�
Code Eaforcement Certificate of EMS & Total
Name Complaints Occupancy Licensing Zoning Fire Cost
Alhgator Alley $750 $6,398 $27,658
�-�"w � vxr� '- lh a � �s��. �' � r . ^ .
�'dd�B6y a a, �,'���-.� € so, �Gwa. �`!� 7 �'�`�: e �" ..
� i��s. z� 3' _ �C.r.n.,�.� ., ,# r � a. � E.:_� ' � �" :`�e dim,�.x�:..",b' _
�.&btsa.�aex� _.. v rt
BrothersGrim $900 $1,391 $11,781
G+ ru , :�5� � - � "'aai 'r�`s*�s
(� f - � � k ' �3,� pi � � �'�'
.�u.`l�u>,ba P ����. d x r��� � �� °�:'�:�� 3 �S � r .$.�, �i��Y Y�_����� ` 4 € 4. ` i
Case Case � $1,050 $3,000 $6,398 $30,358
,_, .- �
�°�" � �� , �� rd;'",. , � y su' ��a .� , �j� . �,�'WSZ�S ,„ �FS^r �, ' { �r"3�r
Lta IiIiB� I�I,. I, {� 3i t..:,�'��.�3�Si�t-�3�'�� �� = r�!�4ll� � tweF�i�_. �t�trv,$� �.,, , tl�`�._;
Cracking-Up $750 $2,742 $26,587
���tlt'�u%,� n �.'_.. . � �t_T� '`�� 3 `�°w�q�, �'��,4�� !�
�� p y. � � �a�� 3i�S .��. �EU Yt#� � F ,.x
da'�'a.�s�.r_ � .. �...h€r.:$N,.*( in+�,...^: � _.. .Ert Fmsz �"�
Danger Island $600 $300 $10 968 $46 578
s . ; � p � M p ; y a x� � y � � . �aN�� ,��n,`'ra"ta � 3�, s�U���S
' ����StG7i�u ���ni.uv_i+�,'u+' ir �6!�rau�._�_ ���
DirtyDealing $1,950 $457 $26,262
�' �?x .
..D�: � ' �n'` x � q. � �'� �, a'"';� 'u ' �'� t erR� � � `��' '7a'�4:i�
3�,� �(�� ,�300 � {��
_ � ii��.;;�;"� �u"i�":;:.r_ :.;J_� F 15S ���.;�ti#r � a..�.°mm�a}a ' "�h^°`.�ux
�"
DoubleGross $300 $1,828 $13,068
` `�. ��` 4 €�" �*, "+fi a: , �tf..r "`� ? -�°`�'
�� . .:� �."'.�a �� � � � ���1 � '��"' �� . �ri�: °�"�
� - :�i� .�: �,� . u a
Down `N Out $10,054 $22,034 �
ET13P �. � i '.�;� rr�ty I ��$4 � � tt ��'" �'� ��ufra i�i.� G' � �����`_
3i����d Il���.. �:�`s�s:nr ���� i [�,�.n.a�u� �. ��.�}�i 1.r. A� �.m:a zsw.z� �. �t.`�:�:�
Enant In I $900 ,[. $5,970
� j #tXt�i${Y��A�� e I � un � CB��,��:i � ix. � �� t c t� w' 'attT 4 u�n �
GSS �����°.ixuo � ��tr � �nu.,..... �` g61 � .ws.�. ��4 nE
Feaz Fador $300 $457 $2,577
��� d#�a �i, � �aar,y - �t�s *"��rk� �
.�,:'��' .. nu: �n:,�, ��:�n�.�.°.� 3�4W�� ��'O ����";
- i�vt. : '� �
Gangster Boyfriend $450 $5,690
1�I�� $'�c" �' r��y�tt,s )'" r.�,y'�I' � ��;,-�� aouars - �.. �n.v�ax.,�': C
'���:� r� ''_'��i��t��� :`�°.�3 ��wE-�_"!s«t.�i�._ ���h ��K.. gi�i�n1,�4 �` 1�$ia
� � �, � _ , _ � w�. r ��._. �_.._ � � �t�i's
LaCucazacha $1,650 $9,597 $39,392
r .' � '�i" :i � s �[ . ,. ���'7zta,. � �F� ° �"S , ` QQ. 4 ,.' $��$9"1±�" 3 . . . .
sc� ..�. a�,n . , �G,4r,:� an } _ i�.4,.ac'_ :,le. '`:E�z.0 6u 1 :.. �wu.,, a.
MotelCal�fomia $150 $1500 $27,877 � $69067
� T `t �H�3'm -'-r`��!�$�`p �' '°�� �m"^ �w� n= �va�
�� Rout `° '{e � . $60 s ,,, x , 7 �600 ��' � s� '. t �, ��. r. �, � � �
''��'s'.*�,� #._ xi.r. �.. �s.�:�r.� .� Q '_'���r � .��.u�� �;: "„w#9 � .:'.�� �.ry..-�
O]dandUgly $450 $900� $7,769 $19,149
��uer;tiieBdge � ° ���'1�n,r" �u= `; ' # ����,aS300 r "'�?����S�30Q ,`, s� � ��t� �" ,(� �� +�r� ��� �aa.
. .. _. �,. .. ,.K _ .n_, �_ _ .� �z. .._,�. .°�tiWm�,c.ai��.___..«` ��� "�"`��
Overwhelmed $900 $5,580
- � :«_-.. . � � _ "u�, s * r�� � `� �'"'"� 5rc��3 "�, : +'i Rt �a n'i b �' . . "�, ?
T7a0u theCracks � 5900 �� �s •
�,_ __ � rn .. ....� ° 3';'_..`p.��`" , ;_;:4� .., m�., �..� . _ ^`�i�:'�2' 3� -�>s r.<��r.� a�. �'� e�'3rt; �_.� �.�.,..�.��
Watering Hole $300 $1,650 $914 $12,614
_ _ _ . _.. ;. ._. ._ . ._ , .
,-
, . _ . . , � .�.
We]id NeighSor . _ . __,,S ._,..1 : . _ $3,6�0? � , � � ."�` ;
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso�s Appenaix rage za
APPENDIX I: 2000 TAX INFORMATION, BY CASE
Total
Local County Municipal
Name Tases Taxes Tases
$9,166 $2,516 $z�242
Alligator Alley �,
Brothers Cn�im
... .. ... y , . ...., ..
Case Case
��'� _ , ����
Cracking-Up
3 �` �
Danger Island
F � �
Dirty Dealing
� b � �r
Double Gross
, yrs i ; .,. ; e �
Down `N Out
Errant Investor I
.m� . f
Feaz Factor
y j
Gangster Boyfiiend
� �� �
� �� �ff
La C�cazacha
_ ` ,.: . 8 '
� �,� Motel Califomia
? , 7
� . . � �
�,
t
1
1
Old and Ugly
� � e t
�, �
Ovenvhelmed
��
t :� - .
Wazering Hole
$1,924
;�
$2,921
$875
� e �
$4,058�
$903
$504
$1,799
$894
$
$788
$612
; S
$17,294
$12,376
�
$1,922
� ��
$952
��
$2,713
$528
" ,-.,. 4 , . .
$794
, ��
$240
f; . y
�
$1,] 14
�
$248
� , #� �
$138
*1 r
$494
$246
�
$216 '
.a � �
$169
$4,763
$3 397
�:., �xe���..��,$���ik.��
$528
�� �� � �`
�;„: � �� �ut � _.
$262
�
i x�$2� � �..
$745
$471
": , a F�;
$708
� � . . y
$214
� �
- . $993
. . , �, , �. ��
� � $221
n' di'' . $� �4�A;.
` $123
i r"
$Q�}�
` $219
" ;.
N ;
$193
�{ � �
$15�
� ����v��..
$4,245
�� s:.
$3 028
S ^ �F
��������:.
,�: u..
$470
- $234
,--. �`�.:�, _
� ��80,
� , _.1,� . �_m�
$664
�395`
�,>
� �`i
f
oa a�q
0
0
a
� N
�
, o, _- " - ._ ' _ O
�
a
,. . ,.
a
� - �= � �= �- �- ��'- - �
9
a"� � �
- Q
- " - -- - - -. . �+ .
- - � - . .. n- '
- _'.-- - --�_-` �_. � - ,_
- - -. --> _. .
c _ -
=_ .. .- ? '<-�,_. . ,. ' ...'w _ - ' ,-
. - . . - ' � '�.
_ _ . - . ' _ ' - � �,.
,
-' - _ - --_ � .-. . `. � .
�
4 .. C
$.i 6
�"r �
�
A � � �' �
I� _
A �� �
- �
��`a � "� � � , � � �
' 3
r� ,J: :.t - y � a
/ +s�' ' '
- W - �' � . W .
� � � ��� v - O tA�N�� � .
� _ q "`. = _ � O O O O O �
r
_ '^`�„ a" - � MN� �
� -_ F �� - - � ����❑ r�
N
S �(j
N
y §:x �
� u � :_ � �
m
� £
0
�
�1 � ^ �
m
L� - _ �_ c `� a s - ° a;
� �x 5 a
s $
3 U
C u L
r� �
� �� �
7 ' ` �
-.: ,. k= x °
: �. � - _:- �_s. : - -
w
m
E
� - � � - � N
F
_, N
Snell n� Ade � _ ' �
� �
' a
- , rn
�
a
- - . - ` _ . - � c
�
� � -' �- - = a
, . , - _ - - - _ . - -- �
. . . -_ _ _ _ "_ �
£
�
a
�
m
a
E
�
z
Council Fffe # a a- aG g
Green Sheet # � UC: `-ll�
RESOLUTION
OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOT
. „`
Referred To �
Committee
Accepting Council Research's Report "Chronic Problem Properties in Saznt Paul:
Case Study Lessons."
1 WHEREAS, on December 1, 1999, the Saint Paul City Council directed Council Research to prepaze a report on
2 problem properties in Council resolution 99-1152; and
3 Wf�EREAS, Council Research, in the ensuing rime, conducted field reseazch and compiled extensive case studies for
4 32 properties over a 24-month time period; and
5 WIIEREAS, Council Research prepared a report with findings on the development, complexity and unique
6 challenges of problem properties that continue over many years; now therefore be it
7 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council accepts Council Research's Report titled "Chronic Problem Properties
8 in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons."
Requested by Department o£
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Adopted by Council: Date (� ��7 a o o a--_
--� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�
Appra
�
o a - a-�-�
Chronic Problem
Properties in Saint Paul:
Case Study Lessons
FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH R�PORT.•
oa a.ie9
� ; Saint� Paul City Coancil .
Council Research Report
March 2002
Chronic probiem properties are properties which cause major problems
for the City and its neighborhoods. They aze characterized by nuisance,
property and violent crime and numerous code enforcement violations
— such as broken windows, garbage and junk vehicles. This study _
examines the causes of chronic problem properties in Saint Paul, as
well as how they tnanifest themselves in our neighborhoods, and what
seems to work to solve or mitigate the problems they present. In order
to address these important issues, 32 case studies were deve�oped using
extensive information from City and County records and interviews
with some of the key people involved with these_properties.
:_ KEY FINDINGS ABOUT HOW CHRONIC PROBLEM PROPERTIES COME INTO BEING .
0 Ghronic problem ptopeRies can be distinguished from "regulai"
problem properties in that their prohlems remain unresolyed for How It Works:
extet�ded periods of time. This often means the original problems • Owaer-Land�ord-Manager musi Be Unwiiting or
� � � aze.complicated and �xaoerliated by additional problems. '' Unable to Effectbely Address the Problem(s) �.
�' ❑ In-all of tha case studies, tioth�the owner and the government were '- Goverament.Husc se Unwilling or Unabte �o �
�. � � unable or unwillittgta effectivel}� address tfie pioblem(s). � Ef£ectiveLy Adlress the Pro6tem(s) �•
��� � •- � Tenants, Neighbors and Neighborhoods Mav Be
D Peedis�osing,conditions foa ohronic problem propertq development , �nwilling or Unafile to Effectively Address the
iilelude: �� ' _ °� Pioblem(s) � �
- " - ■ Poverty Of H4usehaYd; ' , _ : _ - - . - • - � '(���e Are Probablv Predisposing Cbnditiot�s �
"�,� _ � - ' ■ � Old Age, PoorConstnictiori & Maintenance of Building;
�` Geographic Concentration of B7ight;. � _ �_ � . , -
` � , � � �ersanal and�Behavioral�Faotors— Violence, D'isorderly � � � � �
- ` Youth, Mental Itlness, Drugs and Aldohol Abuse�_� � � � - � � '
■ Lack of�Ie�ghborhood Colleative Efficacy & Social Capital'
�ICEYFIIVDINGSABOUT LIl�liTGWITA�THEFROBLE�YIS � � �_ � � � � �
0�Chronie problem propeities can be characterized by bottc �
� -Physic_alDisorder=brokenwindows,boazdedvacant
bm`ldings, aliandoned bm'ldings, dilapidated huildiTrgs, �
gatbage(trash/litter tall grasslweeds, jtiiik cars, `vandalism, -
-_ abandoned vehicles, dumping bars and�graffiti. ,
�. Social Disorder— prostitution, public drinking,
unpredictable,people, panhandlers, mentally dishubed,
� fiarassment/h�araiiguing, school dasruption, gang violence,
rowdy teens, sezual harassmeni on the street,:domestic " -
disputes tfiat spi1F into public spaces, pubtic iusults, -.,
vagraney, diug dealing auto theft, azguing/fghting among
neighbors, lack of traffic enforcement; robbery, loitering, _'
��gunfire, weapons curfe.v yiolations dog fighUng,truancy -
and gambling.-
O_ Chronic problem properties in Saint_Paul exhibit magy of `
these signs of h sical and social disordeY whi h h
Of-our 32 Cases Studied in 24 months: -
,• - 88%had Domestic " `. 44%had Broken
� Violence ; -� - � - �WindoivslScfeens& -
i � 66%,had Disorderly � , -�Junk Yehictes -- " .
Youth & Other ' • 41% had Tall Grass and
wolence . .- Weeds & Auto Theft� -
• - 63%.had .` ' � ' 38%had Public �-
' Garbage/Trash Build- -= - Drinking ; Ftoor . �
� � - �Up - Eacterior - . Coverings & Fights �
' S9% I�ad � ,' '"= 34°/a had Aggavated �
_ Na�corics/Drugs � _ � - Assault, �-- �
• 56% had Disturbances - , Broken/Missing Door �
& Vandalism ' Locks, Junk Fwniture ,
• 50%had Theft � • 31°!o had Eaterior Paint ,
� 47°/a had Brirgtary- -Proble�es " _ ,
_ p y c researc ers _
� indicafe lead to neighborhood and communiry declir�e. - '" � : � � � � �_
� O� We �stimate that roughiy 220-280 af the City's 79;000 properties �- _ � �
are ohroRic��SrobFem properties, � ' � � _ - � _
Chronic Problem Praperties are
properties with violatio�s which are
' srrious— founded and substantial; -
'_ repetitive- at least 3 instances of problems in
18 months; - -- -
•- enduring— aotive as a problem property for at
least 18 months; and which � .
• adverse/y aJJ`ect their neighbors and/or the
� community as a whole. �
"' KE%FINDINGSABOUT:
: , . DEACItXG WITH TIfE-RR�BLEMS
Code E�forcemgn�_Animal.Cpntrol, .
�- 't�icensing, Zoning, R:otic� Fire.an� .�
` EMS3ervices Cost E�e City for our 32
� Case SYudies cost#he Eity: _.: _ - _ -
- -' _$2 ° - . �
.. � •� - $10;0U0l,Yeaz on Aeecage - -- � - -
. "' � ''- $35,�00 / I=eaz fo� NCe-MosF "Expens'rve" � �
� . to $2.5 Miltion a Year for 220 —28Q CPPs' _. �
Of the`32 Case St�siies: ," r
r �100%shaBPuliceCallsPorService: - . �� 30%hadCitarions.withan9veragegf
, Average26GaIIsPecUni[(2yeazs1,7- '� 2 . 4 per,P�oP�'. - - -
. and� 2-Unit Aortses Averege 36 Ca11s - .`.47°loLad FORCE Buys& Survellance �
- :PerUnrt. - --� - _ _ �. _ , .�wittianaverage�of3.Ipecpcoperty , -
.� _ 75%�had Aireteinrnts, witF� an average .. - 44%� had FORCE Kn«k& Talks; with
� -of 3.Spa property .; , _ . � _ , �n-ayerageof 2.3 per prope�ty. -
�• ��69%hadCorrectionNorites�forcode� - • �: 94%IiadCofORevocarions .
`�violarions, with an average of 2."7 ��- 4�1%Lad-FORCE Arrests,with an" , �
� �P�-P�oPe�Y.. - _ - averageofF. 9 ,P�ProPeRY� - -
-�. -67°7oofthe'�asesiudieshad = _ . ,- 34
. Emergeucy Medical with an-' .- - aver"age of 1 A perpwpecty� - � -�
. averageqfl.4perproperty, � � � .�- '34%�had FORCESearch�Warrants ,
.: Si� ofthecas�studiestiadF've- -, i� 28%tiad FOKCE9earch Warrents .�
:Suppressiay witfi.an a�erage of0.7 �, . Problem Piuperties Task Foree .
_ P� ProP . ' , - - " - - - - '
KEY FINDINGS�4BOUT CiIRI1VG T�IE PRQBLEMS '
-❑ GovernmeeiY needs better met[iods for identifying atrd ' O -A-mo�e proacfive inspection policy;`possittly,including a. '
,� sharing infoFinaYion amoag ageneies abou[ theseproperEies._ � � periodic-sys[emahc_inspecrion appioach Eoe one- and fwo- ��_ �
� i. ° Infoi�ateonsystemsthatsupport€}recross-agencry _ � �itrentaC-housingeouidatso-help�govemnientmoxe_-� -
' identification of chronic problem properties _. , effecridely address chronio properties.
��- �Easy ctoss-deparknen_tat referrat atnong field skaff; so �. "��a : Fully utilize tools alceady_at_the goveinlnent's'disposa�.
�� tha[ police officers �td paramedies who;otten see � � The CitysGouid examine its�ofieies and Q�actices ceYated � �
� ,: deplorable,eond�ionscan quickly a'nd easifp`refer fliese to bfironic proBle� propertie� inclading cibtions, Citg= "
� �ropertiesto IIespection st�ff- � � � � � .� � initiated 3'enant Remedyllctions and City-mitiated "_, �_ �
1., . .. � � ' �Iufor�arion sps,teg�c tha�support tfie c�oss-agency �� _ ' � �uclawfal detainers.; " � �
��- _ �� sharing of probteins at ihe>pFOpexty atid actions taken to- -_ p_ Ttie County co¢Id examine making market vaLue � �
�= resolve them . deYerininat'ions mot�e cur�enY, the �se of nuisance propeity "
�� Q Once govemment agertcies have idenfified �ud shazed - _ Takings and commaniry prosecution, andl3ousing eaurt
4- _- - uiformation'on YheseprapecEies, �the aasformati0n:needs to 6e- � fane teuels and this coiut's capacity to deal �vith tfie many_ --�
�- - nsed to betiter "case mauage" problems"af the=property: and oomplex probiems ofthese properties.
� �Case managemenf wouldalso of�'er the opporlumtyto ." - � O� Ideas tl5af may help in the pievention of chromc problem -�
f ` Prosecuteinaway,t6aftakesmta_accouatthe�otal properdesaelateprimarityto: - '
_ atFect the'property fias on the commtuiiTy; � s ��,° Empowering and persoading property owners and :_`-
' '■, Eon�ue� "khock;& falks: with ownerand occupants="" " govern�enf fb soi�e,4ather tfianjust ` deaFewi�,'th�
- about the Gity services consumed and'the effeet the . problems facing them' and, '
� P��tt3' is havingyn ftie couimunity;=' � � '�. Redtieing anc�,mini�ezing those factors�vhictr
_' �■_. Such conversarions could he ¢roadened t6 mtroduce a�' ." predfspose a properl�y to becoming a chronic problem, �
' _ ' _ _ _ - "iestoraUYe justice" component: � � _ .' � � picluding poverty, Biigfi� building abandonafent, poor � - �
, , " bdildeng=cbnditions, yiolence and drug/alcofiol abuse.
- hfE�'HODQLQGY . - ' , � . _ �
-' 0- The reseacch process primarily involvCd developing.32 case . E�mining police and inspecfion_ records for I00 of the
studies and condue[itig a�orough liferattire review.' 275; ive found tliat fOlo, met our definition:of-ehro�ia ,
O Case studies were dev.eloped using: . problem pioperEies.
" - ■ Data and iecotd review;
_ 0.'ttiestudy list was narrowed from 6El co 32 case studies by
- ��_ Int�rviews and_site dtsits;and - elimjnating-someo�the p"roperties found in "clusters"-of -� -
- - ' ■ - Fieltl�'inrnectinnc and �Pinlira rdn_olnn..c . . . �_ . ..0.......,...�.d:to... .......a�a:a� .,...i .......e ..,6:,.A ...e..e ....,«e,1 . .
� rne case �tumes.were.selected by a proeess where:. ; by ttthe sama owner. A small number of case'studies were
�� Elected offic'rals,-district couneils a�d inspectinn stiff eliminated beeause vye �vese unab(e tq creafe a camp(ete -�
- � suggested E75sli�f'erenfproperti� farsfudy-as'chronic , _ � �case study,:as records we�e incompl_ete�or Ct was = . � �� _
problecn pioperties. - � � � - impossib[e to.incerqiew �eople ielevanE_to the prope�ty.'. �, . � � _
� �_
` FQR QUESTIONS, GOMNIENTS, OR k COPY OF THE REPORT PLFJlSE-CONTACT: -'�
- Gerry Strathman, eouncl Re"search Director '� �- _ � � Marcia Mdermond, Poticy Analysf�. '-,
;(651,) 266-8575 or gerrv:si�athmanCa�cisfpaul.inn.us (651) 266-8570 or,iiiarcia'moermond(�ci.stoaul.mn.us :
o�. � 9
City Council Research Report
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul;
Case Study Lessons
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Study Goals ...............................3
Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Nominations ......................... 5
Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Problems with the Selection Process ....... 8
Population Est.of Chronic Problem Properties 8
Creation of the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Theoretical Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Analysis ................................ 11
Causation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Case Study Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Quantitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Financial Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nuisance Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Property Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Violent Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
How the Problems Interact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
DEALING WITH TAE PROBLEMS ..... 63
Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Patrol ............................... 65
Police Patrol Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Cost of Police Paffol Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
FORCE Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
FORCE Unit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Cost of FORCE Unit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Fire Suppression & Emergency Medical Serv's 75
Fire Prevention - Certificate of Occupancy ... 77
Citizen Services Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Conection Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Abatements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Orders to Remove or Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Citations ............................ 83
Condemnations ........................ 83
Rental Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Problem Properties 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Good Neighbor Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Problem Properties Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Other City Enforcement Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Animal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Zoning................................. 88
Licensing ............................... 89
Summary ................................ 90
HOW CHRONIC PROBLEM PROPERTIES
COME INTO BEING . ....... . . . ......... . IS
Who Fails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Why Do They Fail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Deviance ............................. 16
Syxnbolic Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Structural Functionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ConflictTheory .................... 19
Unable/Unwilting ......................... 19
Ring Concept ............................23
Predisposition ............................ 25
Poverty ..............................25
Property Conditions .................... 29
Surroundings ..........................31
Vacant Buildings and Abandonment . . . . . . . . 33
Personal and Behavioral Factors . . . . . . . . . . . 33
LNING WITH THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . 36
Who's Harmed? ..........................36
Neighbors and Govemment Agencies . . . . . . . 36
Tenants and Occupants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
When Are People Actually Hazmed? . . . . . . . . . . . 41
WhaYs the Problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
What ihe Experts Think . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Broken Windows, Incivility and Disorder .... 43
Dif�ering Impact Depending on Neighborhood
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Neighborhood Cohesion & Collective Efficacy 47
What the Case Studies Tell Us About Conditions . 48
Ratings ........-� ....................48
Exterior Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
[nterior Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Crime ............................... 57
CURING THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Unable and Unwilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Actor Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Govemment .......................... 93
Improvement of Existing Tools & Approaches 93
Improvement Using New Tools & Approaches 97
Owners ................................ 103
Social and Personal Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
CONCLUSION ......................... 107
APPENDIX A: Reference of Cases Studies .... A 1
APPEND[X B: Bibliography and References ... A 3
APPENDIX C: Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . A 8
APPENDIX J: Age of Residential Structures, Pre-
and Post- 1939 Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 21
APPEND[X K: Robbery Map 2000 & 1999 ... A 22
City Council Research Report
Chronic Prob{em Properties in Saint P<
Case Study Lessc
Tables 8� Diagrams
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Diagram A. Map of Chronic Problem Property
Case Study Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 1. Building Ward Location . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Diagram B. Saint Paul Wazd Map . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Building Occupancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Diagram C. Chronic Problem Properties as a
Proportion ofAll Properties in Saint Paul ... 9
Table 3. Cost Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
HOW CHRO1vIC PROBLEM PROPERTIES
COME INTO BEING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Diagram D. Ring Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 4. Actor Failure Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 5. Market Value Averages Information .. 27
Table 6. TaY Delinquency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 7. Utility Shut-Offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 8. Chronic Problem Property Status Prior to
Study Period (1994-98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 9. Building Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 10. Registered Vacant Building Status 1994-
2000 ..............................33
LIVING WITA CHROIVIC PROBLEM
PROPERTIES ......................36
Diagram E. To Whom Is A Property A Chronic
Problem ............................36
Diagram R Multi-Unit Apartment Buildings, Calls
for Police Service for Individual Units ..... 39
Table 11. Examples of Physical and 5ocial
Incivilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Diagram G. Wilson and Kelling's (1982)
Incivilities Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.
Table 12. Interview Ratings of Ckuonic Problem
Property Housing and Safety Conditions ... 48
Table 13. Exterior Structural Problems ....... 51
Table 14. Garbage/Yazd Exterior Problems ... 51
Table 15. Interior Structural Problems ....... 53
Table 16. Interior Systems & Utilities Problems 55
Table 17. Interior Public Health Problems .... 55
Table 18. Nuisance Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 19. Property Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 20. Violent CrimelCrimes Against
Persons ............................
Table 21. Summary of Conditions, Aggregate .
Table 22. Summary of Conditions, by Property
DEALING WTTH THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . .
Table 23. Police Calls for Service Load Change,
1999, 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 24. Police Calls for Service: Dispositions
During Study Period (1999-2000) . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 25. Police Interventions (Aggregate) . . . . . .
Table 26. PropeRies Requiring Interventions
Aggregate .............................
Table 27. Citation 5ummary Table for Code
Enforcement (CE), Certificate of Occupancy
( C of O) Program and Mimal Control (AC) .. 1
Table 28. Property Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !
Table 29. Average and Median Costs . . . . . . . . . . t
Table 30. Chronic Problem PropeRies Total Costs by
Category ..............................5
CONCL[ISION ......................... IC
APPENDIX A: Chronic Problem Property Case
Study Reference List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
APPENDIX D: Calls to City, by Violation, by
Case .............................. A 1
APPENDIX E: Calls to City, Totals and Averages,
by Case ............................ A 1
APPENDLX F: Property Code Interventions, by
Case ............................... A 1
APPENDIX G: FORCE Interventions, by
Case ............................... A 1
APPENDIX H: Costs for Complaints, Calls for
Service and EMSIFire Runs, by Case ...... A 1
APPEND[X I: 2000 T� Information, by Case . A 1
APPENDIX J: Age of Residential Structures,
Pre- and Post- 1939 Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 2
APPENDIX K: Robbery Map 2000 & 1999 ... A 2
City Council Research Report Chronic Probiem Properties in Saint Paul:
Case Study Lessons
List of Case Studies
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
HOW CHRO1vIC PROBLEM PROPERTIES
COME INTO BEING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IS
The Brothers Grim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Motel Califomia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
CashCow ..............................22
Craeking Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Errant Investor I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Errant Investor II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Gangster Boyfriend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Overthe Edge ..........................34
LIVING WITH CHRO1vIC PROBLEM
PROPERTIES .......................36
T'hrough the Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Home Alone ............................40
Cu]tural Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Down`n Out ...........................44
Fear Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Weird Neighbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Old and Ugly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Empty Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Dirty Dealing ..........................58
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . 63
Double Trouble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
La Cucaracha .......................... 70
Bog House ............................ 72
Misplaced ............................. 74
Watering Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
AHigator Alley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Danger Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Bad Boys ............................. 80
CURING THE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Double Gross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
DiRy Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Overwhelmed ..........:............... 98
Cazeer Criminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Nasty Four ........................... 102
FightClub ........................... 104
Case Case ............................ 106
CONCLUSION ......................... 107
APPENDIX A: Reference of Cases Studies .... A 1
nronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
INTRODUCTION
Most urban residents are very concemed about their surroundings. Not only do they want their
homes and businesses to be safe, clean and attractive — they expect their neighbors' homes and
business to be ordedy and well-maintained as well. The fact not everyone acts in acwrd with
Ihese values is a major problem for cities. Some shaze these values but fail to act on them; such
as when people want snow cleazed off sidewalks but neglect their own. A few do not share these
values at all; such as people who see no problem with storing junk cars in their backyard. The
dissonance between these widely shazed public expectations and the actual behavior of some
creates tensions that City govemment is expected to resolve.
Most cities spend a great deal of time, energy and money trying to maintain an environment that
meets community expectations. These efforts aze based on the need of elected officials to
respond to citizen expectations and on the belief that failure to maintain high standazds will lead
to disinvestment and out-migration.
Happily, for the most par[, the efforts of the City of Saint Paul to maintain community living
standards are successfuL The City's cadre of code inspectors, police officers, building
inspectors, animal control officers, fire of�icials and attorneys engage in a never-ending struggle
to ensure community standards for property maintenance and acceptable behavior aze upheld.
They conduct inspections, issue corrective orders, conduct abatements, provide advice, cite or
attest wrong-doers and prosecute offenders. These tactics work most of the time. Most property
owners comply with directives from City staff and most miscreants straighten-up (at least for a
while) when confronted by the police.
Unhappily, there aze times when CiTy intezventions do not work. Some property owners aze
unresponsive to directives from City ofl�icials, some offenders continue to violate despite
interventions by the police. At first blush, this may seem a trivial problem. One might suggest
that since most citizens comply, that ought to be good enough. Others might say we just need to
"get tough" with those who continue to offend. Unfortunately, neither of these glib answers
produce acceptable results.
The suggestion that we simply accept some level of deviance does not fully rewgnize the effect
these offenses have on the surrounding neighborhood. If the effects of violations were limited to
the property upon which the offenses occur, then it might be possible to simply tolerate them.
This is not, however, the case. The effects of non-compliance aze toxia The appearance of one
building affects the appearance of the entire neighborhood. The unsafe practices of some tenants
affects the safety of all tenants in the building. Criminal behavior in one house undermines the
safety of the entire neighborhood.
Most people are unwilling to accept even one property that is not in compliance with community
expectations. This intolerance of deviance, while understandable, creates a serious challenge for
City govemment as it is neazly impossible to achieve 100 percent compliance with any standard.
It is relatively easy to achieve 80 percent compliance with any reasonable standard. It is much
more difficult, and fu more expensive, to achieve 90 percent compliance. It is extraordinarily
difficult and extremely expensive to achieve 99 percent compliance. Since there are probably
fewer than 300 chronic problems properties among the more than 80,000 properties in Saint Paul,
we aze, in effect, seeking to move from 99.75 percent compliance to 100 percent compliance.
mD2 SaiM Paul Ciry Council Research Center
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Pau�: Case Study Les
Both theory and practice suggest that this will be difficult. Nonetheless, because of the profound
toxic effect of these propeRies on the community and the widespread intolerance for the violation
of minimum community standazds, nothing less than 100 percent compliance is acceptab(e.
The idea that we should just "get tough" with chronic offenders underestimates the resilience of
offenders and overestimates the efficacy of government. While most citizens aze socialized to
respond to govemment directives — a few, however, aze not. While, in the final analysis,
govemment has the power to coerce compliance with community standazds, there aze numerous
safeguazds that circumscribe how and when govemment power may be used against citizens.
These safeguards, such as due process of law, create unintended consequences and give violators
an opportunity to evade or avoid govemrnent sanctions. The clever, or simpty stubbom, can
resist compliance and avoid sanctions fora very long time before the full force of possible
government sanctions can be brought to beaz. Such resistance tends to either e�aust the
attention span of enforcement officials or makes eft'ective enforcement so time-consuming ar�d
expensive that the govemment, in effect, gives-up. Even when the City "hangs tough" in the face
of resistance, the processes of law can take a very long time.
So! What to do? If we can't toleraYe chronic viotations of community standards and "getting
tough" is expensive and slow, how do we deal with these vexing problems? We believe the
aaswer is that govemment must act smarter. By acting smarter we mean leaming what causes
these behaviors and addressing the causes, not just the effects. Moreover, we must be sure we
aze looking at all of the symptoms, not just those that a particular agency of government is
capable of handling. When usual interventions do not work, we need to turn our focus from
symptoms to causes. So long as dealing with symptoms works, which it usually does, it is not
necessary to try to understand and address the underlying causes. This study is intended to begin
the process of understanding why some properties have violations of community standards that
are serious, repetitive and enduring, while others have violations which aze remedied relatively
easily. We call such propeRies "chronic problem properties." We believe that once we
understand causes and all of the symptoms in the case, then we can begin to fashion strategies
and tactics to address and resolve the underlying problems. We are convinced that this approach
holds great promise. Just as understanding the causes of diseases lays the foundation for
developing cures, undersianding the causes of chronic prob[em properties will lay the foundation
for designing effective government interventions that will work.
To begin to understand chronic problem properties, we must eschew the tendency to see only
some symptoms and begin to think deeply about causes. To this end, we have conducted
extensive investigations into 32 curreni chronic problem properties. We have gathered,
organized and reviewed City files and County property records for each ofthese properties. We
have conducted in-depth interviews about each property with City staff and community
organizers. These efforts have created, we believe for the first time, an extensive cross-agency
record of everything we know, or think we know, about each of these properties. We believe that
these stories, or case studies, hold the key to understanding chronic problem properties. We
invite you to join us in a descriptive visit to each of these properties. From the richness of this
experience we believe that you, along with us, will begin to understand the compiex tapestry of
people, property and public interest that constitutes the chronic problem property world. From
this visit, we believe that together we will begin the understand the causes of these problems and
therein find the seeds for solutions.
2002 Saint Paul City Couneil Research Ce��
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �� ��� 3
STUDY GOALS
Although chronic problem properties aze an ongoing problem for most cities, few researchers
have attempted to specifically examine the underlying reasons for their existence or analyzed
what interventions aze effective in correcting them. In this study, a number of questions have
been posed to help us come to a better understanding of chronic problem properties and how to
better deal with them. Tfuoughout the study process, we have sought to confirm our wide-spread
assumptions, and come to a deeper, richer understanding based on the experience of Salnt Paul's
neighborhoods with chronic problem properties.
1'he chapter, How Chronic Problem Properties Come Into Being, poses perhaps the largest and
most difficult set of questions to answer:
❑ How are chronic problem properties created?
❑ Who causes them? and
❑ What factors make it more likely a chronic problem property will devetop?
The basic assumption underlying these questions is that not all chronic problem properties have
the same causes and that by identifying the causes of the chronic problem properties, the City
would be able to more accurately target interventions to correct the problems. However, the
more we leamed, the clearer it became that the issue of causation of chronic problem propeRies,
as with most other types of social phenomena, is too complex and multi-layered to identify one
specific cause.
The next chapter, Living with Chronic Problem Properties, examines the experience of living
with chronic problem properties; and it explores:
❑ Who is harmed by the existence of chronic problem propeRies?
❑ What kinds of code violations and crimes happen at chronic problem properties? and
❑ How is the City, or agencies of other levels of government, alerted about the conditions
atthese properties?
Dealing with the Problems, is the chapter of the study which discusses the steps govemment and
others can take to decrease the level of problems being experienced at a property. The focus is
on how we deal with the symptoms, rather than effoRS to explicitly tazget underlying causes.
❑ What enforcement methods are the most useful in resolving each type of chronic problem
property situation?
❑ Are we effectively using the tools we currently have in addressing chronic problem
propeRies?
❑ Are we effectively coordinating the activities of various agencies involved with chronic
problem properties?
❑ Do inspectors, police, social services and the courts have the tools they need to deal with
the complex issues presented by chronic problem properties, or are more or different
types of efforts needed?
Curing the Problems moves beyond [he steps taken to address individual problems at a property.
This chapter goes deeper to examine how we can take into account the cause of the problem to
make our attempts at intervention more effective. At the simplest level, we aze talking about
moving beyond sending a City crew to pick up garbage repeatedly. Here we are trying to get at
'10025aitrt Paul CRy Council Research Center
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paui: Case Study Le:
the ci�umstances of why garbage continues to be a problem at a particular property and then
using that information to solve the underlyiag problems. Key in this chapter is the examination
of the questions:
❑ Who is empowered to solve the underlying problems at a property and how can we get
them To do i2? and
❑ What tools do the individuals and organizations need to solve the problems at a chronic
problem property?
Preventing Chronic Problem Properties summarizes the leaming that has occurred in the study
and applies it to prevention. It asks:
❑ How can the key actors be persuaded to take the actions necessary to prevent the creation
of chronic problem properties?
❑ What risk factors should be tazgeted to decrease the likelihood of chronic probtems from
developing? and
❑ What additional tools should be made available to help the key actors prevent chronic
problem properties from coming into being?
RESEARCH METHODS
The research questions posed in the previous sections aze many, and each of them is complex in
its own right.
❑ How aze chronic problem properties created?
0 What do they look and fee] like?
❑ What can be done to fix them and prevent them from happening?
Cleaziy, no research method exists to unequivocally answer these questions about chronic
problem properties. What we have attempted to do, is to scratch the surface by examining the
experiences of 32 such properties in Saint Paul,' The stories Yhese case sYUdies tell, together
with basic statistics and lessons from theories of criminal justice, neighborhood planning and
urban sociology, form the foundation of the research for this study.
Sample Selection
The selection of properties that would serve as case studies of chronic probJem properties began
with an assessment of the number of these in Saint Paul, as well as the definition of "chronic
problem property." These questions—how many aze there ? and what, exactly, are they? — are
intertwined. With respect to the first question, "what are they?" Council Reseazch inirially
conduded that
Chronic problem properties are properties with serious (founded and substantial),
repelitive (ar least 3 instances ofpro6lems in IS monthsJ and enduring (active as a problem
praperty for at Zeast 18 months) problems which adversely affect their neighbors and/or the
community as a whole.
� Our original goal was to have 25 complete case studies. However, our elimination process left us with 32, and we
felt there were no objective criteria we could applv to our group to narrow the case smdy list again.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Ce�
hronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons UGZ.: c �/ 5
Unfortunately, this definiLion does not, on its face, take into account the complexity of the issues
presented by chronic problem properties by way of the character of the problems, who is
responsible for the problems, or who is affected by them. This is something we will explore
throughout ow study.
As to the second question, "how many are there?" we began with the assumption that not all the
problems experienced were reported to a single agency or authority. Some problems are reported
to the City's Code Enforcement Division, such as garbage, broken windows, or "no heat"
Similar problems found at commercial or residential buildings with 3 or more units are repoRed
to the City's Certificate of Occupancy Program. Animal-related problems are reported to Animal
Control. Finally, behaviorai and criminal problems are reported to the Poiice Department. To
date, there is no central database of City records to analyze to determine which and how many
propeRies meet the criteria presented in our definition. Additionally, the City may or may not
have been contacted about the problems being experienced at a specific property. We, therefore,
decided it was most appropriate to ask the people who worked with these properties on a daily
basis for nominations.
Nominations
Council Research solicited nominations of chronic problem propeRies by letter and follow-up
phone call to the City's Code Enforcement Division, Certificate of Occupancy Program, City
Council Ward Offices and District Councils. Through this process occurring in the summer of
2000, 275 addresses were received as suggestions for our "list." It was apparent in our
conversations with staff from these agencies and organizations that they did not always nominate
ail of their potential candidates. There were also several cases where we did not receive
nominations from district councils because of a lack of staffing. Of those nominations we did
receive, only some of the same addresses were offered by more than one of the agencies.
Altogether, 1 I percent of the nominated addresses were identified by two or more agencies or
organizations as chronic problem properties. Interestingly, multiple nominations did not occur at
a higher rate for those properties with the worst code and criminal violations.
Selection Process
For all of the 275 addresses nominated, we determined their City Council Ward, district council,
the basic type of problem(s) experienced and basic information on building use. From this list,
we selected 100 addresses. At this time, we were trying to develop a"representative" group by
maintaining geographic distribution throughout the City, as well as ensuring a variety of building
uses and problems experienced. We then looked at various City computer records to find:
❑ Number and type of Code Enforcement calls and actions;
❑ Number and type of Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O) Program calls and actions;
❑ Number and type of Animal Control calls and actions;
Q Number of Police calls for service, reasons for the calls and their outcomes;
❑ Commercial or residential use;
❑ Rentai or owner-occupied; and
❑ Number of housing units if multi-family.
"' For e�mple there were many instances where we received follow-up phone calls with additional addresses. In
other cases, staff clearly indicated that they were giving us one or two addresses on a particular block, or owned by a
particular party, but there were more which could have been suggested.
�02 Saint Paul Ciry Council Resrarch Center
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study t
Using these records we were able to determine if the propeRy superficially met our definition as
a chronic problem property, based on the whether the problems experienced were repetitive (at
least 3 instances of problems) and endurfng (active over I8 months). Among those eliminated in
this step were two types ofproblem properties worth mentioning:
1) those with some animal-related issues, such as too many animals, or the build-up of
animal waste inside or in the yazd of the property—these properties tended not to be
"active" on City files for the requisite 18 months; and
2) neighborhood (repair) garages which move old, broken-down cars azound, thus
evading City parking restrictions, but giving the effect of disorder in these
neighborhoods. These properties tended to have just this as a problem and the City
licensing process for such facilities gave the City additional leverage to solve the
problem sooner.
This comparison process of looking at the properties and our definition helped us eliminate 40
properties, leaving us with 60 properties on our list. For the list of 60 remaining properties, we
put together complete files with "every piece of information we could get our hands on" in
County, court, and City records. For this list of 60, we then determined if the problems were
serious, meaning the problems were significant and serious to the City, and to the neighborhood.
Using this criteria we eleminated those properties which had:
Diagram A. Map of Chronic Probiem Property Case Study Locations
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Researoh L
Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
`�°�- "�'e 1 7
❑ A"single major" problem(s) which was slow in resolving (major rehabilitation projects
sometimes fall in this category);
❑ Repetitive, but relatively minor violations (doesn't mow the lawn, few and infrequent
police service calls for low level offenses); and
❑ A tight geographic cluster with other chronic problem properties and may have been
experiencing similar problems.
- We tded to focus on those properties which had complex or worsening problems, and were
therefore the most likely to continue to cause the City and the neighborhood serious headaches
over a longer period of time. This elimination process left us with 38 properties. The last 6
properties were eliminated because we were not able to sufficiently document repoRed problems,
°u��=� �=�� °- interview relevant staff, or otherwise complete case study files for analysis.
,��
The 32 completed case studies aze, in our judgement, reflective of the population of chronic
problem properties nominated. They aze located throughout the City in six of the City's seven
wazds, as shown in Table 1. The case studies tend to be more concentrated in the older
neighborhoods of the City, as is shown in the map on page six. These case studies are made up of
14 owner-occupied properties, 14 rental properties, and four businesses. This breakdown is
shown in greater detail in Table 2.
Table 1. Building Ward LocaHon.
Properties 3Z
in Group
Wazd 1 6 (78.8%)
Wazd 2
Wazd 4
Wazd 5
Wazd 6
Wazd 7
4 (72.5%)
5 (15.6%)
a (rz.si�
5 (15.6%)
8 (25.0%)
Problems with the Selection Process
There aze two basic problems we noticed in our selection process. The first problem was that we
assumed the number of calls for service to the Police Department or inspectors would show the
severity and complexity of problems at a particulaz property. They did not necessarily do this.
The only measure we observed that could be used as a proxy for severity and/or complexity of
problems is "action" police calls.' However, it was appazent in our review of the data that there
was a wide variation in the proportion of founded calls. We believe there are three likely
scenarios to account for this: 1) excessive complaints by over-sensitive neighbors; 2) a"normal"
rate of calling given the situations the proper[y is experiencing; and 3) under-reporting, where
3 We defined "action" police calls as those calls for service to the Police Department which required a police
officer to take action. These aze recorded in Police Department records as "advised," "report written" and "detox" See Table
24 on page 68 for further details.
Ciry Coundl Rrs¢arch CeMer
Diagram B. Saint Paul Ward Map
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study �
only the most serious situations eticit a call for service from an occupant of, or neighbor to, the
property experiencing problems. This dynamic is discussed more thoroughly in the chapter,
Living with Chronic Problem Properties beginning on page 36.
Table 2. Building Occup:
Properties in Group (N=)
Owner Occupied
Owner Occupied Rental
Rental
Gease (Commerciai)
Owner Opera[ed (Commercial)
Total
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit
11
34.4%
3
9.4%
14
43.8%
1
3.1%
3
9.4%
11
52.9% N/A
3
I5.8%
5
26.3%
N/A
N/A
0.0. %
9
100%
N/A
N/A
Commercial
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
25.0%
3
75.0%
The second problem we observed in our selection process was that some types of chronic
problem properties consistently did not "qualify" as such using our definition. As mentioned
earlier, cuts were made which had the effect of substantially decreasing the number of properties
which were: animai-related; repair garages; and in clusters of chronic problem properties or
owned by the same owner.°
Population Estimate of Chronic Problem Properries
It is difficult to determine how many chronic problem properties there aze in Saint Paul.
However, throughout the research process, we have been able to devefop an informed opinion
about this question. As to number of chronic problem properties, we believe at any given time,
there aze at least 225-275 in Saint Paul. We deduced this in the following manner:
❑ 50-60 perceni of those we exarained (100 of the 275 nominated) met our definition;
therefore, 138 - 165 o£the nominated addresses likely met our definition;
❑ Not al] disTrict councils had sufficient staffand were able to respond to our request;
therefote, we likely had an "incomplete" list, so we add 20 - 30 > giving us 158 - 195
❑ There are chronic problem propeRies that were not nominated because they aze located
in a"cluster" of these types of properties, and aze not looked at as individual
properties, but parts of a"bad area;° therefore, we need to add 15 percent to the total
of those nominated = giving us 192-247;
4 We chose ] or 2 representative properties for an azea or owner—although we selected cases from these "ctusters,°
we may still be underrepresenling the "ctuster effect."
5 There were several incidences where City or district council staf}'indicated, "you could pick any one (property) on
that biock (or between these streets, or in this complex of buildings), bu[ I'll just give you this (or these) addresses."
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Le
32 � 19
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
❑ There aze chronic problem properties that are not identified as such by City and district
council staff because they do not receive complaints on them, usually because of
apathy or farigue on the part of neighbars and occupants; therefore, add another 15
percent � giving us 220-284.
Diagram C. Chronic Problem Properties as Proportion of All Properties in Saint Paul
� p. AII Buildings in Saint Paul
AQprox. 79,000
C. Problems Resolvetl In'I Year
ppprox.'16,000
in 2 Years
E. Chronic Problem Properties ftom Counctt Reseamh Investigetion
Approx. 250
g, g�i�tlings Active
in City Gomputer
2 Years
Approx. 24,000
Area A. This area represents the 79,000 properties in the City of Saint Paul based on Ramsey
County ta�c data.
9
Area B. This azea represents the 24,000 properties the Pioneer Press defined as "acrive" based on
an analysis of 5%z years of City Code Enforcement computer records. Being "active," and
therefore, according to their analysis a problem property, was determined using 2 dates, the first
and the last the City interacted with the properry. If those dates were more than 2 years apart, the
Pioneer Press determined it was a problem property.
Of these, approximately 16,000 properties had their problems resolved in 1 year (Area C), and
18,000 (an addiriona12,000) within 2 years (Area D). The balance of properties (the gray area
within Area B), approximately 6,000, were presumed to be chronic problem properties.
Area E represents the chronic problem properties Council Reseazch esrimates exist in Saint Paul
at any given rime, approximately 250.
Because of the inadequacies of the City's information system, the newspaper's analysis did not
include any informarion as to whether the complaint(s) the City received were founded, whether
a code was violated, or the severity of the Code violation alleged. Therefore, it seems very likely
that 24,000 is an over-representarion of the problem properties in Saint Paul. [Article from the
Pioneer Press series on Problem Properties"St. Paul Inspecrion Data Proves Hard to Track." 5
December 1999.]
2002 SaiM Paui CKy Council Research Center
�o
Chronic Problem Propertiesin Saint Paul: Case Study
Creation of the Cases Studies
The thir[y-two case studies were developed using information from a variety of sources for a 24-
month study period. First, we examined computerized records and files from tbe City's Code
Enforcement Division, Citizen Services Office, Certificate of Occupancy Program, the Police
DepartmenYs FORCE Unit, the City Attomey's Office, Police Department, Fire Department,
Animal Control, Department of Planning and Economic Development, and Office of License,
[nspections and Environmental Protection. We also gathered informaYion from Ramsey County
Department of Property Records and Revenue, IR[S (Integated Reality Information System), the
Polk Directory, and the U.S. Census. Second, we conducted structured interviews with all of the
City and district councii staff who worked with owners and occupants of the chronic probtem
properties, as weli as the neighbors affected by it. Notably, we have had the opportunity to
accompany various inspecYors and enforcement agents "in tha field" on numerous occasions.
During this research process, we aze aiso able to accompany the FORCE unit in the execution of
search warrants.
Based on our interviews and field experience, we developed the narrative component of the case
studies and conducted follow-up interviews to clarify irregularities in our findings.
UnfortunaTely, not a!1 inconsistencies have been, or can be, rectified. In other cases, we have not
been able to verify information we suspect may be true based on other facts we reviewed.
Finally, we pointedty asked our interview subjects why the property in question became a chronic
problem property. These statements were often insightful, but, were subjective reviews of the
situations. In essence, we were trying to look at the proverbial elephant, where each interviewee
saw only a paR of the animal.
Because of these concerns, we have chosen to use rode names, in addition to not using
property photos, to protect the identity of owners, occupants nnd neighbo�s.
It is our contention, the telling of these stories is just as important as relaying facts and figures
surrounding their situations as chronic problem properties — and only in putting these putting
These together is one able to get a comprehensive view of the situation.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Throughout the research process, we encountered the need to interpret our findings using some
sort of a theoretical framework. We, therefore, sought out joumals arid other academic work thac
could give insight into the creation of chronic problem properties, as well as suggest possible
courses of action for their etimination. We looked at planning housing, sociology and criminal
justice and specifically examined theoretical work in the following areas:
❑ Broken Windows Theory;
❑ Incivilities Thesis;
❑ Neighborhood Cohesion;
❑ Social Capital;
❑ Collective ef�icacy;
❑ Neighborhood planning; and
❑ Deviance Theory.
6 FORCE is the acronym for the Focusing Our Resources on Community Empowerment program.
2002 Saint paul City Council Research G
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Gase Stutly Lessons :�OC, vC1Q'1 i 7
Information and references from our review of these theories appears throughout our work. A
resource list of materials may also be found in Appendix B.
ANALYSIS
Our original goal was to analyze information from case studies which speak to:
❑ The causes of chronic problem property status— which includes the statistical and
anecdotal information;
❑ The likelihood of specific problems oceumng individually or in combination with each
other—which will assist enforcement and social service agencies in assessing the
probability of specific problems occurring; and
❑ The likelihood for specific enforcement strategies to be successful given the problem
or mix of problems at the property—which will assist policy maker, enforcement and
social service agencies in assessing the probability of specific problems occurring.
In order to do this, we conducted three types of analyses, in addition to reviewing our data in ihe
context of the theories discussed in the previous section. These areas included a causation
analysis, the development of case study narratives and a quantitative analysis of data from our
case studies.
Causation Analysis
The first of our analyses, we titled the "causation analysis." Here, we literally tried to determine
the primary, secondary and contributing causes to the case's chronic problem property status.
This was done by reseazchers reviewing all facts in the files, and then consulting to develop an
informed opinion as to cause. As mentioned eazlier, we had asked our interviewees to
hypothesize why a particular property has become a chronic problem. Examples of the types of
reasons we heazd include:
❑ Landlord exploitation of tenants ;
❑ Criminality of tenants;
❑ Property owner recalcitrance towazds City orders;
❑ Financial distress of owner or landlord;
❑ AlcohoUchemical dependency of owner or landlord; and
❑ Disability of owner or landlord.
Our conclusions tended to be based heavily on the impressions of those we interviewed, and
tended to look like this:
❑ Primary cause: alcoholic owner occupant, secondary cause: uncontrolled children,
contributing cause: financial distress; or
❑ Primary cause: exploitive landlord, secondary cause: drug use of tenant, contributing
cause: criminal companion of tenant; or
❑ Primary cause: incompetent landlord, secondary cause: domestic violence of tenants,
contributing cause: financial distress of landlord.
1002 SaiM Paul City Cpuncil Research Center
12
Chronic Probfem Properties in Saiot Paul: Case Stud
Of course, there were significant problems with this analysis. First, there are the biases of
researchers and the interview subjects. Second, the determinations were subjective: there was no
definitive way to sort out, among the many problems we found present in our cases, which
actualiy causes the chronic problem property status. Whose to say it was alcoholism or financial
distress that tipped the balance? And when can an outsider, in our case— reseazchers, validly
"diagnose" alcoholism or financial distress? A few drinks to some would be alcoholism to
others, and we were in no position to judge. Financial distress may have bean brought on by
frivolous spending, and some may believe there were adequate resources, were it not for foolish
spending. Th9rd, it was nearty impossible to separate the cause and effect of these different
problems, and the stories surrounding each situation were fluid. Four[h, it became very clear that
many of the problems which lead to chronic problem property status exist in many households
and businesses—that are noT chronic problem properties. This last finding helped lead to the
development of section of this report dealing wiih predisposing faccors to chronic problem
property status. Because of the problems encountered with this analytical approach, we did not
use this analysis in developing specific findings relating to cause.
Case Study Narratives
Throughout the research process, it became apparent to us that some of our greatest learning was
coming from the stories associated with each of our case studies. This seemed to hold true
whether we were talking about how a neighborhood experienced an incident of child neglect, or
how a bar failed to make timely payments to the City to maintain the appropriate licenses. We,
therefore, decided to split our analysis of the cases to include both a narrative, story-telling
approach, as well as a quantitative approach. In developing this narrative approach, we had to
make detettninations about which way to tel] a particulaz siory when we had conflicting versions,
but by and large, the information we gathered from different sources came together in a
consistent and coherent fashion. This approach also gave us the opportunity to discuss in more
depth the perceptions of those involved, not only about the property, bat also the dynamics of the
households and neighborhoods. One example of this is the case of racism and culturat bias,
where we do not have "quantitative indicators," but only people's impressions of what is going
on in a particulaz azea. The use of case study narratives throughout this report has helped to
clarify and give life to some of the issues addressed. It also gives us a coherent structure for
organizing the vast amount of information we gathered.
Quantitative Analysis
The third type of anatysis used in the development of this study is a quantitative analysis ofthe
data gathered in the case studies. Although we are unable to draw defnitive conclusions because
our sample of case studies was not randomly drawn,' we can use the informaYion to form credible
hypotheses about what the likely dynamics are. For the 32 case studies, a broad array of
information was gathered. The actual data items include items related to the following areas:
❑ Property ownership and tenancy;
❑ Property valuations;
❑ City enforcement and housing loan services;
❑ City Code Enforcement and License actions;
� Recall that the concept of chronic problem properties is lazgely a self-defined and, therefore a subjective
phenomenon, so it is impossible [o know the "true" population from which a statfstically valid sample can be drawn, and that
estimates have been used. Although we tried very hard to use cases we believed to be representative of those nominated,
there is no definitive way ro confirm this.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Resnard�
Cbronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons _ t'� 13
0 Police Patrol data;
❑ Police FORCE Unit activity;
❑ Call levels to various City agencies; and
❑ Property and crime conditions.
It should be noted that although we were able to document conditions, call ]evels and
enforcement actions, the City information systems available did not allow for analysis of these
pieces of information in a"chronologicaP' fashion. We were, therefore, unable to make definite
"cause and effecf' determinations about given conditions leading to particular call levels and
enforcement actions. What we can, and do, discuss is the propensity of each of these pieces of
information to be associated with one another. It is our belief that an analysis of the quantitative
information and the narrative stories of each of our case studies, taken together, will provide a
comprehensive picture of chronic problem properties in Saint Paul and very likely in other urban
environments, as well.
Financial Calculations
Irt the course of conducting the quantitative analysis for this study, it became obvious that almost
all of the interactions the City had with our chronic problem properties had costs attached to
them. The City, as a govemment entity, collects tases to provide to the community-at-large the
services discussed in this report. There is little debate that provision of police, building and
health inspection, fire suppression and emergency medicai services ensures the health, safety and
welfaze of all of the residents of the City. However, the high level of services required at the
chronic problem properties we studied— and the expenses associated with those services—
deserve special attention.
Therefore, we set about to establish two dollar figures associated with each of our case studies.
The first figure we established the municipal portion of the property taxes owed for 2000 using
Ramsey County property tas information systems. The second figure we calculated was the
casts associated with ihe City services providad to each property. In order to establish costs, we
multiplied the number of visits City staff made to a property by the average wst by visit. Table
3 provides a summary of our estimates and the basis for those calculations. In the case of some
of the services of the FORCE Unit, very conservative estimates were used with respect to staff
involvemant. It is also expected that these numbers would differ widely by property and
situation.
It is important to consider that property taxes make up about one-third of the City's general fund
budget. The batance of the City budget is financed with money the City receives from the State
of Minnesota and severa] other sources. Throughout the study we present information on the
City property taxes owed by each of our case studies, and compare this to the expense of the
services provided. When looking at these figures, it is impoRant to kaep in mind the City's other
revenue sources finance two-thirds of the wsts for the services we describe. In essence, for every
$300 worth of police services provided, $100 is covered by property tases and $300 from other
sources.
In addition to these quantifiab[e costs, there are also a number of "indirect" or other costs. For
example, when a Code Enforcement citation is written, there is not only additiona[ time invested
on the part of the inspector (not captured as a part of the visit), but also on the par[ of the City
Attomey's Office which is prosecuting the citation. The same may also be said of Police for
amests, citations, and search warrants. Another type of staff cost involves City employees who
work on these chronic problem properties, but whose time is not logged in our dispatch or
� �'^� P'+�� City Councii Research C¢nYer
�i ��
�ii i
I
,�I�i
� � I�
I' I�
I II ;!�l
I '�I�
' I'
�.,I
14
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul; Case Stud
comp(aint management information systems. These people include staff in the Council and
Mayor's O�ces who handle constituent concems about these properties. Time spent in meetingS
and at the desk trying to work on these problems is not captured by these information systems.
Neither is the time spent proactively monitoring chronic problem properties, as is the case with
staff for the City's registered vacant building program. Finally, we did not attempt to quantify
costs associated with the negative effect these properties have on their neighborhoods, such as
potentially decreased property values.
Table 3. Cost Calculallons
Dept./Divesion Cost Estimate Basis for Calcula6ons
Code Enforcement,
Zoniag, Licensing,
Mimal Contml and
Ceaificate of Occupancy
Complaints
Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) and
Fire Services
Police Call for Service
FOACE Unit Knock & Talk
FORCE Unit
Buy/Surveillance
FOACE Unit Arrest
$150 per Complai�t Average of 1 ini[ial visit and 1 fo(low-up. $75/visit
calculation made by Ciry Council fiscal staff for Code
� Ertforcement Excess Consumption ordinance
amendments. 2 visiis at $75hisit is $I50. "I'his is the
base number used for several types of City complaints
in this study, as they require similar staf6ng leve[s.
$�{S7 per Run
$130 per Call
$130 per Visit
$325 per Buy /
Surveillance
$520 per Arrest
Using 2000 b�dget £gures and all Fire and EMS ruris
made by the department, the unreimbursed cost to the
City is $457 / run on average.
City Counci] fiscal staff analysis of cost from 2000 for
the Excess Consumption of Police Services Ordinance.
Es[imate same staff involvement as responding to cal1.
Estimate 2,5 X staff invo(vement as responding to call
(2.5 x$130). (Yery likely a substantial underestimate,)
Estimate 5 X staff involvement as responding to call
(5 x $130).
FORCE Unit Wazrant $1,300 per Warrant Estimate 10 X stafl involvement as responding to call
Execution 10 x $130 .
( ) (1'ery Iikely a substantial underestimate.)
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Co�ncil Research
Chronic Problem Properties
HOW CHRONIC PROBLEM
PROPERTIES COME INTO BEING
Chronic problem properties aze characterized by ongoing and enduring social and physical
problems, otherwise referred to as incivilities, disorder, or nuisance crime and conditions. Why
these problems persist while others cease upon intervention is puzzling. In order to better
understand this phenomenon we looked at who was involved in perpetuating or fixing the
chronic problems at our properties. For the purpose of this study, we refer to them as actors.
WHO FAILS?
The four actors we identified with chronic problem properties. The first is the owner who has the
legal right to the property in question. Owners can be individuals who live at the property,
otheswise referred to as owner occupants. However, 56 percent of our case studies have non-
resident owners, landlords or property managers who act on their behal£ We observed that
owners are ultimately responsible for the physica] upkeep of the property and are, therefore, the
main point of contact and inquiry when a property is in disrepair. Owners play an important role
in fixing and preventing chronic problems by ensuring that properties are up to code and criminal
activity does not occur.
The occupant is the actor who dwells or resides within the property in question. They could be
owner-occupants or tenants. Occupants aze important in this discussion because they alone aze
likely to alert government agencies to interior property code violations in renta] properties.
Occupants were also the primary source for crime and behavior problems found at the property.
Not surprisingly, it is more difficult to ameliorate socia] problems or incivilities, such as drug
dealing, when it is condoned or perpetuated by the owner, as tenants can be evicted.
The neighborhood is the third actor group we aze considering and we consider it the distiact azea,
residents or organizations surrounding the property in question. It is made up of individuals in
the vicinity of the property and the organizations that work within, or represent, that particular
azea. It may not appear neighborhoods have a direct impact on chronic problem properties, but
they do in a number of ways. We see this in the role neighbors and neighborhood organizations
play in providing both a sense of community and in perpetuating community standazds of
behavior— social cohesion and community efficacy. (Social cohesion and community efficacy
aze discussed in Living with Chronic Problem Properties on page 47.) How well these
neighborhood systems aze functioning will determine whether the neighborhood can prevent the
creation of chronic problem properties and mitigate their problems. If these systems aze not
functioning, neighborhoods can actually work to perpetuate or facilitate the creation of chronic
problem properties. For example, if junk cazs in a neighborhood aze commonplace or loud music
is the norm, the neighborhood incorporates the problems of the property into the fabric of the
community. Govemment depends on the neighbors or neighborhood organizations to call the
police or notify Code Enforcement of social and/or physical incivilities in their neighborhood.
Govemment is the final actor which plays a major role when thinking about chronic problem
properties. For the purpose of this study, the term govemment primarily refers to the City of
Saint Paul, Ramsey County and the court system. Govemment is the entity that regulates,
enforces codes and laws and provides services relating to residents' public health and safety. It
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Couneil Research Center
76
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
sets the minimum staridard for property maintenance and behavior through the legislative
process. These standards are enforced by inspectors and the police. In Saint Paul, the Code
Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing propeRy maintenance standards at all one- and
two-famity units. This division also enforces exterior code standards for all Saint Paul
properties. Buildings wiih three or more units are inspected at least every two years through the
City's Certificates of Occupancy Program in the Fire Department. Govemment also establishes
programs to assist residents, including problem property owners. It also uses many tools to
clean, abate, try to eliminate and prevent problem properties. These steps often ameliorate any
code-related probtems that arise. Although, if an owner or occupant is unwilling to maintain
these corrections, it often becomes a chronic problem property. Another CiTy service that is
highly used to correct chronic problem propeRies is the Saint Paul Police Department.
Phenomenally, one hundred percent of our case properties had police visits during the study
period resulting from calls for service. Although the City of Saint Paul is not dvectly
responsib[e for social service activities within the City, we do know that social services are an
imponariT complement to police initiatives.
WHY DO THEY FAIL?
Chronic problem properties are multi-causa! and complex. Each chronic problem property is
idiosyncratic in nature and has individual and environmenta] forces that perpetuate its probtems.
Through analyzing our case studies, we found there is not one cause or formula we can apply to
determine what creates problem properties, or even more so, why they perpetuate.
After studying the cases and the actors, we noticed a pattern of deviance from mainstream
society. Typically, problem properties are abated effectively upon intervention. However, some
problem properties persist undeterred by fines, conection orders, police interventions or drug
raids. In order to better understand this phenomenon, we chose to look at several sociological
frameworks to clarify how deviance manifests itself and how it works in the creation of chronic
problem properties.
Deviance
Deviance is defined as behavior that dif�'ers from accepted social or moral standards. The
fol(owing three sociological paradigms explain pattems of behavior that may be considered
deviant by mainstream society, whicE� aze in conflict with established norms and laws. These
pattems of behavior have been a prevalent throughout our case studies. We will look to identify
why these pattems exist and even more importantly, why they persist.
Symbolic Interaction
Symbolic Interaction is a theory that attempts to explain the development of one's identity
through one's interaction with others and how one acts in response to others. According to the
theory, one develops a sense of self based on the idea that "[ am what I think you think [ am." If
an individual interprets that "others" perceive him or her as deviant, he or she may continue to
paRicipate in this self-fulling prophecy. Symbolic Interaction theory suggests the important
piece is how the actor interprets his/her role based on how he/she perceives and models other
people's beliefs about this role. How do the "others" in this case influence and perpetuate the
deviance at chronic problem properties? How do they encourage the persistence of social and
physical incivilities?
Z�02 Saint Paul City Council Researoh'
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons oa a�� ,�
The idea of "other" encompasses the influences an individua] uses to identify themselves in
relation to the world azound them. "Other" can be defined in two ways; first is known as the
"Significant Other". This includes people who are close to you, such as family, friends or
colleagues. The individual holds in high esteem what they think the "significant other" thinks
about them. Therefore, the individual tries to act in a way that is consistent with how he or she
perceives how the significant other thinks about his or her role. Whereas, the second other is
refened to as the "Generalized Other," and it includes the rest of society. For example,
individuals interpret how society views them to be or act through stereotypes in the media. Or, if
they grew up in a neighborhood where their family was treated in a certain way by the neighbors,
they may continue that pattem. Individuals may try to "be" what they think others expect them
to be or they may refuse to conform to values or perceived values of the society. Symbolic
Interaction helps to explain some of the dynamics in Watering Hole and Fight Club, where
customer perception and expectation become reality for the owners.
Expanding on this basic theory, some symbolic interactionists would explain that an individual
has difficulty maintaining their property because of their affiliation with a particular group,
whether it is ethnically or economically based. This aspect of the theory incorporates the concept
of the "pluralized" other. The theory of the "pluralized" other states that one's affiliation or
identification with a particulaz group of people — whether it be a racial, ethnic or economic
group — may greatly influence a person's perception of how society views them. For these
theorists, the "pluralized" other is just as important as the "significanY' other in shaping the
individual's view of the world.
A low-income person, for instance, may perceive the rest of society believes that low-income
neighborhoods aze not tidy. This may be confirmed by everyday experience as the residents
drives through his or her neighborhood and sees that, indeed, the neighborhood is disorderly. In
that residents mind being a low-income becomes associated with not maintaining a high level of
maintenance on one's home. Moreover, the low income resident may also perceive that others in
the low income group may think that maintaining a home at high standards is a sign of uppity or
show-off behavior that is inconsistent with the norms of the group. If the resident strongly desires
to continue his or her identification with this group, he or she will conform to this interpretation
of the goups norms and values. For these reasons, he or she may be less likely to address issues
on their property which others in society may think aze important. The important point here is
that it is not that person's character which explains their inability to maintain their property.
Rather it is their identification with a particulaz group or class of people that reinforces their
perceptions of the world and shapes their decisions regazding property maintenance.
Structural Functionalism
The theory of Structural Functionalism hol'ds that a society functions best when individuals share the
same norms and values because it promotes solidarity. The theory also maintains, however, that
because a society has estabiished norms and values, that society will also have deviance because the
rules of the society will not be agreed to or shazed by everyone. In other words, while it is beneficial
for society to reduce deviance, a society will never be abie to truly and completely eliminate ic.
' Although family is not outright mentioned or referted to in this study, it could by hypothesized that family might
play a role in haiting or prevencing chronic problem properties. One way is ttirough socialization. If a family raises a child in
an emironment that adheres to social norms and standards regazding conditions of property, the child will emulate this
behavior with iheir home. However, if the family does not follow these nonns, then ihe children are more likely not to
participate acwrdingly. 1'he second way family might be considered influential is through peer pressure or observance. If a
famity member notices the dectine of a propeay, mosi likely they wiit irttervene, either monetarily to ease the cost of
maintenance, or to address oiher incivitities,
mD3 Sain[ Paut City Cpuncil Research Cenier
18
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Stu,
Case Study: The Brothers Grim
_ �__��__
"The Brothers Grim° is a cute house in an attractive area
of the City. The home has no mortgage and was the
recipient of a forgivable rehabilitation loan for $7,092 in
1991. Until 1997 this was the home of a older woman,
who was thought to be an eccentric character by her
neighbors, and her rivo adul[ sons. The mother died in
1997 and the has spiraled down ever since. The
ownership was somewhat ancertain during the smdy
period as the mother's estate was in probate; however,
the sons continued to occupy the home. They did not,
however, bother to pay [he property taaces which had
been delinquent since 1998 for $9,517. In the summer of
2001, the property was taken by the County as a taz
forfeiture. While we aze focusing on the yeazs of 1999
and 2000, probletns invoiving dog fighting and drugs
extend back further. In recent yeazs, the property seems
to experience waves of problem activities for three to six
months at a time, with brief one to three month lulls in
between.
This house has experienced both interior and exterior
code violations. The most speculaz interior violation
involved a brokett sewer line in the basement. The
brothers attempted to continue to live in the home despite
this situation until complaints from neighbors about rats
and odor brought Ciry inspectors to the scene. As a
result, in July of 1999, the City condemned the building
for one month for being unfit for human habitation.
Interestingly, the `Brothers" approached the District
Council for financial help with the sewer problem, but
were unsuccessful with that effort. They did,
nonetheless, get the sewer repaired and resumed
occupancy. Other, less serious, code violations resulted
in summary abatements and citations for tall weeds and
grass, garbage and broken stairs. A warrant is stiII
outstanding for failure to appeaz in court in response to a
tag issued for the broken sewer line.
The "Brothers" aze widely considered to be heavy drug
users involved in a vaziety of criminal behavior. The
police responded to this address 46 times during the
study period. Besides drug issues, they responded to
calls involving fighting, domestic assault, disorderly
boys, auto theft and burglary. These catls and subsequent
investigation led to at least one FORCE raid on the
properiy. Convictions for drug possession and operating
a disorderiy house resulted from this. The domestic
assault chazges were leveled following a violent fight
between one brother and the other brothePs girlfriend,
where she was attacked with a chair and a lmife.
Neighbors reported a variety of instances where domestic
situations have spilled out of the house and onto the
street. People, including minors, come and go at all
hours. There have also been azrests for selling nazcotics
and child endangermen4 The child endangerment
resulted from a resident girlfnend leaving her child
unattended Criminal activiry wenf lazgely unabated
through the summer of 2001, as is reflected in 38 percent
increase in calls for police service over the previous year.
Despite the fact neighbors organized to deal with this
problem tivough the FORCE unit and other police units,
it has been to little avail as the problems continue to re-
emerge. The brothers calm down their activides for a
rime, perhaps because they aze in jail, or because they are
genuinely hying to clean up the�r act. However, they
seem to be so imme�ed in [he drug culture that their
criminal behavior begins again, and the property
continues to deteriorate. Many of the staff involved with
this property believe the brothers ue probab7y [oo far
gone for any effective intervenrion and may actually have
become unable to maintain this proper[y. They are,
howevey a neighboPS nighhnaze. The violen[ and drug-
related crime, together with the lack of maintenance, led
to the physical decline of this otherwise nice home in a
nice neighborhood. Cleazly, the govemment either lacks
[he tools Yo deal with sach a d�fficutt probtem or is
simply unwilling to do what it would take to resolve this
problem.
In the end, the govemment taken control of this property
for non-paycnent of taYes. Given that the house was
owned outright, it seems particulazly surprising that the
brothers lacked the where-with-all to refmance the
property to pay the back taces. According to the last
reports we received, one brother periodically tries to get
back into his lifelong home for someplace to stay,
although it was boazded and sewre. The other brother's
where-about were un}aown. Neighbors hopes aze pinned
on someone who will eventually take over and hopefully
clean up the property. As a boarded vacant house, it
continues to stand as a reminder of past h
2002 Saint Paui City Council Rese
Chronic Probl¢m Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
c� a�
Struct�ual functionalists attribute deviance to a lack of assimilarion by some into the rest of
society, thus producing a sub-culture that is different, or in conflict with, "mainstream society.'
�n turn, this subculture creates an environment that supports and reinforces certain norms and
values that may be considered deviant. The dominant culture, or mainstream society, does not
have rewards or sancrions that overcome the rewards and sarisfacrion of remaining in the
comfort and stability of the sub-culture they grew up in. Thus, these individuals do not
participate in the same opportunity structures as those who follow established mainstream
norms. By not participating, they may be excluded from having the same educarional
opportunities, subsequently leading to disadvantages and possible discriminarion in the
workplace or in competing for traditional jobs. Therefore, structural funcrionalists believe that it
most desirable to get those in this particular sub-culture to assimilate into mainstream society.
In the context of chronic problem properties, a particular subculture may socialize an individual to
adhere to norms and values that may be considered deviant to the dominant culture. For instance,
Storing cars on your property. Some may think this is acceptable to do in order to use the parts in
other automobiles, thus saving them money. However, it may be against the law according to the
dominant culture. In this example, the dominant society may not have the resources to overcome
the benefit from storing your own car parts in your yard, so some would naturally conrinue to do
it. In iYfasPlaced, the owner and proprietor was aptly described in an interview as being
°°misplaced in time and location," alluding to his lack of connecrion with prevailing community
standards on how the auto towing and repair business should, and should not, be run.
Conflict Theory
This theory is based in Ma�ist thought and finds the source of deviance in social and economic
inequaliries. Conflict theorists believe deviance is created by unequal access to wealth. These
theorists view that society is conrinual conflict to access wealth. It is the source of stratification
in society. Deviance comes from those who do not have wealth and try to access it through
alternate means, which are often in conflict with the wealthy. Those in power often the wealthy,
create the rules to protect their interests. Therefore, those who differ or do not agree with these
rules are considered deviant. Defming those in the lower classes as deviant is a way to exercise
power over them and maintain control.
This theory also identifies how this view manifests class distinctions. Those who aze defined by
classes identify with that panc�ular class and those within that class and view themselves as
separate from other classes. This develops and strengkhens class identity and class affiliation which
is, more often than not, stronger than affiliating with other classes. So it is in the best interest of the
upper class to maintain their power distinctions over the lower classes by limiting the opportunity
structures of the lower class. Thus, lower classes may have limited access to education and lack
access to capital. They may be arrested more because they aze not of the power class or participate
in their way of doing things, which helps the wealthy class maintain its class boundaries. Under this
theory, drug dealing may be seen as an alternative means of eaining a living when other
opportuniries do not present themselves— and even somerimes if they do. Prostitution may be
interpreted in this school of thought similazly. These situations present themselves in the case
studies Career Criminals, Cracking Up, Motel California, and Dog House, among others.
� � � Unable and Unwilling
Deviance manifests itself as individual actors that aze unable or unwilling to effectively address
and eradicate problems at their properties, thus becoming chronic problem properties. Similazly,
neighborhood organizations and govemment may also be considered unable and/or tmwilling to
�:-�,:: ..
� Pwl Cily Council Research Center
�'" � y
20
..x.. � R6i+ : .
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons (�� oZ(o�1 21
"Motel Califomia" is a 100+ unit motel that rents rooms on a
daily and weekly basis for appro�mately $65 and $215
respecuvely. TLe people who reat hue tead to fall into �
several categories: individuals and families neaz
homelessness; migrant and seasonal workers; along with
some drug dealers and prostitutes.' The motel l�as a"seedy"
reputation and it has been suggested it attracts bad tenants
because no one else would want to stay there. The
surrounding neighborhood is lazgely light industrial, offices
and some retail. This property has been considered a
problem by neighbon and the Ciry for a long time, and it has
been on the problem properties task force list for yeazs. The
motel continues to maintain a high occupancy rate probabTy
due w the cmrent shortage of affordable housing in Saint
Paul and surrounding ueas.
Maintenance of the motel has long bern a serious problem.
1Le property has received many coxrection orders for
overcrowding, sanitadon, rodents, lighting, smoke detectors,
extension cords, exposed wiring, fencing, staitways, roof,
exterior walls and abandoned vehicles. It has, however,
mainCained its Certificate of Ocwpancy 6y maldng
coaections when required by the City. The owners aze
considering reopening a restaurant in the building and aze
engaging in a uni[-by-unit rehabilitation effort which has
extended over a long period.
C�ime has been a continuing source of concem with Utis
property. The police were called to this address 296 times
during the study period—which is an average of three police
calls per week. The reported crimes have included: pubiic
drinldng; narcotics; prostitution; cltild abuse; disorderly
boys; domestic assaulu; disturbances; fighu; thefts; assaults;
aggravated assault; vandalism; sex offenses; auto theft;
obstruction of legal process; burglary; robbery; runaways
and stalking, Sexual assaulu aze reported by neighborhood
activists to be frequent, which may be related ro prostitution
and transieat residenis. (In 2001 calk were up slightly over
the previous two years and there continues to be much
reponed violence and nuisance crime here.) It has been
suggested this high level of criminal activity is not unusual
for a building of t7vs type, which may paitially explain the
very high number of 31 Fire and 30 EMS runs to this
address, as well as the high number of "transporfs to detox"
(11) which resulted from a variety of calls. These Fue and
EMS calls may be duplicate calls, as both types of uniu are
roufinely dispatched in response to emergency medical
service calls. Even if ttus is the case for all of the calls, fue
units were still called to this property at leu[ once each
month.
Neighborhood organizations, neighboring businesses and
police have articulated a number of chronic problems at tlds
motel, almost all of wluch relate to the behavior and criminal
activiry of its occupanu. One might suspect that these
concems were bom out of a"not-in-my-backyazd"
mentaliry, given the types of residents who stay at this motel.
However, the long record of code and criminal groblems
documents [he real and serious nature of the ongoing
problems. The extremely high level of "visible" nuisance ,
violent and property crime, coupled with the "invisible"
problems lurking within the motel's rooms, spurred
concemed neighbors to meet with motel mauagement.
Although motel management has come to a few meetings to
discuss these concems, many believe their follow-tluough
has been inadequate. For example, given the high level of
crime, [he need for private security was pointed out.
Management did follow tluough and provide one security
guazd for an 8-hour night shift. However, repor[ed crimes
remained largely unchanged, even increased, in the yeaz
following our study period. In another case, a notorious
"swinger's club," wlilch is banned in at least one Mianesota
county, met for a weekend nighY at the motel— even though
the neighbors had some previous bad experiences with this
goup mee6ng at tlils locauon. It was though[ to be
inconsidera[e, at best, of management to book them for
anoiher event. After being confron[ed about the group's
background, management did, however, respond by
canceling the group's future bookings.
Many see the manager as the root of the problem with Uus
properiy, and it was noted that [he advent of serious
problems with tltis motel seems to coincide with his tenure
as manager. He is said to not o8en be present and not caze
about managing the building, as he seems to have other
business interests that occupy most of his time. Some even
believe he is actually facilitating criminal activity at the
motel by renting units to outof-town gang members and
visibng drug dealers. Some staff we in[erviewed also
suspect that he helps drug dealers— imowingly or
inadvertently— to conceal their criminal activities by
moving them azound in the build'v�g wluch thwarYS police
surveillance activities. He is tliought W generally cooperate
with criminals, drug dealers and prosrimtes. The owners
seem liffie interested in the manager's acliviaes so long as
the business remains higlily profitable. Given its cunent
rates and occupancy, it is undoubtedly, very profitable.
'"No narional�r even reliable local—staristics are available, but appazenfly more and more of the poor have been reduced to
living in motels. Census take:s distinguish behveen standard motels, such as those tourists stay in, and residential motels, which
rent on a weekly basis, usually to long-texm tenanis. But many motels contain mixed populations or change from one type w the
other depending on season. Long-term motel residents aze almost certainly undercounted, since motel owners often deny access
to ceasus takers and the residents themselves may be reluctant to admit they live in motels, crowded in with as many as four
people to a room. (Willoughby Mariano, "The Inns and Outs of the Census," Los Mge[es Temes, May 22, 2000)." From:
Ehreureich, Bazbara, Nickeled and Dimed, On (Notl Ge[tine Bv in America. New York, 2001.
effectively address chronic problem properties, not because they themselves are deviant per se,
but because of their inability or unwillingness to respond to these chronic problems. For
purposes of this study, being `Su�able° is to lack the necessary power, authority or means to halt
problem properties. As we see in our case studies, there are numerous individuals identified as
unable due to mental illness, poverty, drug addiction, etc. �
An actor who is "unable" to maintain their property shows up in number of ways. Many of our
case studies provide examples of owners or tenants who do not have the capacity to fix the physical
or social incivilities at their properties. An individuaPs mental and emotional capacity may be
hindered by mental illness, addiction to drugs or any number of things. In addition, owners or
occupants may not have the economic capacity to maintain their property. They may not be able to
pay utility bills which will prompt a condemnation from the City if services are shut-off from the
property. Tenants may be "unable" to effectively address incivilities because of limited resources
and options. Saint Paul's tight housing market may inhibit a tenant's ability to find or afford
another place to live. Thus, landlords and owners may continue to exploit them and refuse to keep
up the property knowing they witl always have tenants, whether or not they keep up the property.
A tight housing market is a landlord's market— unfoRUnately, even for the slum lords.
Lack of knowledge about laws or existing resources is also a piece in the puz2le of chronic
problem properties. Owners and tenants may not know what is considered a code violation. Fo,r
example, owners may not think there is a problem with storing mattresses in their backyard.
Therefore, they may choose not to comply with correction notices because they feel fhat the
government and/or their neighbors are simply oveneacting. On the other hand, if a chronic
problem property emerges because of a lack of resources, owners and tenants may be unable to
mitigate the problems because they may not know about govemment or community programs
that would help them solve the problems they aze facing.
Govemment may also be unable to mitigate behavioral and physical incivilities. By the time a
problem property becomes a chronic probiem property, the government is almost always aware
of it. However, the problems at the property may be too complex for a standard government
intervention to fix. The "underlying" problems at a property, such as economic distress or
domestic violence, may need to be resolved before the "surface" problems of uncollected
garbage, broken windows and uncontrolled children can be successfully engaged.
For purposes of this study, being "unwilling" is to be reluctant to fix problem properties. As we
have seen in our case studies, there are numerous individuals identified as unwilling due to greed,
hopelessness, indifference, antagonism towards govemment, their neighbors or tenants. Our case
studies suggest landlords or owners will often remain unwilling to cease the physical or social
incivilities because of the financial benefits of those actions. For example, several of our case
studies outlined how owners exploit the precarious financial situation of tenants. For example, in
Double Trouble, the landlord keeps the units substandard and demands first and tast month's rent
from desperate families. Then when families are forced to move because of the horrible living
conditions, the owner keeps all of the deposits and then seeks the same from the next tenant.
Owners or tenants may also profic from iIlegal activity occurring at the property. For owners, the
benefit may be direct, in that they aze imolved in illegal activity. More often than not, however,
the benefit is indirect. The landlords rents to people involved in illegal activities because they
aze more likely to accept poor living conditions without complaint— quid pro quo. Govemment
may also be perceived as unwilling to deal with chronic problem properties. The main reason for
this is that government lacks the financial resources and capacity to effectively deal with the
complexity of most chronic problem properties. Because of these limited resources, govemment
often focuses on what it can fix at a reasonable cost, thus prioritizing other enforcement and
service provisions.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Cente� �� ��� C� COUncil Research Center
sl!: .
:.��.M;���a.+
xi �.�.._
Case Study: Motel California
22
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson
"Cash Co�' is an apartment building with neazly 70 units in
a complex consisring of tlus and a similaz adjoining �
building. There aze also several lazge apartment buildings
immediately adjacen[ to Uvs complex. These aze all
relarively new buildings, which are somewhat secluded by
woods in an area of the Ciry which has almos[ a"suburban
feel" to it, with many single family homes and lazge yazds.
Given its size and layou; [he bvilding is reall y a
neighborhood within the neighborhood in which it is
located. Not swprisingly, there aze a variery of people who
live here, and indicaUOns aze that the majoriry of them are
law-abiding and decent people to tiave as neighbors. The
problem is tttat this complex is in decline in much the same
way we [hink about some older neighborhoods in major
cities. The physical condi[ions aze getting worse. II is
getting more crowded, and poorer people—many of whom
rely on Seclion 8 W pay their ren[—aze moving in. Finally,
a few "bad actors" are scazing away those decent tenants
with the means to leave and fi¢d another place to live.
Beginning wi[h the physica] decline of Ihe building, we see
a pattem of neglect with respect to basic maintenance and
needed periodic rehabilitation projects. The City has issued
many correction orders some including as many as 218
items. Two citalions were issued for improper building
maintenance. Both citations were unsuccessfully challenged
by the owners in District Court. The Certificate of
Occupancy was also revoked, but was eventually reissued
because the City did not want to displace the occupants of
tt�is lazge building. Major deficiencies have involved heat,
electricity, overcrowding, holes in walls, infestations, paint
and tom catpering. The exterior has also experienced
maintenance problems involving paint, roof, doors, windows
and screens. The Ciry's Problem Properties Task Force has
addressed the properry on several cecasions and there was
also a TenanYs Remedy Action, which mmed out to be
mos[ly unsuccessful, as only a few of the needed repairs
were completed. Oae effect of this actioa was the evicrion
of a tenant leader shortly afterwazds, in what was widely
believed to be management retaliation. Management of this
building aze reported to onIy make basic repaics in [he uni[s
when they have no other optioa—and in those cases, they
chazge the tenants exorbitant fees for doing so.
Crime and the behavior of some tenants has also been a
problem for tlus building, and police continue to be active
here. In fact, during the two-year study period, the police
responded to over 200 calls, which means they had calls to
this building an avenge of twice each week. 1Le incidents
involved public drinking, narcorics, clilld neglecUabuse,
&ghLS, disorderly boys, vandalism, weapo�s, arson, au W
theft, burglary and fraud. Analysis of the police calls shows
the properiy cleazly has a mix of good and bad tenants. For
example, 43 of the appro�mately 70 uaits generated no calis
for police services during the two yeazs smdied. However,
some units had as many as 20 calls. These tenants are oRen
single women who rent a unit and aze then joined by problem
boyfriends. In one unit we looked at, the calls generated
cleazly spelled out a difficult family situalion: child abuse
and neglect; domestic assaults, disorderly boys and wazrant
azresu. Sn another unit, a different, but related story is told
in its calls: disorderly boys, other assault, vandalism, arson,
recovery of stolen property and narcorics. In yet another
unit, there are only calls abouY domestics and nazcotecs.
Amazingly, one-third of the calls to the building were to
general areas. The incidents in these parts of the building
tended to involve dismrbances, domes6cs and narcoucs. The
sheer volume of these calls indica[es rivo probable dynaznics:
first, domestic disturbances and assaults that spill out into, or
begin in, the genernl azeas of the building; and second, drug
dealing and use that is not limited to the private areas of ihe
building that is to say, in the tenants' units. Follow-up on
the property indicates the behavioraVcrime patterns seen
during our study period remained largely unchanged in 2001.
The owners claim to screen prospective tenants but some
officers do not think they do a very good job of it, if they do
it at all. Problems aze exacerbated by good tenants leaving
as the building deterioratu. Not suiprisingly, securiry at th�s
complex is a continuing problem. Police indicated a
complex of this size should have private securiry on site to
maintain order. Although the owners had a security service
at one time but dropped it because of the expense.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about this property, from a
Ciry perspective, is [he extraordinary usage of Fire
Department services. Not only has this buildiug required
inordinate attenrion by the Certificate of Occupancy program
of Fire RevenUOn, it also received 51 fire runs and 38
emergrncy medical services runs in less than two yeazs.
The basic problem with Uris property is bad management.
Furthermore, they make little reinvestrnent in the property.
Given the relatively kugh rent chazged and [he high level of
occupancy, it is hazd to believe that this building would not
be a money maker. Indeed, the complex was purchased by
its curren[ owners in 1995 for about $3.75 miilion, but the
taac rolis indicate its mazket value two years later was only
$2.5 million. The reason for [his major difference in
valuarion is not lmown, but it does suggest taces being
collected &om this property may be faz less than iu sales
price would suggest
They only make repairs when forced to do so and [hen often
cUarge tenants exorbitant fees for making such basic repairs.
It seems the owners' objective is to maximize their short-
temi profits vrith litde regazd for the welfare of the teuants or
the long-teim viability of Uus apartment building. As a
msult, they consume an inordinate amount of public services
and provide unhealthy and dangerous &ving places for their
tenants.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
o� a�� 23
Some would azgue government does not have the capability to know about all the problem
properties. However, in ttte case of chronic problem properties, the govemment is almost always
awaze there aze problems, through code inspection, emergency calls, or FORCE surveillance.
Notably, a chronic problem property for one agency, such as Code Enforcement, may be just an
occasional service user for another, such as the Fire Suppression, or Emergency Medical
Services.) The neighborhood could potentially play a larger role in alerting govemment to
problem propeRies by notifying the police or Code Enforcement before the problems become to
ovenvhelming and complex, thus preventing them from becoming chronic problem properties.
What better eyes than a concerned neighbor?
Through this research process, we had di�culty differentiating between individuals being unable
or unwilling to address problems with their properties. More often then not, the problem
property stems from both an unwillingness and an inability to effectively address the social and
physical incivilities at the property. Chronic problem properties present a unique challenge. The
causes of chronic problem properties are complex and often unique to each property. It is hazd to
pinpoint whether physical and social incivilities aze due to an unwillingness or inability to
participate in mainstream society, or the inability to meet the standards set by a wealthier class.
More often then not, our case studies demonstrate how chronic problem properties typica�ly have
both physical and social incivilities due to any of the above-mentioned actors being to some
extent, both unable and unwilling to effectively deal with the problems located there.
Why are the above-mentioned actors continually unwilling or unable to deal effectively with the
social and physical incivilities plaguing a property? One reason may be the continuation of a
problem serves a pwpose to those who are perpetuating it. For example, the owner may not want
to cease exploiting their tenants because they are making a profit off of the high tumover of
tenants in a poorly maintained building. An occupant may not want Yo cease drug dealing
because there is a high demand for drugs and they cannot find a better paying source of income.
Neighbors may not want to intervene because they are threatened by the residents of a chronic
problem property or they wish to continue participation in the social incivilities housed there.
Finally, the govemment may not want to intervene because they do not have the tools available
to effectively mitigate the problems and prefer to redirect limited time and?esources. In
addition, government may not be able to fully intervene due to the laws that protect individuals,
such as due process, appeals and rights of property owners.
Ring Concept
Chronic problem properties, by nature, aze toxic to the whole community system. Because they
aze properties with enduring problems, the� affect many levels of society, thus creating a
breakdown in these systems we usually depend on to curb problem properties. For a problem
property to perpetuate into a chronic problem property, the actars must continually be unwilling
or unable to change the situation.
The concept of simultaneous "system" failures at the owner/occupant and govemment levels is
captured in Diagram D which for purposes of this study we are calling "Ring Concept." The way
the Theory works is that a problem, such as a broken window ot uncollected garbage, escapes
through each of the "systems" society has in place to correct it. At the core of this diagram is a
semi-circle representing ownership, as well as the rights and responsibilities associated with it.
A semi-circle is used because the systems society has in place aze flexible. The penalties society
levies are not so great that there will never be violators. The system failure at this tevel is that
the owner is unabte or uawilliag to fx the broken wiadow and have the garbage collected.
�,;m��nt Paui Ciry Council Rey¢arch Center
2002SaintPaulCityCouncilResearchCen�N ';_' .
Y:
! �\l�lh'�'
Case Study: Cash Cow
24 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Stud Lesso �� UoC. o�la`1 25
Y ns � Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
The next semi-circle represents occupants
and tenants. If the property is rental, the
tenant has some rights according to both
the lease, if there is one, and state law.
Accordingly, a tenant has the righT to call
to the owner's attention the problem, and
request that it be fixed. By exercising
their rights and responsibilities, tenants
can prevent a problem from continuing.
The broken window should be fixed and
the garbage collected. If these things do
not occur, the tenant can often remove
himself or herself from the unit. This
system does not work when the occupant
is either unable or unwilling to pursue
corrective action. Of course in many
cases, the owner and occupant are one-in-
the-same. In these cases, the protections
afforded by leases and state law are of no
Diagram D. Ring Concept
/ Hnyneo
umima: a
�.�,
�o�m
Managtts
�.:.
�
.�..�
�«.
��,.�,
GevemmeM
�o,umem
6
�`
�
consequence. Table 4 summarizes who we saw as being responsible for a probtem continuing at
the owner and occupant levels in our case studies. Clearly, in the vast majority of cases (25 of
32), the owner or �andlord is primarily responsible for a problem becoming and continuing to be
chronic.
Table 4. Actor Failure
Actor Commercial Owner Occupied Rental I Total
Properties in Group (N =) q 11 i 8
Owner Occupant
Landlords
Tenant
Landlord & Tenant
2 (50%J
2 (50%)
0 (0.0%J
0 (0.0%)
9 (81.8%)
0 (0%J
2 (18.2%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
13 (7Z.2%)
1 (5.6%)
4 (22.2%)
ll (34.4%)
14 (43.8%)
1 (3.1%)
6 (18.8%)
The third semi-circle in the diagram represents neighbors and neighborhood organizations. There
aze basically two options available at this level to heip these people who are affected by the still
broken window and uncollected garbage. First, they can estabiish and enforce community
standards. Neighbors communicating these standards to the owners and occupants provides
informal social control. It may be that a neighbor out raking has the opportunity to voice concems,
or through the maintenance of their own property provide cleaz expectations of their neighbors. Of
course, City ordinances and state laws aze meant to codify community standards. The other basic
option available to neighbors is to activate enforcement agencies by informing them of the
problems and demanding action. It is important to keep in mind that there aze many reasons
neighbors or neighborhood organizations would be unable or unwilling to pursue either of the
options avaitable to them. For example, they may be fatigued from having dealt with similaz
problems for so long, or they may be afraid of retaliation. In the end, they aze reliant upon either
the owner or govemment ultimately taking action to see that the problems aze corrected.
32
The outermost ring represents govemment enforcement of laws and provisiori of services. The
govemment can, through its enforcement agencies, mandate that window be repaired and the
garbage collected. If it is not, enforcement agents can write a citation and fine the owner for
violating the law. The govemment can also board the broken window, collect the garbage and
assess the cost for these services to the property's taxes. However, in order to do these things,
the government has to be aware of the problems and agree with the complainant that the
problems aze indeed violations of the law. There aze also limits on govemmenYs authority to act
and possibly circumscribe individual propeRy rights. Both not knowing about a problem and
limits on govemment's ability to intervene in problems on private property can make govemment
unable to solve the problem. Lastly, govemment in general, is often quite circumspect in its
decision making on when a problem merits govemment abatement. A City may decide to col(ect
garbage, but not board a broken window. It may choose to condemn a property for certain
conditions, but not be willing to make a financial investment in their correction. For example, the
govemment may condemn a house for a large hole in the bathroom floor. It is rather unlikely
that the govemment would actively abate this probiem on their own.
In the research process, we have discovered that there need be two system failures for a chronic
problem property to develop: the owner and the government must both be unable or unwilling to
correct the problems encountered. If the community systems represented in the Ring Concept
diagram work when problems arise, those problems will not become chronic. Occupants and
tenants, as weli as neighborhoods, have some ability to bring about the correction of problems,
but they are ultimately reliant upon owners and government to resolve problem situations.
PREDISPOSITION
In the fields of hea(th and wellness, there is often talk of predisposing factors which make it more
likely an individual will develop an illness or disease. In some types of cancer, a family history
of the cancer makes it more likely that it will develop. For heart disease, being overweight and a
smoker make it more likely. The same may be said of chronic problem properties. Althaugh we
know that both the govemment and the owner must be unwilling or unable to wrrect the
problems which present themselves, we believe there aze also a number of circumstances that
make it more likely that this will be the case. What follows is a discussion of the factors we have
identified as likely playing a role in predisposing a property to becoming a chronic problem.
However, it is important to note that predisposition is not destiny— just because a particular
cancer runs in the family does not mean that all the family's members will get it.
Poverty
While we did not attempt to gather information on the income and wealth of the owners and
occupants of the chronic problem propeRies we studied, it was apparent that these people were,
in many cases, living in or near poverty. This level of poverty can be seen in Motel California,
Overwhelmed and La Cucaracha. Thera are several indicators that help in understanding our .
conclusion on poverty in our case studies. The first of these is the properties' market value.
average (mean) market value for the I- and 2-unit houses we looked at was $62,011, as is seen in
Table 5.
2002 Saint Paul City Co�ncil Research Center ���� ����� Resea2h Center
v* c�;;
26
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons p �° °�'��'f 2�
} Chronic Problem Pro ertiesin Saint Paul: Case Study lessons
things as paint, maintenance of outbuildings and
mattresses in the yazd. In recent years there }iave been
ttuee correction notices for trash, paint and screens. In
addirion, there have been six summary abatements for
[rash, vehicles and gazbage. There have not been any
interior violations possibly because of the rather recent
rehabilitarion and because no inspectors have seen the
interior of the duplex in recen[ years. Also, [he building
was not in the Ciry's rental registration program during the
study period, though it cleady should have been included.
Behavior problems at this address are extensive and
enduring. In fact, police intervenUOns at [his address have
I "Cracking-Up" is an upper-lower duplex in a been little short of amzzing. During the study period, the
neighborhood in h�ouble. The area's housing is in Po�ice have been called 164 times for public drinking
' generally bad condilion and is primazily rental. The " �rcotics, disorderly boys, disturbances, fights, obstruclion
residents aze a mix of elderly people who l�ave lived in the of jusflce, prostitution, ag�avated assault, auto theft,
azea for a long time, recent Asian immigianu, poor and liquor law violalions and other offenses. Two seazch
uneducated people from a variery of backgounds and a �'�ants were executed for nazcorics. In addifion, [he Fire
bunch of rough chazacters who hang out in the streets Departments has responded with four EMS runs and two
intimidating residents and visirors alike. On the surface, it � �'
seems that many of the area's residents are these rough Occupancy of the duplex is confusing at best. One tenant
characters living a criniinat ]ifestyle. The immediate azea lives in the downstaiis unit with her two children. The
where Cracking-Up is located is notorious for drug crime, upstairs unit was occupied, a[ leas[ for a while, by a man
m particular, crack dealing. who was en a ed in criminal activi
% S ty including domestic
In the couzse of our iesearch, we were in this abuse of the downstairs tenant. The tenant's sistei seems
neighborhood on a bright fall Friday aftemoon. There we � also live in the downstairs unit. The downstaixs teaant is
saw many young men in the 20's, mostly black, "not very brighY' according to many of the staff
congregating, mi]ling and dispersing. Ca� full of �nterviewed, and is believed to be incapable of holding a
passengers would pull up to the groups and one or two of regulazjob. She and her sis[er are also reported to be
the men would poke their head in the car window for addicted to crack cocaine and aze likely not to maintain
awhile. Then the cazs would leave, and new ones full of conhol of their residence. Drug dealers aze l�own to
passengers wou]d take their place. As we sat in our station frequent [ttis house and also "hang ouP' on the front porch.
wagon and watched, we were ourselves approached on two Her level of complicity in this drug-dealing activities is
occasions by prosfimtes. uncleu. Some see her as involved while other see her as a
viclim of neighborhood criminals.
Not suiprisingly, the owners of Cracking-Up aze shady � is generally a lousy situation with no appazrnt remedy
chazacters themselves. The property has passed from one short of a govemment intervenrion. A ranking officer in
slumlord to another severat times since being rehabili[ated � Saint Paul Po]ice Department had explored the oprion
in 1996, after being vacant for a period of fime. Because of ossibl
of the mulriple sales for [his property in recent yeazs, P Y Setting Uus woman into a prosritution
estab]ishing a cleaz sequence of ownership is difficult. It Prevention, recovery and rehabilitation prograni— to no
has, however, been owned by several notorious slumlords avail. We have a drug-addicted prostitute tenant with her
and is now in the hands of an ovmer some see as an old- prosritute sister living in a building owned by a landlord of
time gangster who lives in the suburbs but seems to enjoy 9uestionable competence and even more questioaable
the company of the criminals and marginal chazacters. motives. 1Le neighborhood is full of drugdealers and
Though this properry has been problematic for a long tlme, other criminals who further con�ibute to tlus unsavory
matters have gotten worse under this mos[ recent owner. simation. The Ciry responds to police and fire calls plus
There has cleazly been more criminal activity at Uils occasional visits by inspectors to deal with specific
properry since iu purchase by the current owner in Mazch situations. The core problems remain unresolved and, for
2000, and police calls aze up dramarically. 2Lis may be in �e most part, unaddressed. Without a massive
part because of the predilecfions of the new owner, and in �tervenlion by City and Counry agencies, this problem
part due to his inabiliry [o properly manage his property. �Il continue with only the owners and tenants changing
from rime [0 5me.
The physical problems with this duplex have been limited.
There have been some exterior code violations for such
As a post script, the level ofpolice calls to the properry were down slightly in 2007, but the type and seriousness ofthe
calls remained largely unchanged. However, prostitution, auto thefi and aggravated assault were not reponed; but fraud,
robbery and gambling were reponed in 200! and not reponed irz the study period. Notably, although there were fewer
calls to this property in 2001 than in the previous rivo years, the number ofreports written by the police war up
significantly, suggesting no improvement at this properry.
Tab►e 5. Market Value Averages Information
Properties in Group (N =)
Total
32
Residential
t-2 Unit 3+ Unit
19 9
Commercial
4
$94,200
$139,367
N/A
MV Used by Ramsey County
for 2000 Tases
MV Per Unit Using Ramsey
Co. 2000 Taxes
median $57,500 $53,600 $197,450
mean $62,011 $446,838
mean $39,495 $48,561 $20,316
A second indicator of the level of poverty at these properties is the level of tax delinquency in
our case studies. Table 6 shows that 11 of the 32 properties studied, fully one-third, were
delinquent in paying property taxes during our study period. In one case, Brothers Grim, the
property was seized as a tac forfeiture six months afrer our study period. In two other cases,
Empry Promise and Dirty Dealing, failure to make payments on contracts for deed led to the
house reverting to its original owner. �
Table 6. Tax Delinqui
Tax Delinquency Status
Properties in Group (N J
Yes
Average Amount Owed
Average Years Delinquent
Owner
Commercial Occupied Rental
4 11 18
1 3 7
25.0% 2Z3% 38.9%
$12,611 $6,027 $3,817
2 2.7 1.4
Total/Average �
� 32
11
34.4%
$5,219
1.8
A third indicator of the poverty encountered at these properties is the number of utility shut-offs
they had. Eleven of the properties, or one-third, had gas, electric or water 'service shut-off for
nonpayment during our study period. Table 7 shows the majority of these were shut-offs of
electricity.
Table 7. Utility Shut-Offs
Code Violation
Aaperties in Group (N )
Water Shutof'flMalfunction
Electriciry
Gas
Owner
Commercial Occupied Rental
4 11 18
I 3 1
25.0% 27.3% 53%
l 2 5
25.0% 18.2% 26.3%
0 0 2
0.0% 0.0% 10.5%
TotaUAverage
32
5
15.6%
8
25.0%
2
6.3%
Taken together, these low property values, delinquent tases and utility shut-offs lead us to
believe that poverty makes it more likely that an owner or occupant wiil be unable or unwilling
to take action. For owners this may mean they lack the financial where-with-all to fix what
needs to be fixed. For tenants, this may mean that because oftheir own financial distress,
2002 SaiM Paul City Council Research Cente� `� �Z�t �ul Crty Ccuneil Reseamh Center
?!2': ,
��.;�A�
�a::c a;
Case Study: Cracking-Up
28 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessone,� `nic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �— `'1 29
Case Study: Errant Investor I
`Bnant Investor I° is a vacant upper-lower duplex in the
North End. This duplex is one of many buildings
owned by this investor. In fact, until recently, this
individual owned or co-owned most oF the buildings on
[he entire block. The owner's fanuly has been
prominent and influential in the azea for many yeazs
occupying a mansion and acting as a kind of feudal
baronage for the immediate surrounding area Unril
slipping to addiction in 1995, the owner was viewed as a
clever and effec6ve real estate investor and property
manager, who was a major asset to the communiry.
Unforiunately, his increasingIy frequent relapses into
addiction have resulted in one of the City's best property
managers becoming one of the wors[.
This property was 3n terrible physical condition during
the study period. The City condemned i[ in January
2000 because of problems with all of the major physical
systems including plumbing, hea[, water, stove
refrigerator, toilets, smoke detectors, doors and
windows. Health hazards also involved rodents, insects
and gazbage build-up inside the building. The exterior
also evidences a myriad of problems ranging from tall
weeds and grass to roof, fim, doors and locks. The City
and the community have been very acfive in trying to do
something with [his building. In recent years [he Ciry
has issued five work orders, seven summary abatement
orders and two corzection orders on this property
besides the condemnation that led to i[ becoming vacant.
There have been problems with squatters since the
building went vacant and the police and Code
Enforcement aze momtoring the property for illegal
occupancy.
Prior to this building becoming vacant, it was a source
of continuing behavioral problems. The FORCE Umt
raided the building in 1995 and again in 1998. In 1999
alone, the police responded to 22 calls for service
involving domestic abuse, assaults and nazcofics. The
FORCE Unit also conducted two "Knock and Talks° at
this address. The excessive police calls to this proper[y
go back more than five yeazs with a brief hiatus when
the "Eirant Investor" fust acquired the property.
As suggested eazlier, the wre problem with this property
is the owner. Ae bought this property, and many others,
in 1995 and began managing them qui[e effectively. He
paid the taces, c]eaned-up the property; screened and
managed his trnants. Then in 1995, he fell victim to
drug addiction and ceased caring for his properties.
Same neighbors even believe he began, sometimes,
exchanging rent for drugs and sexual favors. Taaces
were no longer paid and [he buildings and the quality of
tenants deteriorated precipitously. The Ciry tned to deal
with the situation but to ]ittle avail. These matters then
went ro Housing Court which was also ineffective in
addressing the situation. Eventually the owner was
convicted and required to serve a brief period in jail and
pay moderate fines. The Housing Court Referee also
provided that a portion of the jail [ime and fines could
be waived provided he participate in a chemical
addiction assessment and sell his properties. For a
period of several months, he was missing and eventually
was apprehended in the fall of 2001 when a routine
traffic stop led to the discovery of the outstanding
housing court warrants. Meanwhile, this duplex has
been rehabilitated and sold on a contract for deed to a
new owner. It required no police services in 2001. The
properiy's foimer owner is reported to be living out of
state, and has been off of drugs for a few months.
they cannot afford to lose the "roof over their heads" by complaining. However, not all the
chronic problem properties we examined had poverty, and in no case was it the only thing "going
wrong" preventing the problems from getting fixed. Finally, although it may seem self-evident,
not all those who are poor live in or own chronic problem properties. In fact, given that some 1 I
percent of the City's population lives in poveRy, and less than I percent of its properties aze
chronic problems, it is cleaz that most do not.
Property Conditions
The condition of the property at the time its current residents move in is also a factor which may
predispose it to becoming a chronic problem. Its age, the quality of the original construction and
how it has been maintained play a role in how likely problems aze to develo� just as these
factors are important in how a used car will probably perform. While we did not assess the
quality of these properties' original construction, we do know a lot about their age, how they
were maintained in the five years preceding our study period, and their cunent conditions (which
will be discussed in the next chapter, Living with Chronic Problem Properties).
Table S. Chronic Problem Property Status Prior to Study Period
Residential � . '
1-2 Unit 3+ Onit Commercial I , Total
Properties in Group (N =) 19 9 4 I 3Z
Chronic Problem Property
Not Chronic Problem Property
12 iS
63.2% 88.9%
7 1
36.8% Il.l%
0%
4
100%
20
62.5%
12
37.5%
As we reviewed files from the Police Department, Fire Department and Code Enforce�ment, and
other City agencies, we made determinations in each case about whether it was a chronic problem
property in the five-year time period preceding the study, from 1994 through 1998. Table 8
shows that almost two-thirds of the case studies were chronic problem properties eazlier, which
suggests these problems ue slow in resolving— as is the case with Weird Neighbor because of its
long-term incomplete home improvement project. Moreover though, it suggests that the
immediate presenting problem, whether it is a broken window, uncollected garbage or out-of-
control children, was not what we needed to be examining. In only a few cases were the problems
a continuation of the same problems. In most cases, however, the problems seemed not to be a
continuation, but rather new problems with the same, or similar, root causes. The underlying
problems that created the circumstances that allowed problems to grow and remain uncorrected.
A clear example of this pattern is seen in Double Gross and also in La Cucaracha. Notably, none
of the four commercial properties we looked at would have been categorized as a chronic problem
property before our study. However, nearly 90 percent of the multi-unit residential buildings
would have been, as would over 60 percent of the one- and two-family houses.
In general, the propeRies we looked at were relatively old, an average of 91 yeazs old. One- and
two-unit houses were the oldest, averaging 100 years old, and all of them were constructed before
World Waz [I. In the entire population of the City's housing units, approximately 47 percent
9 ihe eleven percent poverty rate is a"best-estimate," based on information reviewed by [he City's Planning and
: Development Department from the 2000 Census Supplemental Survey.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Resea��
CW�cil Resra'ch Center
30
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons -�
��Cpronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
Case Study: Errant Investor II
"Enant Investor II" is the second of two properties
included in this study owned by the same problem
landlord. The inclusion of two properties owned by the
same person reflects the ]azge number of prob]em
properties owned by this investor. Indeed he owed
over 30 properties at on time, including more than half
the houses on the City block where our rivo case studies
are located. When he was in his good days, he was
sern as a savior for this neighborhood. Since he fel]
into clrug addiction, his personal and financia] problems
coupled with his lazge holdings have created a problem
of major proport�ons.
This particular property was built as a single fanvly
home in 1884 and later converted into a duplex. It is
kind of a cute looking house from the outside, although
it is very smai] for a duplex. The yazd has, however,
been the major source of problems. During a recent
hvo yeaz period, the City conducted five sncmnary
abatements and rivo vehicle abatements at this address.
The owner has received many conection orders to
clean-up mattresses, fumiture, appliances, vehicles,
garbage and tall weeds. Despite these numerous orders
and abatements, the property continues to experience
general neglect of the exterior. Following our smdy
period, the property was condemned for a time as the
water was shut off for nonpayment. It is also appazent
that for a number of months, no one was managing the
property and the tenants paid no rent.
Because duplexes are not subject to Certificate of
Occupancy inspecrions, City inspectors have never had
access to the interior of the building. NEAR did,
however, conduct a walk-through of the building when
they were considering purchasing it for rehabil�tation.
This walk-through lead them to conclude the building
was not salvageable and they dropped their interest m
the properiy.
The police were called to this property 18 rimes during
our study period. These calls involved nazcotics,
domestic assault, aggravated assa�lt and warrants.'
They wrote reports for about half these calls suggesting
the incidents were substantive in nature. One of these
calls related to a late summer evening shooting that
occurred on the front porch of the house. In this case, a
former and current boyfrirnd of the tenant were
involved. Sadly, only one neighbor bothered to call
about the shots being fired.
This is among the worst of [he many bad properties
held by this owner. The City tried just about
everything to deal with this situarion including
attempting to confron[ the owner through the PP2000
inidarive. Nothing the City has tried has worked. In
the fall of 2001, this properiy was sold to a developer
who did some minor rehabilitation. It is cunenfly on
the mazket, and the same tenants contmue to reside
there.
� The IeveJ and type ojcalls in 200/ is similar to our study period.
C�2 9 s,
were built prior to World War II. Three- and four-unit tended to follow a simitar age pattern, as
can be seen in Table 9. However, larger, multi-family buildings were built mostly after World
War II. A notable finding in reviewing the data was that all six of the buildings which were
vacant during the study period were over 100 years old, including Dirty Dealing, Empry Promise
and Errant Investor !.
Table 9.
Building Age
Residen[ial
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit
PraOerties in Group (N )
Average Age
100+Years Old (Built Pre-1900)
62+ Yeazs Old (Built 1900 - 1939)
< 62 Years Old (Built 1940 - Present)
Unknown Age
19
100
I ] (52.9%)
8 (921 %)
75
4 (44.4%)
0 (0.0.%)
8 (92.7%)
1 (11.1%J
Total/
Commercial Average
4 32
51 9t
0 15 (46.9q)
0 8 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%J
5 (75.6%)
Surroundings
Several neighborhood, or geographic, factors play a role in the likelihood of a chronic problem
property developing. The first of these is the concentration of poverty. As we discussed earlier,
the inwme and wealth of the key individuals involved, namely the owner or landlord and the
occupant or tenant, makes it more or less likely that chronic problems will develop. But poveRy
is also a geographic phenomenon. Although not all poor people live in "poor"'neighborhoods,
there are neighborhoods which have significantly lower average incomes than other ,
neighborhoods. This lack of resources has the power to predispose not just an individual
property, but entire neighborhoods to chronic problem property development.
In addition to poverty having potentially negative impact on individual properties and
neighborhoods, so can the presence of blight. Sometimes blight may take the form of physicai
decline and dilapidation of surrounding buildings. It may also include the crimes and behaviors
of people who contribute to the general sense of disorder in the uea. Not surprisingly, the
existence of other chronic problem properties in the surrounding area has these effects and
contributes to the neighborhood's decline. Several of our case studies were so situated. Errant
Investor I and II are on the same City block, and neaz other problem, or chronic problem
properties. Cash Cow is a large apartment building in the midst of other lazge apartment
buildings in similar circumstances. Nasty Four and Down `N Out aze neighbors, as aze Career
Criminals and Fear Factor. Finally, Cracking Up is in a sma(1 azea of the City known for many
kinds of problems. As discussed in the methodology section of the Introduction, many of the
properties nominated for the study were a p,art of a cluster.
. a ,�,,..._ .
.ei'�: "�
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center �y� ys�` �, �t Paul City Council Research Center
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons A ��
�Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
rYa
Case Study: Gangster Boyfriend
"Gangster Boyfriend° is a single family rental property
that was registered as a vacant building for 15 months
unril it was rehabilitated and sold to a property
investment company in February of 1998. The cturent
landlords appeared to be buying the properiy on a
conhact for deed from the property inveshnent
company. They, in tum, rented the property to a
woman believed to be a family friend. Interestingly,
even though this property is rental, the taxpayers have
claimed a homestead exemption for this property. We
have advised the County Assessor of this situation and
he is investigating for possible fraud. The home is in
good physical condition and there aze no laown
violations of Ciry codes with respect to the interior.
There have, however, been several exterior violations
for such things as garbage, abandoned vehicles,
fumimre and tires.
The serious problems with this property began in
January 2000. In the ensuing ten months there were
problems of every sort. The police were called 7A times
to deal with dishtrbances, disorderly boys and noise
violations. Drug use and alcohol abuse began to create
feaz among the neighbors. The FORCE unit, the Gang
Strike Force and Family Interve�tion all worked on this
address. The emergence of al] these problems
coincided with the primary tenant becoming involved
with a notorious local gangster who lived there on an
intemuttent basis. He was believed to have a number of
women companions throughout the City, and was said
to have moved from one woman's home to another's on
a regular basis. The tenant, and perhaps another woman
who also lived in this home, seem to be unable to care
for themselves and their children. Even their animals
suffered from neglect ]eading to several interventions
by Animal Control.
The neighbors were very active and attempted to
organize to deal with [his situation. The Block Club
met extensively and the District Council attempted to be
of assistance. Finally the situation came to a head in
October 2000. The Gang Sfike Force came to the
property and azrested, with considerable fanfaze, the
gangster boyfriend. Shortly afterwazds, the landlord
evicted the tenant and the property became quiet again,
which it has remained through 2001. The evicted
tenant has moved to another Saint Paul address and it
remains to be seen if problems follow. Cunently, the
property is reportedly vacant and for sale.
Vacant Buildings and Abandonment
�o�.""'�O 33
Another dominant feature in the landscape of chronic problem properties is vacancy and
abandonment— both for the chronic problem properties themselves and the surrounding area. -
Table 10 shows that 6 of our 32 case studies experienced an extended period of vacancy between
1994 and the end of 2000. In a typica] yeaz, about 400 of the City's buildings are registered as
vacant with the City, representing one-half of one percent of the City's 79,000 properties. [n our
study, 19 percent were vacant in the seven years we examined. Notably, almost all of the vacant
properties in this study are one- and two-unit residences, which were all more than 100 years old.
Oftea these properties were not the only vacant buildings in their neighborhoods. When we were
out in the neighborhoods looking a the chronic problem properties in our study, it was clear that
some of these areas were checkered with vacant and abandoned buildings.
Table 10. Registered Vacant Building Status 1994-2000
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit Commercial I Total
Properties in Group (N =) 19 9 4 I 32
Registered Vacant Building
Never A Registered Vacant Building
5 (26.3%) 0 (0.0%) I (25.0%) 6 (18.8%)
14 (73.7%) 9 (100.0%) 3 (75.0%) 26 (�47.3%)
Abandonment of a property is relatively hard to determine looking at ownership alone. What we
can determine is when the owner has not taken steps which to keep the property occupied and
useful. What this tended to look like in our review of the property's records were situations
where 1) property tares were in arrears, putting the property in danger of becoming a tax
forfeiture (see Table 6); or 2) needed rehabilitation and maintenance were neglected, so that a
building remained vacant over a long period of time. Abandonment also involved the
"disappearance" of an owner for a currently occupied property, as was the case in Errant Investor
li and Old and Ugly.
Each of the factors— concentrated poverty, clustering of chronic problem properties, vacancy
and abandonment— are different. None of them, alone or together, is a predictor of chronic
problem property development. They aze instead factors that can predispose individual
properties and neighborhoods to developing chronic problems. In our research we saw a
significant number of chronic problem properties which were not in "poor" areas with high levels
of vacant and abandoned buildings. We did, however, note that these factors may predispose
properties in some areas to becoming chronic problems.
Personal and Behavioral Factors
Severa] personal and behavioral characteristics of the key actors involved, namely the owner or
landlord and the occupant or tenant, makes it more ]ikely that problems will become chronic at a
particular property. Although these aze discussed throughout the study, we will touch on them
here as well, because we believe they can make a difference in the likelihood of a chronic
problem property developing. Recall our earlier discussion in this chapter of individual actors
being unwilling or unwilling to address the problems which they face. In each case, it is our
contention that both the owner and the government must be unwilling to correct problems.
,.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center ;�„„'� ��M Paul Ciry Councii Reseamh Center
;tt€�;
r'a
34
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson$
"Over the Edge" is an ugly old house with a former
abandoned commercial space attached to its front. It is
currently configured as a triplex, although County
records show it to be a duplex. The house is an
"eyesore" occupied by very poor and "scary" people,
reportedly attracted to the building because of its
relatively low rent and lack of tenant screening. The
wi[ in the fron[ `bld commercial" section of the house
has been notorious among communiry and police
officials for years for reported drug acfiv�ty. This
fiplex is owned by two investors, both of whom own a
few other rental propert�es according [o Ramsey County
tax data
The building has passed Certificate of Occupancy
inspections except conection orders regarding doors
and locks on the inside. The City condemned one unit
in July 1999 because of a utility shut-off for
nonpayment. The exterior has been more of a problem
wtith many conection orders for doors and locks,
garbage, fumiture in yazd, abandoned vehicles and tall
weeds. Animal Control came [o the property several
times in the fall of 1999 to address dog concems. The
owners have responded to these corzection orders, albeit
slowly. One tag was issued to the owner in December
2000 for failing to comply with Certificate of
Occupancy requirements.
Police have been called to this address 21 times during
a two-yeaz period. For a triplex of this type, this is a
relatively low number. The police have been called to
respond to d�sturbances, nazcotics, disorderly boys,
theft, burglary and the death of a child. In addition to
these officia] calls, there have been reports of violence
that spills into the street, public drinking, domesric
violence, child neglect and drug activiry. The FORCE
unit investigated this property in the summers of I999
and 2000. In both cases investigations were conducted
into alleged drug use and sales. In 1999 FORCE
conducted surveitlance on four occasions, attempted a
drug purchase and conducted a"Knock & Tallc.° In
Jmme 200Q the FORCE unit executed a seazch warrant
and made several arrests. From August of 2000
through June of 2001 there were no calls for police
service to this property. Beginning in July 2001, old
pattems re-esiablished themselves, and late in the year a
domesrio-related aggravated assault occa�red here.
The problems at this property suggested the need for
social service interoenrion and the Cou�ty conducted an
assessment. That assessment suggested a lazge part of
the prob]em was due Yo the racisY attitudes of [he
neighbors. The neighbors countered this by stating that
their concems were not being taken seriously and they
wanted more input into the assessment process, as they
were very concemed about what they were seeing at
this property. The relatively low number of police ca]ls
suggests tha[ the neighbors may have given up on
calling the police except for their most serious
concems. They may have just come to tolerate a level
of cnminal activity at this location. This changed,
however, when a fenanYs child died in the building
from being smothered when a drunken pazent rolled-
over on the child while sleeping. This tragic event
drove neighbors over-the-edge conceming their
tolerance of the misbehavior in their midst.
Nonetheless, the property confinues fo be an unresolved
problem for the neighborhood and City. It
demonshates how the lines between code violations,
nuisance crime, domestic abuse and child neglect can
converge. The problems simply become a festering
sore which infects the neighborhood with farigue,
hampering residents abiliry to address problems pro-
actively. Additionally, the element of reported racism,
whether real or not, worked to drive a wedge between
the actors, disheartening those involved.
�OZ. oZ.�O�( 35
Chronic problem situations often develop because the owners, occupants and tenants do not take
the actions available to them. So, why would someone act this way? In addition to our
sociological discussion of deviance, we think it is necessary to point out some of the most
common personal and behavioral characteristics we came across that helped create or
complicated the problems at these properties.
Alcohol and drug abuse is a dominant feature in our case studies. There are two ways to gauge
whether alcohol abuse was a problem for the properties we studied. The first was looking at the
reason for, and disposition of, police calls. If there were calls labeled "drunk" as the reason for
requesting police service, or calls where the disposition was to take someone to "detox, we
could be fairly sure alcohot or drug abuse had reached a critical level.
Table 24 indicates the number of times taking a person to detox was the outcome of a call for
police service. We also relied on the people we interviewed to tell us this kind of information.
Although we had no specific question relating to drug or aicohol use, when we asked why a
property had become a chronic problem, they often volunteered information on the role of drugs
and alcohol. Over the Edge, Misplaced and Down `N Out all have serious problems related to
alcohol and possibly drug use. Thidy-seven percent of the properties had at least one public
drinking episode during our study period. The majority of our case studies (59%) had d�ug o�
narcotics-related problems. In many cases, the propeRies were occupied by relatively low-level
drug dealers, who used dealing as a way to support their addiction. This type of situatiqn existed
in Errant Investor 1, Dirty Dealing and Danger Island.
The presence of domestic violence dominated the landscape of chronic properties we examined.
As we discuss more in depth in the next chapter, 88 percent of our case studies had at least one
episode of domestic violence during our study period. In almost all cases, the numbers were
much higher. Domestic violence was the most prominent feature of all of our case studies. This
situation, although altogether too common, is perhaps best discussed in OverwheTmed and Errant
Investor Il. �
In each case, we may surmise that alcoholism, drug abuse or violence complicates the problems
already present at these properties. Another conclusion we may draw is that th�se aze the
underlying problems at these properties, and the other things we see, whether it be uncollected
gazbage, broken windows or dog fights, aze symptoms. Both of these conclusions are valid. Our
focus is on the problems propensity to occur together with the other issues surrounding chronic
problem properties.
-;,,,';;4:,,:
] t � .� .,
20025aint Paul City Council Research Cer� ��",,� ^ k'���� � CO°ncil Research Center
' .
�h�onic Problem Properties in Saint Paui: Case Study Lessons
Case Study: Over the Edge
36
y n cr
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paui: Case Study �esso da�a�P 4 37
ns Chronic Problem Propertiesin Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
LIVING WITH THE PROBLEMS
Up to this point, this study has discussed in general terms what chronic problem properties are,
and who is affected or hazmed by them. In Living with the Problems, we will discuss in depth
how they ]ook, feel, and even smell to those who aze harmed by them. The case studies have
numerous instances of health, housing and property maintenance code violations, which we can
use, along with other information, to describe the appeazance and habitability of these properties.
We aiso use police department call information and FORCE unit materials to describe the crimes
occurring at these properties. Equaliy important, however, is the issue of who is harmed by the
existence of these properties, and this is where we begin.
WHO IS HARMED?
At an abstract level, we can fairly say the entire community is hurt by a chronic problem property.
We can surmise that all property values aze lowered a little, and the quality of life for all decreases
when blight and feaz conditions aze mtroduced anywhere. But we all do not live in, next to, or
down the street from this type of property— even if we aze aware of a few of them. In order to
get a better grasp of who is harmed by these properties and what their experiences are, we discuss
neighbors, govemment agencies, tenants and occupants in this context.
Neighbors and Government Agencies
Diagram E. To Whom Is A Property A Chronic Problem
We began ourresearch process
at the neighborhood organization
and City level by having
neighborhood organizers, elected
officials and enforcement staff
identify chronic problem
properties in their azeas of
responsibility. As discussed in
the Research Methods, on page 5,
not everyone identified the same
properties. Astonishingly, only
I I percent of the properties on
our list of nominations were
nominated by more than one
person. However, in most cases,
even though one person did not
nominate a property and another
did, there was general agreement
that it, too, was a chronic
Code
Entorcement &
Certi£eate ot ,
Danger
Islantl
Hame \
Alone
La Cucaracha
Overvrhelmetl
Errant
Investor I 8 II
Misplacetl
Empty
Promise•
\ Empty
Promise"
community/ oow� a
Neighboehood a�
Police
Bwthers
Grim
8ad
eo
Career
:riminals
Beginn�ng of Study Penod
° End af Study Penod
problem property. In a few cases, we were surprised to find that there was not agreement
between our key constituencies as to whether a particulaz property was a chronic problem.
Diagram E shows, for example, that Bad Boys was a chronic problem for the neighborhood and
Police, but not for Code Enforcement. On reflection this makes sense. Bad Boys had no serious
exterior code violations, so it passed largely under the radar of Code Enforcement staff.
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Cen[e�
Similarly, �splaced was a chronic problem for the CeRificate of Occupancy Program and the
neighborhood, but not for Police.
The lessons to be leamed from this are best portrayed in several other case studies. Empty
Promise began the study period as duplex occupied by a dnxg addict and his drug using tenants.
The property had numerous code violations and ended up being condemned. Following
condemnation, it became a registered vacant building and on at least two occasions was occupied
by squatters. While it was occupied it was very much a wncem of Code Enforcement officials.
After it was a secure vacant building and squatters were eliminated, it became only an occasional
concern of Code Enforcement, as it monitored the building to ensure it was secure. Similarly,
Empty Promise was of little concem to Police once it became vacant. However, during the entire
study period, it was perceived by the neighborhood to be a chronic problem— first, as an
"active" problem with problem occupants, then as a more "passive" problem as a dilapidated
building standing as a reminder of problems present in the neighborhood.
In another case, Down `N Out, the neighborhood believed the use of the building to be a chronic
problem. Although. The City's Certificate of Occupancy Program and Police Department had a
fair leve] of activity, the thing that made this a chronic problem was its use as a rooming house
for marginal "down and out" chazacters in the midst of a residential neighborhood of mostly one
and two-unit residences. In the reverse situation of Down `tV Out, Danger Island was seen as a,
chronic problem by City Certificate of Occupancy Program and Police Department �but not the
neighborhood. The geographic isolation of Danger Island keeps it from being a serious problem
to neighbors to the property. However, the extremely high level of service required of inspectors
and police officers signals the depth of problems within this building. '
Tenants and Occupants
The situation at Danger Island opens up another level of questions. If the neighbors do not seem
to be affected by the problems at this property, to whom is it a prob(em? The answer is, of
course, the tenants who live in the building. Diagram F shows one part of the dynamic. In this
diagram, we see what proportion of units generate the most calls for police service in the multi-
unit buildings included in our study. In a couple of cases, including Danger Island, more than
half of the units generate high levels of calls for police service. There are also units which
generate almost no such demands. Therefore, we assume that at least in most cases, the
individuals in these units are not generating the problems. Instead, these units tend to be
occupied by people who experience the problems as victims. They also seem to lack the ability,
financially or otherwise, to remove themselves from the chronic problem property. Danger
Island is the most extreme example of a property which has a majority of units in trouble.
Anotker layer of problems for Danger Island, as with many multi-unit buildings, is the shazed
space of the building. We consistently found that the general areas of the building generated
more calls than any individual unit. In these spaces there were disturbances, drug dealing and
use, domestic argumenu and assaults, fights and aggravated assaults, among other problems.
Problem units, coupled with problem shaied space in the building, work to create ari atmosphere
of feaz and intimidation for those who are not a part of generating the problems.
;
- :U'�',"�,". m?.
'�;"'��aint Paul City Council Researoh Center
�A
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessop
JO
Case Study: Through the Cracks
"I'hrough the Cracks" is a rnther unassuming duplex
located in the middle of a block among a number of
other similaz properties. Problems with this property
have continued for many yeazs. The cuaent owner,
who owns several similaz rental properties in [he same
Saint Paul neighborhood, bought this property in 1987
and has realized a significant appreciation in its value.
The complaints to the Ciry about this property are
mainly about the failure of the owner to make needed
coirecrions and the behavior of [enants, as the owner
did not seem to be screening tenan[s.
The tenants disturb and, sometimes, frighten their
neighbors. There is a lot of drinking, hassling and
intimidatiag behaviov At least one neighbor, a Hmong
woman, reported being temfied for herself and her
family. Despite concem about the behavior of the
tenants, the police have not received many calls about
this address. They have been called 15 times during
our study period and have written five repor[s about
incidents a[ this address for aggravated assault, the
execuHon of wazrants, domestic assault, narcotics and
interfenng with 91 ]. The FORCE Uni[ attemp[ed an
unsuccessful drug buy in September 2000 and
attempted a"Knock & Talk" in November 2000, only
to fmd the tenants in quesdon in the process of moving
out. In May 2001 an arrest was made for drug law
violations.
The City haz responded to seven code complaints
during the study period by conducting three swnmary
abatements and three vehicle abatements. The
sununazy abatements have primarily involved garbage,
glass, a toilet, a bathtub, diapers, old Food and
overflowing gazbage containers. The consis[rncy of the
gazbage problems saggests the owner does not have a
regular garbage pick-up service. The building has also
had problems on the interior with heai, electricity and
water damage. The exterior has experirnced problems
with garbage, windows and abandoned vehicles. On at
]east one occasion a complaint about this property was
mishand]ed by the City. A tenant called Citizens
Service in November 1999 to complain about no
bathtub, electrical prcblems, ceiling ]eaking, inadequate
hea[ and no window glass. Code Enforcement did not
respond to this complaint until fully five months later
when an inspector final]y responded. For some reason,
despite the seriousness of the complaint, the matter
seems to have been referred to the Dayton's Bluff
Iniriative rather than being handled directly by Code
Enforcement. When the City finally did respond to this
complaint, [he complaining [enant had ]ong since
moved.
This property continues to hover ` just below" [he City's
radaz and the condirions [hat make it likely ro remain a
chronic problem property aze still presen[. The
conditions include poverty, a distinct lack of
neighborhood cohesion, no tenant screening, an
uninvolved owner and generally bad neighborhood
conditions. While things may have improved at this
proper[y because some of the worse tenants have moved
on, [he City cleazly "dropped the ba1P' with respect [o at
least one major complaint about condition in this
duplex.
Down'N Out (20 units)
❑ 0 - 3 Calls
❑ 4 - 9 Calls
� 10 or tviore Calls
% = Percent Units in Building
Cash Cow (69 uni[s)
%
General Areas of Building
Categorized as a"Unit" for this
Graphic Presentation
�� Notably, this was also the case with Career Criminals where the nephews introduced criminal activity to the
property. In Career Criminals, however, there was information to lead us to believe the uncle was a part of the nephews
criminal endeavors.
';�Z�int PaW City Council Research Center
4002 SaiM Paul City Council Rasearch Center �,"`;'?`'
.. i{e�'y-:ti:,..
��'� i
i^m.��.^�-.
9 Chroni� Froblem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
C�ot 39
The other key group of tenants or occupants affected by the existence of the problem unit, are
those who live within the unit or property. In many cases, those within these problem units or
propeRies are generating the problems being experienced. ,However, within these units there
often lives a family or partner. There are many examples in this case study where all of the
family members actively contribute to chronic problems, as is the case with Bad Boys, Cracking
Up and Career Criminals. However, there are also many examples where people within the
chronic problem property or unit aze also victims. We see this clearly in Brothers Grim, Errant
Investor II and Overwhelmed where domestic violence is present, as it is in 88 percent of our
cases. In Gangster Boyfriend though, we see a different, but similar situation. In this case study,
there is no reported domestic violence per se, rather the problem is the boyfriend's other criminal
activiTies, such as drug dealing or dog fighting. In this case study, he introduces the problems
into the household.
Diagram F. Multi-Unit Apartment Buildings, Calls for Police Service for Individual Units
Nasty Four (4 units) Danger Island (11 units)
The Case Case (12 units)
La Cucaracha (2S units) Alligator Alley (30 units) -
40
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessop
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
802.�'oZ�9 �/ 41
"Home Alone° is an average looking duplex, where
one unit is homesteaded, while the other unit is rental.
It is located in a relatively stable, but lower income
neighborhood, and in many ways, this house is not
distinguishable from its neighbors. We have no
informarion regazding the interior of the building other
than the gas and electric were shutoff briefly several
yeazs ago. However, this duplex is in the rental
registration program, and thus inspectors could have
gained access. The exterior has experienced some
problems in recent yeazs because of problems with
windows, tall weeds and grass, vehicles, mattresses and
sewer. Code Enforcement has received five calls
complaining about this proper[y. Subsequent
inspecrions noting violarions of the building
maintenance code have resulted in rivo summary
abatements for tall weeds and trash in the yazd. A
citarion was also issued for the exterior and [all weeds.
What really makes this property standout among its
neighbors is the sense of feaz and unease it brings. The
police have been called to this property 17 tunes during
the study period. Many of the calls have been for
nuisance violations such as public drinking and
dis[urbances. However, a number of the calls have
been for more serious matters such as domestic assault
and fraud. Gunshots have also been heazd in the
backyazd. The most serious calls, however, have
involved child neglect. In one instance child protection
was called in when it was discovered [hat the pazents
k�ad left very small children alone in the backyazd for
maay hows. Evidently, the parents were ioo drunk to
norice the children missing, or the passage of time.
These neglectful pazents greatly concern the neighbors
and social service agencies.
It is uncleat from the records we reviewed whether this
property is owner-occupied. The owner does not accept
any responsibiliry for problems with i}�e tenants. While
the property appeazs to be owner-occupied, from the
fact that the property is homes[eaded, it is also 3n the
rental registradon program, which is not a requirement
for owner-occupied duplexes. We believe, for at leas[
some of the study period, a relative of the owner lived
in the house, ihus meering state law requirements for
homesteading. However, for the majority of the study
period, this was not the case.
Whi]e there aze certainly City issues with the
maintenance of this properfy and some criminal
behavior, [he most conceming problems are social
service and child protecfion issues. The resolution of
these types or problems aze matters for the County to
address. Beyond police intervention, there is little that
the Ciry can do to resolve child neglect concems. This
matter has been refeaed to County Child Protection
agencies. The nature and results of this County
intervenrion aze unknown.
WHEN ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY HARMED?
When thinking about chronic problem properties, some specific propeRies, neighborhoods and
situations aze conjured up in each of our minds. There are conditions out there that ` just bug us."
That fact alone does not necessarily mean one is faced with a violation of laws or property codes.
Part of what happens in neighborhoods today is that people with differing standards of behavior
and property maintenance aze brought together, into close proximity with one another. For
example, experience, past history and upbringing may te11 one that certain things aze done one
way, and another's may say it should be done another way. As cities become increasingly
diverse, this situation is likely to continue.
Differing standards and expectations of behavior and property maintenance can be seen between
different cities; some would say Saint Paul has a look and a feel that is quite different than
Minneapolis. It can be seen between neighborhoods, like Dayton's Bluff— which is one of the oider
neighborhoods in the City and has a history of working and upper classes living neaz one another, and
Highland— where the residents tend to be middle and upper class and most of the housing was built
in the twentieth century, for people moving into their second homes. City's have historically handled
the differing standards and expectations of its citizens by building distinctive neighborhoods which
were often made up of peopte who were primarily of one caltural background. But neighborhood
characters' have changed over time, often for the better, as with lessening racial geographic '
concentration and increased housing opportunities. This coupled with immigration makes our
neighborhoods, particulazly those with affordable housing opportunities, more diverse than ever. `
In Cultural Conflict, people who have lived in the neighborhood for years, with an established set of
values and standards, are confronted with people who aze new to the neighborhood and may not `
shaze the same set of values. In this case study, the neighboring white residents were O.K. with an
outdoor party and drinking, as long as it take place in the backyard. The Afriean American peopte
who lived in Cultural Conflict, would have parties and drink on the front porch, where people from
inner-cities have more traditionally congregated. The case study evens mentions a case where
neighbors called the police because some tenant's children were playing jump rope io the street.
Cultural ConJlict was also a very poorly maintained property with many e�erior code violations.
The situation at this property brings to light issues inspectors and police officers have to deal with
every day: in a complaint-based system of Code Enforcement and law enforcement, we rely on
people to notify the authorities when something is amiss. However, people respond to more than
just strict violations of laws and codes. They respond to things that aze different than what they are
accustomed to, and also to those things and people which scare them.
Another case where a chronic problem property triggered reactions from neighbors is Down `N
Out. Here, the standards of behavior and property maintenance are noticeably different than the
surrounding area. In this case study, it was more the land use than racism or specific cultural
differences coming into play. Down iV Out is a single room occupancy apartment building with
a high level of drinking and drug use, and from the neighborhood perspective, it is a locally
unwanted land use (lulu). , ,
The last type of situation which deserves consideration in this discussion is that of the crazy
neighbor. Anyone who has staffed phoae liaes in an o�ce that takes calls for service, such as
the Police Communications Center or the Citizen Service Office can tell you there are some
people who call often, but rarely have real and founded concems about the behavior or property
maintenance practices of their neighbors. One such case is Dirry Dealing, where a mentally ill
�,,:
':��OZ Saint Pau� City Council Research Center
2�02 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Cente�
;<�e:
Case Study: Home Alone
42
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
O� —� <oq as
woman lives next door to a chronic problem property and frequently calls the City about her
concems. Her complaints were founded from time to time, but by and lazge, they were not.
"Culmral ConflicY' is a very oId duplex in a highly
visible ]ocation on a major thoroughfaze. Because of
its age and condition, it may very well have the lowest
value of any duplex in the City. This rental property is
owned "contract for deed" and has been a chronic
problem for many yeazs.
The physical condition of the building is not good. The
exterior has been the source of problems with tal]
weeds, broken wi�dows and screens. Code
Enforcement has received six complaint calls about this
property within the two yeazs studied. We lmow
nothing about the interior of the building as no City
inspectors have been inside. Gaining access to the
interior of rental duplexes is possible under the Ciry's
rental registration program. However, this property was
not registered during the study period.
The Fire Department has also had an extraordinary level
of activity with this address with three fire runs and
eight emergency medical runs during the two yeazs it
was under study. The Police have been called to this
address 73 rimes in the same time period. This is an
exhaordinary level of service needed for a rivo-unit
building. The po]ice calls aze, however, primarily for
nuisance violations, mostly noise. While some
neighbors and Ciry staff suspect the residents of dmg
dealing, there have been no azrests for drug offenses
and no FORCE unit activity at this address. Violations
aze primarily noise and disturbances along with a few
ca]Is for domestic assaults, fights and assaults. The
responding police officers have written few actual
reports except one major disturbance, which some
called a semi-riot. The usual police response to calls at
this address is to "advise." There is no partiwlaz
pattem to the police calls other than they occur on a
regulaz basis. Po]ice calls in 2001 look much like
previous years, although there was one reported azson
following our study.
This property is a neighborhood nightmaze. The owner
does not screen tenants and has little concern for what
goes on at the properry. This is wmpounded by
cultura] and rnce-based conflicts between the white
neighbors and the black tenants. The tenants see no
problem with moving the'u fumiture and partying in the
front yazd and sometimes the street. In one instance,
couches were placed on the sidewalk as part of an
outdoor parfy. '1'h(S part} ended in four arrests.
Several staff have described this type of situation as the
frontyazd/backyazd syndrome where neighbors aze O.K.
with an ou[door party and drinking, as ]ong as it take
place in the backyazd. Neighbors disapprove of parties
and drinking on the front porch and in the front yazd
where people from innerciries have more tradit�ona]]y
congregated. Some neighbors have pledged themselves
to drive these "undesirables" out of the neighborhood
and call the police at every opportuniry. There seems to
be a racist element to the wnflict at this property. They
have even called the police because some tenants'
children were playingjump rope in the street. There is
an old lady next door who calls the police upon any
provocation. Somerimes the police find a basis for her
reports, sometimes not.
The mix of an uncooperative ]andlord, semi-
incompetent and culhually different tenants and picky
neighbors generates enduring problems. There is some
indication the landlord has recently begun to do some
tenant screening and is beginning to learn the business.
This may begin to break [he cycle of bad tenants being
replaced with bad tenants. However, the property and
its poorly maintained condition conrinues to be a
prominent visib]e reminder to residents who don't like,
sometimes reasonably, the way the neighborhood is
changing.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM ANYWAY?
So just what is it about these properties that makes people worry? They do not usually look as
good as their neighbors, but a lot of properties are like that. The answer is that chronic problem
propeRies scaze us. They scare us not just because of the crime which is too often present, but also
because of their chaos. Someone intimately involved with the property is either unwilling or
unable to fix the problems there. This is why their impact goes so far beyond the boundaries of
their yazds. In order to explore the chronic problems at these properties and why they are so
hazmful, we wili first look to experts and their theories; and then move on to what we have leamed
at a property-specific level.
What the Experts Think
In the course of doing a comprehensive literature review, we discovered a great deal of wo'rk by
researchers to determine the affect problem properties have on urban decline, housing mazkets
and crime rates. Although, most of the literature does not specifically attempt to explain the
origins of chronic problem properties, much ofthe reseazch provides in£ormation on why chronic�
problems properties ue important to study. ,
Broken Windows, Incivility and Disorder
The notion that physical disorder and crime, particularly petty crime, have a negative impact on
housing values, increase resident fears of crime and cause increase in future crime, has been
developed by a number of prominent urban sociologists and criminal justice scholars over the
last two decades. These thinkers have developed a close-knit family of theories linking these
propeRy-associated disorders with crime changes and neighborhood decline_ These theories,
termed broadly as "incivilities theory," have changed the philosophy of policing in a number of
police departments. They also provided municipalities with an important justification why close
attention should be payed to the blight and crime associated with chronic problem properties,
similaz to ones in this study. Incivilities, also known as disorders, are defined by reseazchers as
social and physical conditions in a neighborhood that are viewed as troublesome and potentially
threatening by its residents and users of public spaces. Social incivilities include such activities
as prostitution, drug-dealing, and loitering. Physical incivilities would include such things as
broken windows, junk cars, and garbage houses. Table 11 has lists of both social and physical
incivilities.
In developing strategies to deal with the issue of neighborhood decline and incivilities, social
scientists in the last 20 yeazs have found eyidence that correcting physical and social problems
associated with properties is one of the most fundamental things that must be done to improve
urban neighborhoods. Michael Greenberg, in the article Improving Neighborhood Quality: A
Hierarchy ofNeeds, found City residents believe neighborhoods will only improve if crime and
physical blight are controlled. In a survey of 306 New Jersey residents, respondents stated the
absence of crime and decay is required for neighborhood to be considered excelient. These two
factors were far more important than others, such as quality of
"�f �2 �aiot Paul Ciry Council Research Center
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center "*?'�- '
�':':
Case Study: Cultural Conflict
T
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
"Down `n OuP' is a lazge, old mattsion converted into
20 single resident units. It is next door to another case
study, the "Nasty Four," in an historic preservation
district. The cunent owner has had the property for 20
yeazs. Most of the residents aze on some farm of public
assistance. The building itself is very depressing and
has been described as "a halfway house for people on
thefr way into an insriturion, rather than on the way out
of one."
Not sutprising, there aze conrinuing behavioral
problems. There is lots of drinking, drug use and low-
leveI criminal activity. Dudng the study period, the
police have been called to this address 90 times. Forty
of these calls have been to the general azeas of the
building and 50 have been to specific units. The
incidents have included public drinking, nazcotics,
disorderIy boys, domestic assault, fights, theft,
aggravated assault, vandalism, burglary and azson. The
calls to the general azeas of the building have involved
nazcotics, disorderly boys, domestic assault, fights,
assault, "drunk" and burglary. T}�e calls to individual
units have been primarily domestic assault and aze
rather evenly spread over time and units, so there does
not seem to be a sma11 number of problem people or
units causing the calls to the building. The number of
domestic assaults, disordedy boys and family/children
calls is puzzling for a single occupancy rooming house.
These calls likely stem from issues related to
overcrowding in individual units, among other
problems.�
In recent years, physical maintenance of the building
has not been a stgnificant problem While conection
orders have been issued for both interior and exterior
violations, the owner has taken caze of all of them
promptly. Exterior orders have been issued for paint,
siding, trim, doors, stairs, windows and screens.
Interiox orders have been issued for rodents, insects,
gazbage buildup in a unit, water damage, stairs, holes in
walls, smoke detectors and a bathroom sink. None of
these problems have been particularly serious and all
have been resolved quickty. In essence, there aze no
enduring Code Enforcement prablems.
The basic problem with this property is that the
neighbors do not want this kind of use in their
neighborhood. They consider most of the occupants to
be undesirables and wish they would go somewhere
else to live. They would prefer to see this building used
as housing for students rather than for "down `n
outers." This preference is reinforced by a history of
more serious behavioral and maintenance problems.
There were, for example, FORCE raids conducted at
this properiy in both 1997 and 1998 and, although there
have been none recently, neighbors have a long
memory. Although the owner has become much more
responsible and effective in recent yeazs, ihe neighbors
sti11 see this as something they do not want in their
neighborhood. This is reflected in what is probably an
urban myth about drunks at this building trying to lure
young children onto the property. It is a loca]]y
unwanted land use (]vlu), which also begs [he question,
`�vhere aze these people to live, if not here?" Finally,
all of the problems this property faces aze not helped by
the fact that the "Nasty Four" is [heir next door
neighbor, and both aze widely considered to be pu]]ing
the neighborhood down.
� As a jollow-up, looking at calls for 2001, we see that they are down slightly, but the type oJcalls remains largely
unchanged.
Vd��ot(o`j as
Ghronic Probiem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
public services, recreational oppoRunities, and improving schools, in shaping residents' opinions
about livability and neighborhood quality.
Table 11. Examples of Physical and Social [ncivilities
Physical Incivilities
Broken Windows Gazbage/Trash/Litter
Boarded Vacant Buildings rall Grass/Weeds Grown-up
Vacant Buildings Junk Cazs (Private Properry)
Abandoned Buildings Vandalism
Dilapidated Buildings Abandoned Vehicles (Public Properry)
Social Incivilities
Dumping
Noise
Pomo Theaters
Bars
Graffiti
Prosti[ution Sexual Harassmen[ on the Street Robbery
Public Drinking Domestic Disputes tha[ Spill into Public Space Loitering
Unpredictable People Pubtic Insults Gunfire
Panhandlers Vagrancy Weapons
Mentatly Disturbed Drug Deating (Open Air and Drug Houses) Curfew Violations
HarassmenUHaranguing Auto Theft Street Dog Fighting
School Disruption Arg�ing/Fighting Among Neighbors Truar�cy
Gang Violence Lack of Traffic Enforcement Gambling �
Rowdy Teens (Feral �
Youth) `
Since chronic problem propeRies are the source of a disproportionate amount of crime, physical
and social problems, Greenberg's findings suggest that cities should prioritize neighBorhood
redevelopment efforts to address blight and crime at these properties, before investing time and
resources into other neighborhood redevelopment efforts.
William Q. Wilson and George Kelling in a seminal article published in Harp'ers Magazine,
entitled Broken Windows, ouUined a thesis which states physical incivilities, are in �nd of
themselves, catalysts for neighborhood decline. How physical disorder lead to this decline, in
Wilson and Kelling's broken windows theory, is a multi-step process. The casual model of their
thesis is graphical displayed in Diagram G. -
The first step in the sequence is the existence of a sign of incivility, such as graffiti or a broken
window. It is not important per se that the window is broken. Windows aze always getting
broken, properties are always deteriorating and some homes are always being abandoned. More
important is how long the broken window or other problems remain uncorrected. If the condition
is not repaired in a shoR time, Wilson and Kelling theorize residents will inFer that resident-based
conuols aze weak and other residents do not care about what is happening in their neighborhood.
When this occurs residents will presume ttie neighborhood is socially disorganized, which will
subsequently lead residents to be become increasingly reluctant to use public spaces or to
intervene in disorderly situations. With this withdrawat from the public realm, social and
govemmental controls weaken and residents become increasingly concemed for their safety.
At the same time, local petty criminals, such as graffiti artists or "taggers" and disorderly
teenagers will become emboldened, causing further resident concem and withdrawal. For local
petty criminals and at-risk youth, persistent physical disorder symbolizes opportunities for
delinquency. ARer a(ong period of time, physical incivilities and delinquency will become
ingrained 'en the neighborhood's environment and serious criminals from outside the area will
become awaze of the neighborhood's deteriorating conditions. These criminals will take
oppoRUnities to victimize others because they will perceive their risk of detection or
��',"�Z S�t Paul Ciry Council Research Cen[er
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center "'�
: nv;�s.
,. w�Pa�.kc
�F.r
Case Study: Down `n Out
46
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessoqy �hronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
UOl T�CO`f 47
apprehension to be much lower than in other neighborhoods. If the offender mo[ivation is high
enough and there aze sufficient targets available, they will move into the neighborhood and
commit street crimes.
Diagram G. Wilson and Kelling's (1982) Incivilities Theory"
Unrepaired
Signs ot Inciviliry
Resitlents
Withdraw From
Public Spaces;
Become More
FeaAul
Loeal Ottenders
Emblodened;
More Pretty
Crime; More
Incivilities
Residents
Withdraw More;
Become Feartul
Outside
"Serious"
Ottenders Move
Into Locale
Wilson and Kelling provide a strong rationale for why cities should address chronic problem
properties and the social disorder they create. The policy recommendations they put forth to
prevent or correct this decline focus mainly on encouraging cities to concentrate on enforcement
activities on maintaining both physical and social order. In their article, the authors azgue that
after World Waz II, Police Departments moved away from maintaining order to devote most of
their energy to fighting and solving serious crime. Instead, police and other City enforcement
agencies, should spend more time working with residents to correct incivilities by performing
such duties as moving rowdy groups out the area and notifying agencies so that landlords are
cited for needed repairs or trashed-filled lots are cleaned. Much of the community policing
movement of the last 20 years incorporates the essence of the Wilson and Keliing's theory and
was the inteilectual inspiration for the zero-tolerance approaches undertaken by many cities, such
as New York City, which attempt to reduce crime through eradicating disorder.
Differing Impact Depending on Neighborhood Stability
Kelling and Wilson also discuss in great detail how enforcement activities should be deployed in
City neighborhoods. They roughly sepazate a community into three different types of
neighborhoods: stable neighborhoods with a secure population and healthy housing values;
neighborhoods that have deteriorated and have experienced prolonged declines in housing values,
have a transient population and have experienced a history of incivilities; and neighborhoods in
transition which have been stable but aze threatened by an uncertain future. Wilson ar�d Kelling
suggest this last group of borderline neighborhoods is where incivilities will have the strongest
�� Ralph B. "Caylor. "The Incivilities Thesis: Theory, Measurement, and Policy. " Measuring Whoi Matters:
ProceeJings From the Policing Institure MeetrnKt. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, July 1999.
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Center
impacts on crime, behavioral and emotional outcomes. Incivilities, have little impact in stable
neighborhoods because they are either resolved quickly or residents aze confident enough in their
neighborhood not to perceive incivilities as a threat. In declining neighborhoods, incivilities have
little impact as well, because a relativety large number of incivilities already exist in the community
so additional ones have a diminishing impact. Therefore, it is the borderline neighborhoods in
which remediation efforts should be focused. A number of researchers have followed up on this
thesis and have found that, indeed, municipalities achieve the biggest retum from dollars invested
on reducing incivilities when they focus on borderline neighborhoods."
Neighborhood Cohesion and Collective Efficacy
Since its initial publication, Kelling and Wilson's theory has generated a tremendous amount of
conuoversy. Critics of the theory have azgued repeatedty that, while the phenomena appeaz to be
related, there is little evidence that disorder directly promotes serious crime. For instance, Robert
Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush have noted that homicide, azguably one of the better
measures of violence, was among the number of offenses which they studied for which there was
not direct relationship with disorder. Unlike Kelling and Wilson, they believe physical disorder,
such as the broken window, is just a proxy for the real causes of decline; namely concentrated
poverty and the lack of community cohesion and involvement." This lack of social cohesion and
involvement, Sampson and Raudenbush have termed, collective efficacy. They believe by ,
strengthening collective efficacy, neighborhoods can be stabilized and crime reduced.
A number of scholazs believe collective efficacy is important element in any discussion of
incivilities theory. Not only may strengthening community cohesion and involvement be an
important factor in combating disorder, disorder may have a negative effect on effoRs to build
collective efficacy. As Wilson and Kelling have suggested, disorder leads residents to withdraw
from the public sphere. This withdrawal has the potential to cause them to cease organizing and
participating in activities which would improve collective efficacy.
Reseazchers have also found that the presence of incivilities limits the development of social
capital.'" Social capital is defined as the level of civic engagement, the mutual trust between
residents and the strength of community institutions through which civic interaction takes place.
Physical disorder has also been found to increase the residenYs mistrust of local officials and
potential investors who are interested in neighborhood redevelopment. It is cleaz to us from
our research that chronic problem properties and the disorder associated with them can have
profound effects on the neighborhoods and residents. As we have discussed the problems
associated with chronic problem properties can be linked with increased crime and feaz of crime.
12 Rolf Goetze and Kent W. Colioa "The Dynamics of Neighborhoods: A Fresh Approach to Understanding
Housing and Neighborhood Change." Neighborhood Policy and Planning, eds Phillip L. Clay and Robert M. Hollister.
Le�cington, KY: Lexington Books, 1983, p. 65. . �
13 Robert 1. Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush. Disorder in Urban Neigh6orhoods—Does It Lead to Creme?
Nationa] Institute ojJustice, Research in Brief. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, February 2001.
14 Kenneth Temkin and W illiam M. Rohe. °Social Capital and Neighborhood Stability: M Empirical Investigation.
Housing Policy Debute. Volume 9, Issue 1, p 65.
15 Michael Greenberg. 'Ymproving Neighborhood Quality: A Hierarchy of Needs." Houcing Policy Debate.
Volume 10, Issue 3, p. 620.
Council Researoh Center
Ef3
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Less ��-� p
op$ problem Pro erties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Ud��a
WHAT THE CASE STUDIES TELL US
ABOUT CONDITIONS
We aze in a unique position at this point to delve into how these theories play themselves out in
our case studies and how they led to the conditions at these chronic problem propeRies. In order
to do this, we will first examine some of our interviewees "ratings" of the conditions. We will
then discuss the specifics of how these properties differ from their neighbors, by Iooking at both
their interior and exterior code violations, and then the criminal activity that occurs there.
Ratings
The case studies have many references about how these properties do not meet community
standards. Many of these observations come from a review of official records, such as inspection
and police reports. While these sources give us specific information about the violation of codes
and ]aws, they do not necessarily capture how these properties compare to their immediate
neighbors. In the research process, we conducted a lazge number of interviews- many with
community organizers and elected o�cials. The many stories we heard- and verified to the
best of our ability- gave color and context to the official file information we reviewed. In order
to get a more precise sense of these people's feelings about the individual properties, we asked
them to rate the properties in their area on a scale of one to ten (with one being the worst and ten
the best) their perceptions of the housing coaditions and sense of propeRy and personal safety.
We then asked them to rate the same things for the one-block azea surrounding the property. The
averages of these ratings appeaz in Tabte l2. In all cases, we found that the properties were
perceived to be worse than their surrounding neighbors.
T ab1e 12. In t e rview F
Prnperty Raiings
Properties in Group (N =)
Residential
I-2 Unit � 3+ Unit
ig and Safc
Commercial
Housing Conditions of Neighborhood
Housing Conditions of Property
Personal Safety in Neighborhood'-
Personal Safety aUin Property
Property Safety in Neighborhood'-
Safety aUin Property
19 9 4
5.8 5.0 3.9
4.2 3.4
5.9 5.0
3.7 3.7
5.3 4.4
4.1 2.9
2.1
3.7
23
3.6
�c
Housing Conditions
in the case of buildings which are over 100 years old. In this case, the immediate area received
an average rating of 5.6, but the studies were rated 3.2.
Property Safety
Perceptions of property safety for the area surrounding our chronic problem properties were rated
and average of 5.0 on our one to ten scale, while the same rating for our case studies was 3.6. In
the case of property safety, boTh commercia] and residential properties with three or more units
received poor ratings in our case studies with 2.5 and 2.9 respectively. The biggest differences
between neighborhood and case studies was again observed with owner-occupied case studies
(4.5) compared to their neighborhoods (6.6). A big difference was also seen between multi-unit
residential case studies (2.9) and their immediate neighborhoods (4.4).
Personal Safety
The final category we asked our interviewees to rate was their sense of personat safety at these
chronic problem properties and in the surrounding area. In this case, the average rating for a
chronic problem property was 3.5, while the surrounding area was rated 53. Commercial-
buildings received the lowest ratings with 2.3. The next lowest ratings were for our chronic '
problem properties which were more than 100 yeazs old.
�
Exterior Conditions
In the earlier discussion of signs of disorder and incivility, the exterior conditions of chronic
problem properties were highlighted. Of those signs of disorder that occur on private property,
all were reported in some aspect of our case studies, except porno theaters. This is reflected in
Tables 13 and 14, as well as in the case studies themselves. ,
Physicai Signs of Incivility
Broken Windows Garbage/Crasfi/Litter Dumping'
Boazded Vacant Buildings Tall Grass/N'eeds Grown-up Noise
Vacant Buildings Junk Cars (Private Properry) Pomo Theaters
Abandoned Buildings Vandalism Bars
Dilapidated Buildings Abandoned Vehicles (Public PropertyJ Graffiti
5.3
3.5 Because our research involved looking at Code Enforcement records in-depth, we have identified
those aspects of the case studies exterior conditions that would qualify them as dilapidated
5.o buildings. "Broken Windows" and tom screens were the most common structural problems
3.6 observed by inspectors at a rafe of 44 percent for all of our case studies. In addition to broken
windows, the presence and condition of doors, siding, paint, and the roof all contribute to these
properties' lack of "curb appeal."
The housing coaditions for the area surrounding our chronic problem properties were rated an
average of 5.3 on our one to ten scale, while the same rating for our case studies was 3.7. "I7ie
building conditions of commercial case studies received the worst ratings as a category of
propeRies with an average of 2. L Interestingly, the starkest differences between case studies and
neighborhood were observed for owner-occupied properties, where the immediate azea received
an average rating of 6.7, but the studies were rated 4.4. Another big discrepancy can be observed
2002 Salnt Paul Ciry Ccuncil Research Center
o Chronic P P roi
Conditions
Average
32
53
3.7
�; fi,;,;
„��.�,.;�t Paul City Council Research Center
V",;€^
�
M
50
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso� Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
"Fear Factor° is an older single-family dwelling in the
middle of the block in a troubled neighborhood. This
home was owned for many yeazs by an angry,
belligerent old man with a serious drinking problem.
He was known to yell at and berate his neighbors often.
In recent yeazs, two grandsons have ]ived with him.
The grandfather died during our study period and the
property seems to have been taken over by the
grandsons. The house seems to be deteriorating even
more rapidly under their control. The neighborhood is
not helped by that fact that the house next door (Career
Criminals in this study) is also a chronic problem
property.
The City has never conduc[ed an inspection of the
interior of [his house. However, the exterior has been a
problem. In 1999 and 200Q the Ciry has needed to
conduct three summary abatements for gazbage, wood,
ta]] weeds, appliances and rubble. The crumbling
retaining wal] has also been a problem for years.
The Police have been called to this address on 13
occasions during the study period. These calls have
invo]ved theft, nazcotics, weapons, disorder]y boys,
domestic assault, assault and vandalism. Interestingly,
no reports have been written in response to any of these
calls.� Despite the fact that neighbors believe the
grandsons aze involved in dmgs, there is no FORCE
file for this property. The reason may be that drugs are
stored, but not sold, here. The grandsons who live here
reportedly work in partnership with other neazby houses
where they sell the drugs stored at Feaz Factor. They
also sell drugs from this property on the street.
Neighbors report a lot a night time activity at this
address; however, it does not seem to involve
individual wstomers for illegal drugs, but rather street-
level dealers coming to resrock their "merchandise".
The occupants of this house create a geat deal of feaz
in the neighborhood. They have reportedly been
threatening towazd neighbors, and those who have
called the police speak of being subject to retaliation.
These threatening behaviors and criminal activit�es,
togeiher with the very poor relationship the older man
had with his neighbors, have worked to alirnate the
neighbors and prevent them from taking acUOn to
reclaim [heir safety and sense of community.
� Following our study period, police were ca[led to this property 14 times in 2001. Five of these incidents resulted in
repons 6eing written relating to the e�ecution ofsearch warrants, aggravated assau[t, domestic violence, obstructirsg
legal process and auto theJt.
Table 13. Exterior Structural Problems
Code Violation
-- o v.as� i a,
Commercial Total
n....�.tioc in Grmm M= 1
Windows/Screens
Door Locks: broken/missing
Paint: bad condition
Siding: bad condition
Roof/Fascia/Soffits: holes/
leaking
Outbuildings: poor
condition
Walls: holes, bad condition
Stair Condition
4
0 (0.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0-0%J
2 (50.0%)
1 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
32
14 (43.8%)
11 (34.4%)
10 (3/.3%)
8 (25.0%)
6 (18.8%)
6 (18.8%)
4 (12.5%)
2 (6.3%)
Fxterior Structura!
P�oblems Total
2 (50.0%) � 25 (78.1%)
m_��_ lA
�
i
Code Violation
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Onit
19 9
9 (47.4%) 5 (55.6%)
5 (263%) 5 (55.6%)
3 (5.3%) 7 (77.8%)
4 (21.1%) 4 (44.4%)
2 (10.5%) 2 (22.2%)
5 (26.3%) 0 (0.0%)
1 (53%) 2 (22.2%)
I (5.3%) 1 (I1.1 %)
14 (73J%) 9 (700.0%)
Exterior Problems
Residential
1-2 Unit
Commercial I Total
Properties in Group (N = )
19
4
Garbage/Trash Buildup
Junk Vehicle
Talt Grass and Weeds
Fumiture
Mattresses
Appliances
14 (73.7%)
8 (42.1%)
]0 (52.6%J
8 (42.7%)
6 (31.6%)
5 (26.3%)
3+ Unit
9
4 (44.4%)
4 (44.4%)
2 (22.1%)
3 (333%)
2 (22.2%)
1 (11.1%)
2 (50.0%)
2 (50.0%)
I (25.0%)
0 (0.0%J
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
32
20 (62.5%)
14 (43.8%)
13 (40.6%)
11 (34.4%)
8 (25.0�)
6 (18.8%)
Garbaee/Yard Total 18 (94J%) 5(55.6%) 4(100.0%) I 27 (84•4%)
The other major category of exterior code violations we tracked had nothing to do with the
buildings' structura] character, but rather with the yard or surroundings of the properties. Here
the most common problem was an inordinate build-up of household gazbage and trash. Given
that the City has private, rather than public provision of these services, this situation is not
altogether surprising. In many of these chronic problem propeRies, the relevant actors are either
unable or unwilling to maintain this service. Related to the accumulation of regular household
garbage, there were also relatively high levels of junk furniture, mattresses and appliances on ,
these properties. [n total, 84 percent of our case studies had some kind of garbage or yard
exterior code violation during our study period.
2002 Saint Paui Gity Council Research Cente�
,�.,
�:,��ao° oz
�m:;.:'..v .,
City Council Research Center
Case Study: Fear Factor
52
Interior Conditions
The issues at this property revolve around the owners
inability, or unwillingness, to maintain the exterior of
the property, the keeping of a commercial truck and a
dog. The neighbors have been complaining for yeazs
about a never-ending home maintenance project.
Scaffo]ding was pu[ up yeazs ago to repair and paint the
exterior of the building. Little, if any, home repairs
have actually occuired. The neighbors have complained
to the City and inspectors have issued orders to repair
the exterior of the building. These orders have been to
little effect. The owner was tagged and was ordered in
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons � M1
Chron�� Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
For a few months, a dog also caused a great dea] of
concem. During that rime Animal Control was called
seven dmes for the dog running loose. Citations were
issued on two occasions and the owner was aiso ordered
ro clean up animal litter. The dog problems ended after
this flurry of activity.
A lazge commercial truck was also being kept on the
property much to the displeasure of the neighbors. The
City attempted to deal with this situation by ordering it
removed based on zoning laws that prohibit the keeping
of commercial vehicles within residential districts. The
matter went to court and the judge ruled in the ovmers
favor because the truck was not being used for
commercial purposes. The Ciry has since revised the
City Codes to prohibit this type of storage of
commercial vehicles.
There is considerable difference of opinion regazding
this situa[ion. Some see the owner as a difficult,
anogant and possibly dangerous individual who enjoys
aggravaring his neighbors and City inspectors. Others
see this as an unfortunate situarion where his neighbors
aze hazassing a man with an illness. In the time that has
passed following the complet�on of the study period, the
owner's son has taken over the property. Much to the
dismay of neighbors, similar problems aze continuing
along with a few new ones, namely more disturbances
and disorderly conduct.
9
4 I 32
Other (Often Floor Coverings)
Doors: Missing Bad Condition
Holes in Walls
W ater Damage
Stairs: Broken, Bad Condition
"Weird Neighbor" is a single fanilly home in a pleasant
neighborhood. The owner is described variously as
eccentric and azrogant and is reportedly difficult for
both neighbors and Ciry inspectors. At least one
seasoned City inspector is unwilling to go to the
property alone because of the strange and intimidaring
behavior of the owner. The owner is considered by
many to be highly intelligent but mentally ill. His
mental illness is sufficiently debilitating so he is unable
to work.
January 2000 to complete the repairs by Iune 2000. He
was tagged again and failed to appear at the most recent
court date.
Interior Structural Problems Total
The interior conditions of these properties is more difficult to assess than that of the exterior for two
reasons. The first is self-evident. There are simply not as many people who see, and therefore can
report on, the interiors of buildings. The second is the City does not have a periodio-systematic
inspection process for one- and two-unit dwellings. Rather, the City uses complaint-based Code
Enforcement. Therefore, the violations reported in Tables 15, 16 and 17 very likely under-represent
the true level of interior code violations in one- and two-unit dwellings. We found that 100 percent
of the buildings covered by the City's CeRificate of Occupancy program had some type of interior
code violation, while the comparable figure for one- and two-unit dwellings was 63 percent. This is
generally inconsistent with the level and type of interventions required by inspectors at these
properties. For example, the level of correction orders, abatements and citations aze similar between
these two types of property. This is discussed in the next chapter, Dea[ing with the Problems.
4 (21.1 %)
1 (53%)
1 (15.8%)
3 (15.8%)
1 (10.5%)
7(3G8%) 9(100.0%) 3(75.0%) I 19 (59.4%1
8 (88.9%)
6 (66.7%)
6 (66J%)
4 (44.4%)
2 (22.2%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (50.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (O.l!%)
Vc�c ��v i 53
12 (37.5%)
9 (28.1%)
7 (21.9%)
7 (2(.9%)
3 (9.4%)
The same propoRion of our properties experienced interior systems or utilities problems, as
experienced interior structural problems, in both cases 59 percent. The most common system or
utility problem had to do with fumaces and lack of heat, although this was much more common in
the multi-unit residential and commercia] propeRies we studied, than in one- and two-unit residential
properties. This is likely due to the fact that we do not have periodic-systematic inspection for one-
and two- unit rental properties. Another reason could be that one- and two- unit properties are much
more likely to be owner-occupied, thus not warranting complaints to the City. Water shut-offs, on
the other hand, occurred almost exclusively with one- and two-unit residential properties, where one
in five had this occur during our study period. Electricity shut-offs occurred in one-fourth of our case
studies. Only occasionally was the refrigerator, water heater or stove cited as problematic. �
2002 Saint Paui City Councii Research Center
The most common suuctural problems noted for the interiors of our case studies were floor
coverings, such as carpeting or linoleum being excessively wom, Filthy or missing. Other relatively
common interior structural code violations included doors which were missing or in bad condition,
holes in walls and water damage. �
'rahle 15. Interior Structural Problems
Residential
19
Code Violation 1-2 Unit 3+ Unit Commercial I Total �
Pronerttes in Group (N = )
16 Complaint-Based Enforcement is a method of ensuring property, housing, health and building codes are followed
ttvoughout the community by responding to specific complaints or concems citizens or others informed inspection officials
about. Complaint-based Code Enforcement — Ihis is considered one of the three basic approaches to ensuring codes are
observed in the community. Periodio-systematic inspection is the method where buildings and conditions are
comprehensively reviewed on a regular basis. The third approach is a blend of these two, where there aze periodic systemahc
inspections, but inspectors aze also sent out to handle specific complain[s and concems as they arise.
City Councii Research Center
Case Study: Weird Neighbor
54
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso� � problem PropeRies in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
undone. Not surprisingly, the proper[y taYes are also
de]inquent.
The level of criminal activity here has been very high
for yeazs. During our two yeaz study period, the police
responded to 55 calls involving child abuse/neglect,
domesric assaults, fights, theft assault and narcotics.
The FORCE unit has been aclive at this property having
conducted "imock & talks" and executed a search
warrant that yielded a lazge amount of illegal drugs.
"Old and Ugly" is a four-plex that may be the ugliest t s een chi dr n werenn olved in "jump ng" a
building in Saint Paul and is also among the oldest. It local homeless man. There have been problems with
is a lazge and decrepit building that is visually pit bulls and pariying on the front porch, among many
unattractive and painted an ugly co]or. Unfortunately, other nuisance activities. Taken as a whole, this
it is also in a prominent location making it even more building isjust a bad scene. It is eye-sore and a
offensive to the neighborhood. This neighborhood, a dangerous building occupied by a criminal element and
mix of residential az�d commercial, is already in distress their children. Because of their behavior, and possibly
and is just beginning a revitalization process. "Old and also because of their race, they aze not welcome in the
Ugly" has a history of serious problems and is seen to neighborhood. The local neighborhood development
be a huge problem for the area. corporation has considered buying the building for
Both the interior and the exterior of the building have would be too expensive, as would paying for the to
experienced major problems. Within the studied two re]ocate the wrrent [enants so the building could be
yeazs alone, there have been three sumtnary abatemen[ demolished.
orders, two conecrion orders, four Certificate of
Occupancy revocarions and a condemnation. The The owner is inexperienced and in "over-his-head"
interior violations have involved apphances, rodrnts, with this building. His attempts [o manage this �
insects, water damage, doors, gas and electric service building has been an abysma] failure. He has been
a]ong with torn and unsanitary carpets. Exterior totally ineffective in dealing with the property and his
violarions have included paint, siding, fim, doors, tenants. He did no[ even evict the tenant who was the
locks, windows, screens, sidewalk gazbage, abandoned source of [he drugs found by the police in a drug raid.
vehides, fumiture and mattresses. Southern Minnesota The owner claims to be recovering from an injury and
Regional Legal Services (SMRLS) helped initiate a unable to handle the property. He just seems to just
Tenant Remedy Action (TRA) on behalf of the tenants want out from under this building and has recenUy
and the court appointed an administrator for the disappeazed and cannot be found. Whi1e his
property. The tenants, however, did not make rent disappeazance may be a good thing in the long run, it
payments ro the administrator and the property is now makes the resolution of the problems at this property, in
in receivership and the needed repairs have gone the neaz term, almost impossible.
As a post script, this property became a registered vacant building in August of2001. At that time, calls for police
service finally ceased. The property has since become a tax forfeiture to the County, and the former owner is seekng to
pay the back taxes and re-establish his ownership.
2 (50.0%)
1 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Table 16. Interior Systems and Utilities Problems
Code Violation
Residenrial
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit Commercial Total
in Group (N =) 19 9 4 I 32
Heat/Fumace
Electricity
Water ShutofflMalfunction
Gas
Refrigerator
Water Heater
Stove
2 (10.5%)
4 (2I.1 %)
4 (21.1%)
1 (15.8%)
1 (/5.8%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (15.8%)
4 (44.4%)
3 (33.3%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (171%)
I (17.1%)
1 (l1.1%)
0 (0.0%)
oa-� �5
8 (25.0%)
8 (25.0%)
5 (15.6%)
2 (63%)
2 (6.3�)
1 (3.1%)
1 (3.1 %)
Ioterior Systems Problems Total
8 (42.1%) 9 (100.0%) 2 (50.0%)
14, {59.4%)
<
Approximately forty percent of our properties experienced some type of health-relatea code
violation. Both rodent or insect infestation and garbage build-up inside of the house or building
occurred in one in five of our case studies. Overcrowding was cited only in five of the thirteen
case propeRies covered by the City's CeRificate of Occupancy program.
Table 17. Interior Public Health Problems
Code Violation
Commercial Total
in GrouO (N = )
Rodents/Insect Infestation
Garbage Build-up
Overcrowding
Smoke Detectors:
missing/mal functioning
v..ti�:o HPAIrh Problems Total
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit
19 9
1 (5.6%) 6 (66J%)
3 (15.8%) 2 (22.2%)
0 (0.0%) 4 (44.4%)
2 (10.5%) 2 (22Z%)
3 (15.8%) 7 (71.8%)
4
0 (0.0%)
2 (50.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%J
3 (75.0%)
p �.
.�Na`;�'+.��r.-
2002 SaiM Paul City Council Research CeniN ^'p'.�� �ul City Council Resear<h Center
, :k?= + �., y ; '
:a .,,
32
7 (21.9%)
7 (21.9%)
5 (l5.6%)
4 (12.5%)
13 (40.6%)
Case Study: Old and Ugly
56
'"Empry promise" is an oid upper-lower duplex neaz I-
94 in a historic azea This duplex has been vacant since
Mazch 2000 when the City condemned and ordered it
vacant. Prior to that, the house was owner occupied.
For a short while, after it was vacated, it was illegally
occupied by squatters who used this as a home and base
for se]]ing crack and methamphetamine. This building
is in bad condirion and is considered a blight on the
neighborhood. The owner, reported by neighbors to be
a"hop-head" has admitted to selling crack and is
otheiwise seen as an oddball, He rented the other unrt
to friends who were similazly afflicted. He was in the
process of buying this duplex on a contract for deed
from a man who owns one of the other cases in this
sNdy. So it seems that getting the owner occupant out
of the building through the condemnation helped, but
did not entirely solve the problems. The property has
been a problem for a]ong time with code vioiations and
high levels of criminal activity going back many yeazs.
This remains, as chazacterized by one inspector, a filthy
and wom-out building.
Maintenance of this building during our study— and
cleazly a long time before that— has been disgraceful.
The water, gas and el ectric have all been shut-off at one
rime or ano[her during 1999 and 2000. Occupants have
thrown everything imaginable in the yazd resulting m
eight summary or vehicle abatemrnt orders during the
study period. The City has wriften five Code
Enforcement tags during this time. The first three tags
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Cas¢ Study Lesso� m ` j
__. �Chroni� P��blem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
were disposed of by the court with a$200 fine with an
additiona] $700 suspended if there were no further
same or similar violations. The final two tags were
disposed of by the court with more $200 fines and
suspended $700 fines There is no indication, however,
the initial $700 fine suspended was unposed, although
the court disposed of two more "same or similaz"
violarions within only a month. It would appeaz the
court was "only kidding" about that part of the initial
sentence.
The police have also been busy at this building. They
responded to calls for police assistance at this address
72 rimes in only two yeazs. These calls involved many
nazcotics matters along with a dose of domesric assaults
and other crimes such as theft, fraud and auto theft.
The police sent "excessive consumption of police
services leiters" and conducted "[cnock & talks" at this
address. Animal Control was frequenfly called to this
property during 1999 to deal with dog problems.
In summary, this property was owned by a well-laown
slum lord who sold it to a dmg addict on a contract for
deed— possibly in the expectation he would get the
property back when the buyer failed to meet the tem�s
of the contract for deed. Not sutprising, the property
immediately became a crime scrne and a blight on the
neighborhood. Also, to no one's surprise, tares were
not been paid on this property since 1998 and
tivoughout ow study period. Like several o[her of our
case studies, this property became vacant at the end of a
downward cycIe of poIice and code problems which
ended in the duplex being used as a drug house. The
City attempted to intervene, but received only tepid
support from the housing court. Finally, the City did
succeed in getting the property condemned and vacated
which helped unri] squatters moved in and began '
selling nazcotics. When the police finally resolved that
problem, fhe property went empty which it remains to
this day.
,-,> ,
:s:..
„„r _
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Lente�
Crime
In the beginning, when we were endeavored to study chronic problem properties, we thought the
majority of problems we would encounter would be exterior code violations. These aze the
things peopte see and they often come to mind first when thinking about paRicular properties.
However, while broken windows occurred at 44 percent of our properties and there was a build-
up of household gazbage at 63 percent, various types of crimes occurred even more frequently.
For example, disorderly boys" were reported at 66 percent of the case studies, domestic viotence
was reported at 88 percent of the properties and vandalism at 56 percent. While we ceRainly
expected some crime, the level and depth of the problems was one of our more profound
findings.
In the earlier discussion of signs of disorder and zncivility, the following types of behaviors and
crimes were highlighted. Of those signs of disorder that occur on private property, almost all
were reported in some aspect of our case studies, except pan handling and vagrancy. This is
reflected in Tables 18, 19 and 2Q as welt as in the case studies themselves. Notably, although a
few of these are violent in nature, they are, for the most part, nuisance crimes.
Social Signs oF Incivility
Pros[itution Sexual Harassment on the Street Vaga�fcy ��
Public Brinking Domestic Disputes that Spill into Public Space Robbery "
Unpredictable People Public Insults Loitering
Panhandlers Drug Dealing (Open Air and Drug HousesJ Gunfire �
Merttally Distvrbed Auto TheR Weapons
HazassmendHazanguing Arguing/Fighting Among Neighbors Curfew Violations
School Disruption Lack of Traffic Enforcement Str@et Dog Fighting
Gang Violence Truancy
Rowdy Teens/E'erai Youth — also known as disorderly boys by the St. Paul Police Gambling
Nuisance Crime
Nuisance crime, which is sometimes referred to as "quality of life" crime includes a wide variety
of actions which are against the law. For purposes of our study, they aze also those crimes which
do not fit neatly into the categories of violent or property crime. Several types of nuisance crime
were found in our case studies: disorderly boys (66%), narcotics/drug dealing and use (59%) and
disturbances (56%), public drinking (38%). Prostitution was an issue in about one-fifth of our
case studies. Interestingly, severat types of nuisance crime occurred almost exclusively at one-
and two-unit residents, including loud music, haranguing of passers-by, barking dogs and dog
fighting. At the same time, repofted disturbances seemed to be more of an issue for multi-unit
residential buildings.
�� Disorderly boys is a term used in the Police Department s call management system which refers to rowdy and/or
lerly youth.
Gouncil Research Center
57
Case Study: Empty Promise
58
"Dirty Dealing" is an older single family rental house.
It has been vacant for much of the time in recent yeazs.
It was vacant from 1995 to 1998 and became vacant
again when condemned for lack of water and sanitation
in June 2000. Ownership of the property has been
unstable to say the least. It was sold in 1992, 1993,
1994, 1997 and again in 1999. The current owner was
selling it on a contract for deed when it was most
recently condemned. Interestingly, the ]ast tenant
somehow believed she was buying the home, on
contract for deed, from the preceding contrac[ for deed
buyer. Neither the conhac[ for deed buyer, nor the
tenant, aze curzently in the ownership picture with the
property having reverted to the recorded owner. The
most recent tenant was a mother and her two teenage
daughters. The mother is a suspected prostitute who
brought drug users and sellers into the home on a
regulaz basis.
Maintenance of the property has been abysmal, and
problems with garbage build-up and sanitation have
plagued its interior. FORCE unit officers indicated m
interviews that condirions in the house were some of
the worse they had see� unattended children were
left in filth, including dog feces, with little or no food
in the house. Ciry officials issued six summary
abatements, three correction orders and two citarions in
the months proceeding the condemnation for lack of
water and gross unsanitary condirions. The exterior of
the property has had gazbage, mattresses, furniture and
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessp�,��n�c Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
appliances causing numerous code violations. The City
also chazged/billed the occupants for excessive use of
Code Enforcement services.
The police have also been busy at this property.
During our study period, the police were called to this
address I50 times, in spite of the property being
officially vacant for six months of this period. There
was no significant criminal activ�ry in 2001 and very
few calls for police service. For a single fami]y
dwelling, this high call leve] during our study period is
a little short of astonishing. It means, for example, the
police came to this home an average of twice each
week the eighteen months it was ocwpied. Police
responded to calls involving noise, vandalism, detox,
nazcorics, burglary, domesric violence, fights,
dangerous condirions and disturbances. Police
infomiants were offered drugs at this locarion and the
FORCE unit raided the house. They have, not
surprisingly, received norice of excess consumption of
police services. The fact the home was condemtted and
officially vacant did not entirely stop the criminal
activiry. It continued to be used as a crack house by
squatters and other illegal occupants. The number of
police calls d'vninished, but the police continued to
respond to crimina] activity at this address, albeit at a
lesser level than when it was occupied.
The behavior of a neighbor further complicates the
situarion at this address. She is thought by staff to be a
men[ally ill mdividual who is overly sensitive and
racist. She reportedly has an avowed hah of black
people and was detemuned to force them ou[ of the
neighborhood. She is known to complain cons[antly
and tends to take things roo faz. The fac[ that the
owners do not seem to caze much about the property
makes this situation worse. They have not responded
to letters from the disfict council regardmg problems at
the property, and seem profoundly disinterested in
rehabilitating or even maintaining this property. At
thisjuncture the property remains officially vacant but
there is a possibility that a church may purchase and
rehabilitate the property.
,�;�,;..
"�:';
Table 18. Nuisance Crimes
Violation
Residential
1-2 Uait 3+ Unit
Properties in Group (N = )
Disordedy Boys
Narcotics/Drugs
Disturbances
Public Drinking
Pros[itution
Loud Music
Hazangu�ng of Passers by
Dog Fighting
Rarkine Doe Problems
10 (52.6%)
9 (47.4%)
10 (52.6%)
4 (21.1%)
4 (21.7%)
4 (21.1 °/a)
3 (I5.8%)
2 (10.5%)
2 (10.5%)
8 C88.9%)
7 (77.8%)
6 (88.9%)
5 (55.6%)
2 (22.2%)
I (Il.l%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (75.0%)
3 (75.0%)
2 (50.0%)
3 (75.0%)
1 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
21 (65.6%)
t9 (59.4%)
18 (56.3%)
12 (37.5%)
7 (21.9%)
5 (/5.6%)
3 (9.4%)
2 (6.3%)
2 - (k.3%)
:9 (90.
�
tv..ia000rf'rimeTotal 18 (94.7�) 8 (88•9%) 3 (75.0%)
Property Crime
Property-related crimes were only slightly less common in our case studies than nuisance or
violent crime. Of the problems discussed in the research as social incivilities, only auto theft is ?
considered a property crime. In terms of the physica] incivilities, vandalism is,discussed. The
most common property crimes reported for our case studies were vandalism (56%), theft (50%),
burglary (47%) and auto theft (41%). There were also several cases of arson and dan�gerous
conditions reported to police, however not at the same properties.
Table 19.
Violation
Crimes
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Uoit
Commercial I Total
Prnwriiac in GYOUD /N =) 19 9 4
4 (Z00.0%)
3 (75.0%)
2 (50.0%)
2 (50.0%)
o �o.a��
o �o.a�>
Theft
Vandalism
Burglary
Auto Theft
Dangerous Conditions
Arson
4 (21.1%)
9 (47.4%)
6 (31.6%)
7 (36.8%)
�
z �rosi�
0 (0.0%)
8 (88.9%)
6 (66.7%)
7 (77.8%)
4 (44.4%)
z �zz.zi)
4 (44.4%)
32
16 (50.0%)
18 (56.3%)
15 (46.9%)
13 (40.6%)
4 (/2.5%)
4 (12.5%)
26 (81.3%)
o�
P��.,PrrvCrimeTotal 13 (42.1%) 9 (100.0%) 4 (!00%
19 9
v � .�.y, i 59
Commercial I Total
q 32
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Ce�� Saint Paul C"rty Couacil Researoh Center
if
Case Study: Dirty Dealing
Voc "I�v I 61
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso� Ch � on i� problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
Violent Crime
Violent crime is both the most disturbing and most vexing component of our case studies. A
high level of violent crime was reported for these chronic problem properties. Some form of
violent crime was reported for 91 percent of our case studies in the 24 month study period. The
most common type of violence reported was domestic violence (88%), followed by other
violence (66%), fights (38%) and aggravated assault (34%). Also reported were weapons and
missing persons in 16 percent of our cases, stalking in nine percent and robbery in six percent.
Table 20. Violent Crime/Crimes Against Persons
Residential
I-2 Unit 3+ Unit
Commercial
19
4
16 (841%)
9 (47.4%)
3 (I5.8%)
5 (26.3%)
2 (70.5%)
3 (15.8%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
9
9 (100.0%)
9 Q00.0%)
6 (66.7%)
4 (44.4%)
2 (221 %)
1 (11.1%)
2 (221%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (75.0%)
3 (75.0%)
3 (75.0%)
2 (50.0%)
1 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%)
1 (25.0%)
2 (50.0%)
Total
32
28 (87.5%)
21 (65.6%)
12 (37.5%)
11 (34.4%)
5 Q5.6/)
5 (75.6%)
3 (9.4%)
2 (63%)
29 (90.6%)
Given violent crime tends to be an "indoor" crime, with the notable exception of robbery, we
were somewhat perplexed. The violent crime described and alluded to in the Broken Windows
Theory and Incivilities Thesis, seemed to be "outdoor" crime- namely robbery, but also
possibly fighting and gun play. A recent publication from the National Institute of Justice,
Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods- Does It Lead to Crime? (2001) by Sampson and
Raudenbush indicates "robbers respond to visual clues ofsocial and physical disorderin a
neighborhood. These cues may entice them to act, and this in tum undermines collective
efficacy, producing a cycle of yet more disorder and ultimately more robberies."'$ However,
although robbery was occasionatly an issue for the case studies, far and away the most wide-
spread category of violent crime we saw was domestic violence. This leads us to several possibte
conclusions on the Broken Windows Theory. One is that not all violent crimes aze covered by
the theory, only exterior violent crimes. Another is that cues in the exterior world work to
encourage violence inside of residences. A third is that disorder does not promote violent crime
per se, but that the conditions which create it, also create the violence. In other words, the
underlying social conditions that create violent crime, also create social and physicat disorder. "
17 _(89.5%) 9 (100.0%)
3 (75.0%1
Violation
Properties in Group (N = )
Domestic Violence
O[her Violence
Fighcs
Aggravated Assault
Weapons
Missing Persons
Stalking
Robbery
Violent Crime Total
�$ Rober[ J. Sampson and S[ephen W. Raudenbush. Dtsorder in Urban Neighborhoods-Does It Lead to Crime?
Natronal Institute ofJus�rce. Reseorch in Brief. Wazhington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, February 2001.
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Center
How the Problems interact
The term "disorder" is perhaps the best characterization of what is happening in our case studies.
One is struck by the chaos in the surroundings and the lives of the actors involved in these
chronic problem properties. Highlighted below is a"top ten" list of the problems and crimes
identified in our cases. Tables 21 and 22 provide furfher information along these lines.
1. Domestic Violence (880�0� 7. Burglary (47%)
2. Disorderty Boys (66%) and Other Violence (66%) 8. Windows/Screens (44%) and Junk Vehicles -
3. Garbage/Trash Build-Up - Eaterior (63%) Private Property (44%)
4. Narco[ics/Drugs (59%) 9. Tall Grass and Weeds (41%) &. Auto Theft (41%)
5. Disturbances (56%) and Vandalism (56%) 10. Public Drinking (38%), Floor Coverings (3S%)
6. Theft (50%) and Fights (38%)
These problems paint a picture of households where there are frequent episodes of violence,
problems with drinking and drugs, and an inability to maintain control of one's person and
possessions. Not surprisingly, our efforts to deal with these problems are often tailored to look
specifically at the immediate problem, whether it is domestic violence, torn screens ot public
drinking, which is discussed in the next chapter, Dea[ing wilh the Problems. IndeBd,
govemment is chazged with doing just that. However, in the case of chronic problem properties,
govemment must do more than just deal with the latest problem at hand. In order to keep these
problems from presenting themselves time and again, efforts need to be made to cure and prevent �
all of the problems. �
Table 21. Summary of Condifions
Violations
Commercial Total
ProDerties in Group (N = )
4 3Z
Exterior Structural Problems
Garbage/Yard
c . _ n_..L1....... T..�n/
Residential
1-2 Unit 3+ Unit
19 9
14 (73J%) 9 (100.0%)
1 S (94J%) 5 (55.6%)
79 I700.0%) 9 (700.0%)
2 (50.0%,
4 (100.0%)
4 (100.0%)
25 (78.]%)
27 (84.4%1
32 (100.0%)
Interior Struc[ural Problems
Interior Systems Problems
Public Health Problems
/nterior Code Violations Total
7 (36.8%)
8 (42.1%)
3 (15.8%)
12 (63.3%)
Nuisance Crime
Property Crime
Violent Crime
Crime Total
1 S (94. 7%)
13 (42.1%)
17 (89.5%)
/9 (100.0%)
9 (100.0%)
9 (100.0%)
� (�z8/)
9 (100.0%)
8 (88.9%)
9 �ron.oi�
9 (100.0%)
9
3 (75.0%)
2 (50.0%)
3 (75.0%)
4 (700.0%)
s ��s.ni�
a �toni�
3 (75.0%)
4 (700.0%)
19 (59.4%)
19 (59.4%)
13 (40.6%)
25 (78.1 %)
29 (90.6%)
26 (81.3%)
29 (90.6%)
32 (100.0%)
>k ;
;u�,">'i. '
f;q';,
�r.: -
..,t*'i;a;. �..
, �� �, y , Sainl Paui C'�ty Councif Research Center
e
62
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso ''; -�., . y C�OI o(l07 63
Ch'ronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lessons
Name
Alligator Alley
of Code Violations and Crii
Exterior Interior
d �
�v� � o E �
�p �6 U U y [C
c°' � ? T x
c� �, m �
• • • � 1
The Brothers Grim I � � O
The Case Case
r r?
n
a�. a ...� ..
Cracking-Up
�� �'3� �t °ic
;�.��..
Danger Island
k�� ��
s�.kti
Dir[y Dealing
�� , , � sk :..
# .-�s��.
Double Gross
-... ,
„� � ��j
Down `N Out
i nt :xnn � :cn
� �'� ��
Enant Investor I
� ttT ��
Fear Factor
0 0 � � �
7
I
� � 0 0
�� ����iE*'s;i � �llI{i�)� , � 1N �b4A3L� i .� k i,��f����.�
• O O I O
( � m
,,,a�I�� .'_ �d�4 "'.�k� �',.��i�
O ,� g�. , PR1`
� � F"� �
�i �.������ .
1 • I
c�`me KEY
� r � O=1 - 25% of code violations o
� o o crimes in this category presep�
z 0. � at this properry
�, �,��{, t �� , 1= 26 - 75% of code violarions o�
���£ ,<'._,���'.'� ' f�� crimes in this category present
O � p at this property
� '�j�� •= 76 - 100% of code violarions
u: �
.�� �.��
� � � or crimes in this category
�� �t�p present at this property
3 �`�!r�t��kY
, , O Exterior Garbage/Pard Violations:
1) Gazbage/Trash Buildup; 2) Junk VehiclG
���� �j� � � �°�, � 3 Tall Grass and Weeds;
� �"���I;` � 4) Fwninse; 5) Mattresses; 6) Appliances
1 � I Exterior Structural Violations:
p�� I) Windows/Screens; 2) Door Locks:
� �� ;
� �1�..s" .,G.. �E '' broken/missing; 3) Paint: bad condition;
� � Q� 4) Siding: bad condition; 5) Roof/Fascia/
� +�-n�� c� � Soffits: holes/ leaking; 6) Outbuildings:
,'� �,,,,�� �,,. poor condirion; 7) Walls: holes, bad
I O O condition; 8) Stair Condirion
� ,,,� ,� � ,,� Interior Structural ViolaGons: 1) Other
� �� �'�;;_��� cy % (Often Flaor Coverings); 2) Doors:
, '� ' Missing, Bad Condition; 3) Holes in Walls;
4) Water Damage; 5) Stairs: Broken, Bad
� � � ` '�� ���� Condrtion
�'"��}�'!' i�I -Y Interior Systems Violations: I) Heab
• I �► I I O I O F Z I
►
GangsterBoyfriend � Q
�� ": P" �•. �fi NSI �j2
... � w� � !, •na ��it ` �
La C�cazacha Q
� I �` � ���' ����I� "�,
�.,�' 1 .:� �� �' ��k
Motel Califomia O O
Old and Ugly
Overwhe]med
0
�snace, ) E ectncity, 3) Water
�"` � r g� i �k Shutoff/Malfimction; 4) Gas; �
'•� ' `''u -- 5) Refrigerator; 6) Stove; 7) Water Heater
O O 1� Interior Health Violations: 1) Gazbage
� �'�'�'� ' ,,„"� ,; Build-up; 2) Rodents/Insect Infestarion;
`�' � �_.�:�� ��..?i€ 3) Overcrowding; 4) Smoke Detectors�
� missing/malfunctioning
. � n.¢ � � � Nuisance Crimes: 1) Disorderly Boys;
� #� � �`�` ' g 2 Nazcotics/Dru s 3 Disturbances;
e ...�aS ,C �i�� �, � 8 i �
0 � � � 4) Public Drinking; 5) Prostiturion;
a4 ;� {, ��, ik ,���� y . ;; 6) Loud Music; 7) Hazanguing of Passers
�z�, �+��� 4�� I�I3�i�� by; 8) Bazking Dog Problems; 9) Dog . -
, , , Fightmg ,
�, . � Property Crimes: 1) Vandalism; 2) Thefr;
&`,' ° ,y, .:; ��� 3) Burglary ; 4) Auto Theft; 5) Dangerous
_�. � .t, ..,« ��, �"�'a�� C d ti • 6 Ar
1 1 I I O O � on i ons, ) son
Violent Crimes: I) Domestic Violence; 2)
u. �.,„ � � na� u� �� n�
��.�is ,µ {���D�I�I�� "� {�� "'����� ����`� Other Violence; 3) Child Abuse/Neglecr, 4)
,�.,us'�s�, n,:, �� �r . ...,.:u� �.�t�E� �_„ ,.�'�.�..�' � s* � ... Fights; 5) Aggravated Assault; . . .
� O • O 6) Weapons; 7) Missing Persons;
.. ['Cl�. ..fl` '����i ..,.:�vt....';„�.`'�': ;as� ��m� 8) Stalking; 9) Robbery .
Watenag Hole O O O 1 � �
' _. "�"� �'�,� � � � �
w.ei3�:�Ieie§bo� . �. .n n_ �.. �.�: t—_:.� = w,. ..� _ .� k ..;::..:�i"
� Tfils table indicates the varie of problems experienced in each category presented, not the severity of problems.
For example, there aze six exterior gazbagelyazd problems that may have occurred during the two-yeaz study period. If [hree of
the six occurred at this property, the 1 indicates this.
2002 Saint Paul City Councii Research Cenl
;,;.
The City of Saint Paul, as all cities, exists to protect the health, welfare and safety of those who
live here. The City accomplishes this purpose by providing a rich array of ta�c and fee supported
services designed to ensure that its citizens have an environment in which they can be healthy,
safe and pursue happiness. The City is quite successful at achieving this purpose as evidenced by
the increasing number of people who choose to live here and by its successes as compazed to
other cities. The City does, however, not always succeed in providing the desired environment.
Crimes continue to be committed, people continue to become ill and various sorts of
unpleasantness continue to detract from the quality of life in Saint Paul. Since life is not perfect,
we leam to accept, and even expect, some violations of official laws, rules and regulations.
Since it seems almost anything can be against the law, we want enforcement officers to exercise a
great deal of discretion about when and how they enforce laws. We recognize people need a little
space and are generally quite accepting of occasional behavior outside the formal rules. For
example, hazdly anyone in Minnesota obeys speed limits all the time, yet we expect only the
most flagrant violators to be officially sanctioned. ,
The same is true of property Code Enforcement. There are few properties in Saint Paul where a
determined inspector could not find a violation of some City ordinance. Yet they`actually cite
relatively few property owners for violations and even these properties aze seldom cited for every ,
possible violation. The way one inspector put it is "one beer can in a yard is not a problem, 50
beer cans may be a problem, but 500 beer cans in a yazd is totally unacceptable. Mitigation is
not about achieving perfection. Rather, it is about achieving a level of compliance acceptable to
the community without incurring undue costs or impinging too much on peoples right to live
their lives with a reasonable degree of freedom. .,
While residents of Saint Paul may violate community behavioral norms from time to time, most
behave as expected most of the time. The favorable influences of social norms, religious beliefs,
moral fiber and/or fear of legal consequences work for most people. Even when citizens stray into
unacceptable behavior, most respond positively to the application of intemal or extemal pressures.
The overwhelming majority of Saint Paulites either comply with community norms or aze easily
conected when they go astray. For most, a word from a neighbor, a complaint from a family
member, counseling from a religious leader, a visit from a police o�cer or the ongoing guidance of
their conscience is sufficient to get them back on the right track. Unfortunately, not all respond to
such influences. Continuing refusal to comply with community norms regazding acceptable
behavior and/or property maintenance often manifests itself as a chronic problem propeRy.
Failure to follow community norms is not a new phenomenon. The City has had more than 150
years of experience in dealing with such problems. This century and one-half of experience has
resulted in a"pretty good set of tools for the City to use to deal with such problems. For
misbehavior the police often respond and "advise" the apparent offender to "straighten up" or, on
occasion, arrest someone. For failure to �aintain property, City officials may apply a variety oF
sanctions ranging from "verbal orders to condemnations, emergency abatements and criminal
citations. In this chapter we will examine the interventions used, lazgely without success, on 32 "
chronic problem properties we have selected for in-depth study. To help understanding, it is
useful to distinguish among the City agencies empowered to take corrective action with respect
to chronic problem properties. We wiil also address the City resources expended on these
properties and the cost of these interventions.
Council Research Center
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS
64
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson
"Double Trouble" is a very old— well over one
hundred yeazs— side-by-side duplex in an enclave of a
pleasant old neighborhood which is checkered with
problem and chronic problem properties. It has been
for many years within the confrol of a landtord whom
Ciry staff wnsider to be the quintessential "slumlord.°
He is notorious among City inspectors for being a lazy,
cheap owner who makes undeserved profit by
exploiting tenants who aze unable to find or afford
proper housing. He rents to tenants who he knows
cannot afford to stay, and who aze subsequently evicted
due to nonpayment of rent. The landlord, of course,
keeps their vazious deposits and then re-rents the
property to yet another unfortunate family. He deals
with the lowest end of the economic ladder by
providing temporary housing and cycling tenants
through the "revolving doors" of this duplex. This is
only one of many properties managed by the owner and
his family.
Not surprisingly, some of these unscreened tenants
bring serious behavioral problems to this address. A
neighborhood organizer said that some of the tenan[s
who have come and gone were criminal and definitely
neighborhood problems, while others were "good
people who have had a rough life." The police aze
frequently called to deal with just about every type of
minar, and sometimes more serious, crvnes. There aze
nazcotics, domestic assaults, fights, runaway children
and more. The police cope by writing reports,
investigating, giving advice and sometimes azresring or
transporting to detox centers. The flow of criminal
activity is lazgely unaffected as each set of bad tenants
is replaced with another. The community organizer for
the azeas summed i[ up by saying "you name it - it has
happened here.° Most of the tenants in this property
aze seen as "sad sacks" who have no idea how to cope
with their children and their miserable economic
situarion.
Maintenance of this building is abysmaL Tfsere have
been problems with the fumace, walls and doors, along
with exterior gazbage and interior pest infestations.
The owner wil] not fix anything— unless forced to by
the City and then makes only minimal repairs. In all,
during the 24 month study period, th�s proper[y was the
subject of four conectional notices, two zoning
citations, one summary abatement and one
condemnation.
There seems little hope for this situarion. The tenants
bring serious behavioral problems and have few life
skills. The owner depends upon this incompetence and
cycles tenants through these units yeaz after yeaz. The
neighbors call the police and complain to the district
council which "watches" the situation and hies to
facilitate official Ciry intervention. The City acts by
making Code Enforcement visits and even condemnmg
the building as unfit for human habitation. The ov✓ne�
resists and the situation continues lazgely unabated.
This property has been in PP200Q the Rental
Regisa�ation program, the Good Neighbor Program,
monitored by the Problem Properties Task Force and
been in almos[ every other program the City has
developed to deal wi[h chronic problem properties such
as this— all to little avail. This property has been like
this for ten yeazs and, unless something dramaric
happens, will likely conrinue for at least another ten
yeazs.
The Police Department is responsible for dealing with those who violate laws and City
ordinances. Patrol officers do the bulk of the day-to-day enforcement of laws and the
preservation of the peace. Patrol officers are usually the first responders to calls for police
service and usually determine how to deal with the situation when they arrive on the scene. They
often have a wide range of discretion in selecting the appropriate police response and are
expected to exercise judgement in selecting responses. Sometimes they will apprehend and arrest
alleged offenders or they may decide that no police action is required and simply leave the scene.
Patrol officers operate largely on a complaint basis. Mostly, calls are received from citizens in
the emergency communications center and patrol officers are dispatched by radio to respond to
specific complaints or requests for service. Patrol o�cers may, on occasion, engage in
systematic enforcement, particulazly dwing a special initiative such as Heavy Enforcement
Activity for Thirty Days (HEAT) but most of their time and energy is dedicated to responding to
caSls.
Patrol
The police primarily respond to concerns regarding inappropriate behavior. Sometimes these
misbehaviors are serious criminal matters but, more often, they are less serious, liut ubublesome,
disturbances of the public peace. The Police have authority to deal with property maintenance
issues but generally leave such matters to other City agencies. The Chief of Police has recently
increased the DepartmenYs focus on property maintenance issues but these concems remain
peripheral to most law enforcement officers. Behavioral issues aze, and have always been,
central to the mission of the Police Department. '
The Police Department responds to about 250,000 calls for service each year. Most of the time
the action taken is to "advise" real or suspected offenders to "straighten up" and/or to advise
crime victims how to respond to real or imagined threats to their safety or comfod. Sometimes
they write official repoRS and sometimes they take alleged offenders into police custody. Police
responses to crime aze "time-tested°and work most of the time. There are, fiowever, situations
where traditional police responses do not work. When criminals do not respond well to
traditional police tactics, the department sometimes establishes special units to address the
problem. This is why most lazger police departments have developed special units to deal with
vice, homicide, traffic enforcement and drug trafficking. Few, if any, police departments have
developed special units dedicated to chronic problem properties. The FORCE unit does target
specific properties because of suspected drug dealing. This sometimes correlates with the
presence of other crimes but, for the most part, the impact of FORCE unit activities on non-drug
related crimes is incidental, not purposeful.
���,
'"��' ��M Paul C Council Researoh Center
2002SaintPaWCLLyCouncilResearchCente� 'i` �
^er.:
a�R�ryronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
vvt ��� 65
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Case Study: Double Trouble
66
Name
Alligato� Alley
����� . . �I
�.
The Brothers Grim
The Case Case
� 2 � , �, , ��E
C t �i�SUi1�, ...b.. Y ..
Cracking-Up
Danger Island
Dirty Dealing
� �j'��R��g�'�
����..r � a�r��
Double Gross
iTIiY�I# 1�I N{ i
r.��: s�3� s� �s±
Down `N Out
Enant Investor I
r �
E C'G � ti�
Feaz Factor
��
,..
z :.., G.�.�
Gangster Boyfriend
5 8
3. „�� �F���
0 24
La Cucaracha 92 94
�n FiP 1'... >� t'� I i� t A �t �t w .„ E c
N.�4�splaced 's�,�j�����W «:: ������� <E, , �. � �ti�
�� ,, +� �� �,t.x .
Motel Califomia � �� 149 147
��+a r �OU[ �� di �t2i{��R'��� � � , F� �bi�{�{��ii Hr w.27
�
, �' ... .>._�r .>�.., _ �.w�" a�,� '�. U �'.,Y: ,_ . .....
Old and Ugly 27 27
Overwhelmed
� T�xo tLe G7acks :: '
, . �.__ u�.
Watering Hole
;�.Weird Neiehbor � - � _ ��
for Service Load 1
1999 2000
Calls Calls
74 72
t��,,;�� u�§�...� �`�°�§
.�, 21 .. zs ,
� � r � � ���
� ; °�� ����
_.� ����
57 57
14 150
auS
� ���
����,ff�s�
76 138
' (�Ikk n "�?
81 69
10 29
{t. t Yt�
��� . '��
50 41
:;> � ������ '�
�..��au�us!�
22 s
15
32
21
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �ti�onic Problem Properties in Saint Paui: Case Study Lessons
U o t o( (s�Ys�
nge, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Evaluating the effectiveness of police activities by looking only at chronicproblem propeRies is
unfair and circular. It is illogical to purposely select properties because they have been resistant
to o�cial interventions and then assess the effectiveness of such interventions based on these
2001 '• Actual Cnange Actual Cnange properties. We are not, therefore, intending to suggest police interventions are not generally
1999 2000
Calls ;(�io Cbange) (^/o Change) effective. We aze only intending to examine a small number of propeRies in Saint Paul that
�5 ': -2 (-3%) 3 (a%) seemingly do not respond to police, and other, interventioas to better understand the effect of
� n �� �, ,���,�,� these resistant properties on the City and, perhaps, to stimulate some new thinking about how to
� ' �w. _ .,�,�,�� ' °,�� �_ ��__.�.r,� �at, deal with these persistent community imtants.
31 i 4 (19%) 6 (24%)
�`��' 4 �;��;�� ,���', a��:�" �_� Police Patrol Services
�
71 0 0 14 (25%)
�. ���912 `"* � ���"'� 59� �� 5^% � In beginning to think about the relationship between calls for police service and our 32 chronic
u..,.....m.., ......._. � E{��� A Y.m� �� u,I-}!?�
� 12 � 136 (9�� %) -38 ( zs%) problem properties, it is illustrative to first recognize the sheer volume of calls for police service
�� ,� � r;� „,� � �, 4 � emanating from or about these addresses. As shown in Table 1, these 32 properties generated
� a���_ _. ���� '���� ��,: qs ti�t=:,. 2,488 calls for po(ice service in only 24 months. This averages more tha� 100 calls per month
95 � 62 (82%) -a3 (-31%) for the sample goup of propeRies or an average of 3.24 police calls for service per month for
;��'� ��� . 5�; '� '��& 7 ���° ' each property. On average, the police were called to each of these properties almost once every
� tii I=�a haN , ���a����. .., effi5dss7�����.� !l.��� -
3 :-1z (-15%) -66 (-96%) week for an ongoing period of two years. ,
murnn ' j �4�3� nr : • : �gai'k�N= � ;.
�� �:._'e�' �„ °��� While looking at the average number of police calls for service for this group of chronic problem
60 :` t9 (109%) u 31 (107/0) properties is useful, it does somewhat obscure the truly extraordinary number of callsfor police
i ��„ .. ± �mG' r �t„n � .,, ` . ,{;, I�t�r 9 � .a�> }::
�...�;�m ���''�_ a_�.�' ,. :.:: _(��C��a � service at some properties. As shown in Table I, the number of calls for police service ranged
35 :-9 (-18%) -6 (-15°io) from a low of four (Weird Neighbor) to a high of 296 (Motel California). To get a sense of how
���,' � P �� E'� ,� often police have responded to calls at Motel California, 296 calls over a period of two years, or
{ ...:.. °�i� � k,� � ii StfE;}t�; �� � .� � � .
104 weeks means the police were called to this propeRy an average of almost three times (2.9)
i : ta (-64% -7 ( s8^io) there are seven other properties in our
every week For two years. Besides Motel California,
��� s"z �� a�;:' 3 ca ak?7
1p ,�,� � yt ,P�qO"�o�F,�� ��� �/o)�,;_ group that averaged more than one police call each week for two years. These_propedies aze
la : 3 (60%) 6 (75%) Fight Club, The Case Case, Cracking-Up, Alligator Alley, Dirty Dealing, La Cucaracha, Danger
� '�(�' '� ',,"'" ���"+ • 6�,- ,• Island and Cash Cow. As might be expected, most of these properties are multi-unit buildings
�". ��'". ' �r a `��,�;� (u �
z . Z4 �� ZZ � 92��0� housing many occupants or they aze bars. While this may help, at least partially, explain the
�, ,:� ��� n �, ,„ �„ .. unusually high number of police calls, there are many other buildings in Saint Paul, with even
H!W q .v i
�C�' �_'� ,�."� `(��$,g ' more residents, which do not experience these levels of service. Another factor that may help
54 : 2 (2%) -40 (-a3%) explain the seeming inefficacy oFthese repeated police interventions is the mobile population
�� ���'. �� . �` 2 �?� � °"� served by some of these buildings. It may be that police aze successfully dealing with one
��f � � i� " S ��y��3�N s �., _:,..:�� �.; uoublesome resident only to have them replaced by another bad actor. Again, however, other
157 2 ( 1%) ]0 (7%) '
{ g � buildings also serve mobile populations and do so without becoming chronic problem properties.
� t � � y M
� i f " � ��!r�i.� R `Y
s._:�� � u_3', ... �...y+.��,,� �._. `. I$..._.���, ".,E These high numbers of police calls for service seem to have more to do with the management, or
18 : 0 0 -9 (-33%) lack of management, than with the type of building or the mobility of tenants.
� 4 `" i «�a7��i�3�'�i�i �� 00%) ���I'�� L'+t�%j � .
...�.._..�,.L!3��1��.��,.�,�«_. ..�.a,sr�s�t�I . �x....w..rceit
15 : 6 (40%) -6 (-29%) There is also something to be learned by considering the properties in our group that experienced
�; .�_��, o} `,� k £,���. '.. very few police calls for service. These properties, such as Weird Neighbor, M'uplaced and Dirty
°': 4 ��,��,,�� { s (� �� Business are chronic problems almost solely because of propeRy maintenance issues. They have
� r itn�
42 50 �o (32%) 8 (19%) had few dealings with the police because the police seldom deal directly with property
- � o . �;^ �.a.nmrk` r m
2. 1� �., �; � 0: _���,,��3s (550!):; 3 maintenance issues, especially, if there is no associated criminal behavior. These propert�es are;
however, heavy consumers of City property maintenance enforcement activities-as will be.
apparent when these activities aze considered later in this report. An important thing to
remember is that some properties aze problems mostly because of the misbehavior of occupanu,
some properties aze chronic problems mostly because of property maintenance issues and some,
„ in fact many, aze chronic problem properties for both reasons.
2002 Saint PaW City Council Research Center ,;� "�� �^� P'ul Ciry Council Research Center
�',
s$ Chronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Study Lesso %'..:�"';; y UoZ C�10`1 69
���� problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lessons
Table 24. Police Calls for Service: Disposi6ons During Study Period (1999-2000)
Action Taken on Property
% Calls OfScer Action
Name Advised Reports� Detox Taken on Property`�
Alhgator Alley 66 29 (20 %J 2 66 %
,:.,� 3�F rsn �. t'I`!?C�gr+iyi ' ii�dt ��u x ;( 3 �y�'�:' E �€� sa'knsmit
Bad: $;nys � _. � E � 25 t�e��� i z% (35��4�� ���� . . � �' � �� �� � . �.
_ Exe. r< � ie,�.a W .. < , . <.w� E�t#i I_ - ;,.' $� �s :� 3u n..,�, . �(50F'33 _3.� .
Brothers Grim 17 12 (26 %) 0 63 %
� .. � R � a �� ` ,..., ""t �3 £y* "4 $ n :-IG'
a'�iaA.�iu.�e ..:a�Iatl�[i��#p ��iS3iEd����t,`�.s $3;�"�
The Case Case 53 32 (28 %) 1 75 %
� �� �� _ �a�� � � <� � . � � r� �, � � � �,�,. �
..� _ . n;,�tQrY�, !!.:�:� .', , � .���.��.��c�,�4' . � :`._,.,.w;s , ���'.�� S �;.. �x�I�'"fi�.�.�u�;ia. `'�''`����
Cracking-Up 87 31 (19 %) 0 72 %
'��V� } �sd': '� . �" �sr _t .
�„ �0� �""'.�t,, w ; ,��a ,,�t�,�v �4��!�a ���`�����'f �;��
;Ib. , fu*r:. , ..—uiY�e.4 E y( { ..Y.11`i.��
Danger Island
4..a a ���
D ss .t�''i��
n .i...�. .e h .t . < ...k Y
Dirty Dealing
�� � s;s��
..€�j��.,.� yx .» fnar ��i� V�i� if
Double Cttoss
'st:q�}y�yEt�� -:,:, ,a�:
�� !IP�' I1b�0 TT� � '
° �3�i��en�wts�' ,
Down `N Out
r nr ; �. ����.ii __�,
, � . �lvu�il�n5
Errant Investor I
F a� r"" .
�� ��, . �����I
Feaz Factor
���g�k�Clutsi' �,
�N aR;�
Gangs[er Boyfriend
a •: "•��' £ �s:�?.. u. �.........
La Cucaracha
,..,������� �!���
Motel California
io� s2 (za i� o
a� �a� � .� �3 ��+� ��
fi � x� ��
.,.._ ..3�u`R � .
53 20(13%) 2
�� � s '� s F�K �' A a
�,;��, m� k, �=•Na ,��a.:�
23 7(18%) 0
51 16 (!8 %) 4
88« a€ F'.�' �. ����n�����. .
z2 .� �� r��zs:� :� � �,
19 4(13%) 0
'�� ����� �� rv,.�f�lt� �
7 0(0/) 0
9 3 (/3 %) 0
a.� +� � i� �'��.�.<�:..:i� ""�,,:��?
7 (1g 3 52 (28 %) 3
�#H . . .,�� �3�i'. ��P�` .�
.....ns.�6 �� i "t ,.,.Nkidp��
138 70 (24 %) 11
Old and Ugly 24 18 (33 %) 1
n a���� y � s �t ' t i rvp"f��, .. �} �sn - .
� �s�5'���ge .::t 7��i (p S is-€'" 9 a�c�'i� � 3%,� �3t�i� ��...',*'4n.
� � _ . �!�. ���uaru . . . ... �ih..i.:t... .�� 3? .,_ E}?�...AY ,�. S
Overwhelmed 9 14 (39 %) 0
�lE'6� S g1Y'fhC��"I3C�C5 ti �'� � � ?.�F� 3 ��IP.� 4 ���E5� kM4tsl:' � -
. � ... .� .. �
Watering Hole 20 32 (43 %) 1
3`G����S�%)
�a ^ro
'p r�
i �� p����p � fy �
. � i2.�!:Hi}�t :a
50 %
ei i ��
�j 3 "�
. � t�ii P
75 %
as�� T u .,. �L���
3
i����=��" �
78 %
!III9tu!`Imni ¢,,,
t f�41,�'q�p� u`y � �
n
77 %
�
o � G,����
v G�' �,.����r,��
54 %
f
� �,: �
� .._.
50 %
s l# �„H W
69 °/a
�g�' ��'
� w��
74 %
RFj" .'^:�� , �
,� � ,� � w��
78 %
t��� � 3 ..:i
� t !h€d.e.
64 °/a
����� .�.
71%
Total
146
�� � j m� ' �['_
5� � r .'llU=r
46
�s�� a ���ji�„itg�f
$������
114
�.. ��� � ..
�, �..t �,
164 �
� .I-s4�
214
���, < ����
150
%(� tjYi3i
I!W k[{N:
. tq I�t1��f�
40 �'�
�E� <���`��I
91
II3f�� .., �.•.
� "__��+��8���
30
�r���
13 ���
7A
3� ���
� ��g
185
� �
296
�� ���
55
! R t^
(4 (t I''
. a2ry. ,._.,.
36
��� ��� 3`
�
n� 4 �>�.
75
�"Reports" as a category is used when a report is written, and it does not preclude anest, or citarion as an outcome. The percent
of reports may be used as a"proxy" for the seriousness of the incidents.
*' There were several categories of cal] outcomes not included in the table as "officer action on properry:" Traffic (TRF), Gone
on Arrival (GOA), Duplicate (DUP), Canceled (CAi�, Previously Canceled (PCT�, Unfounded (LJNF), Service Not Required
(SNR).
2002 Saint Paul Ciry Councii Research G
Cost of Police Patrol Services -
As explained in the methods section, we estimate it costs the City an average of $130 for Police
Patrol to respond to a call for service. Based on this estimate, it cost the City $323,440 to
respond to calls from our 32 properties during the two years being studied. This uanslates to
$161,720 per year for these properties. Dividing these estimated annual costs by the 32
properties studies yields an average annual cost of $5,054 per property.
The properties requiring above average levels of Police PaVOI services yields some astonishing
costs. For example, the Motel California with 296 calls during the two-yeaz study period yields
an estimated two-yeaz cost of $38,480 or $19,240 annually. The estimated annual costs for other
high consumers of Po(ice Patrol serviees aze Fight Club ($5,395), Case Case ($7,410), Cracking-
Up ($10,660), Alligator Alley ($9,490), Dirry Dealing ($9,750), La Cucaracha ($12,025),
Danger Island ($13,910) and Cash Cow ($13,455). Beaz in mind, as will be discussed later,
Police Patrol costs are only one of many costs the City incurs in seeking to deal with these
chronic problem properties. Also, it is impoRant to understand, as will be elaborated on later in
this report, these costs far exceed any taY revenues generated by these chronic problem
properties. For example, the Motel California, in the year 2000, paid $3,028 in municipal taYes
to the City of Saint Paul while costing the City of Saint Paul more than six times ($19,240� that
amount in Police Patrol costs alone.
<
FORCE Unit �
The FORCE unit is dedicated to combating street-level drug dealing. This unit of about 25
officers has developed its own repertoire of tools for pursuing its mission. They focus on i
particular propeRies and use confidential informants, surveillance, "knock & talks" and search
warrants to detect and interdict street level drug dealing. T'hey also seek to coordinate with other
police and non-police enforcement agencies to prevent the creation and continuation of drug
dealing locations. This unit generally undertakes imestigations of particulaz individuals or
locations based on information from sources suggesting ongoing drug related criminal activity.
While the FORCE Unit does receive and respond to complaints, their basic method of operation
is investigative rather than wmplaint-based.
, ';,; ..
FORCE Unit Services
An examination of the FORCE uniYs activities related to our sample of chronic problem
properties illuminates the high correlation between street-level drug trafficking and chronic
problem properties. Twenty-two of the 32 properties in this study received the attention of the
FORCE unit within the twayeaz study period.
The most common FORCE tactics with these propeRies were to conduct surveillance and attempt
to "make drug buys." This was done witk� 15 of our sample properties during 1999 and 2000. ,
These activities resulted in the execution of 1 I seazch warrants being served by the FORCE Unit.
These seazch warrants resulted in 13 persons being arrested. It is impoRant to understand the
execution of search warrants by the FORCE Unit is not at all as benign as it may sound. The
execution of these warrants oRen involves the forced entry of highly trained and heavily armed
police otticers into the premise. These aze very aggressive and dangerous operations involving
;iry Council Research Center
70
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso ,s�;'�.' Y �� ��� ��
..���onic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Stud Lessons
��.
"La Cticazacha" is a relatively new and somewhat
isolated 24-unit apar[ment building in a lazger complex.
It is located in a very diverse, but stable neighborhood.
The tenants aze predominately elderly women and low
income families, some of whom do not speak English.
However, there aze also a few tenants with reported
serious mental illness, those with criminal histories, and
those who have cruninal companions staying frequenfly
at the building. The diversity of tenants has presented a
variety of types of problems for the on-site management
of the building as well as its occupants.
On visiting the building in the daylight, one is
immediately awaze of the many unsupervised children
running azound the pazking lot and other common azeas
of the building, which creates a sense of overcrowding
and disorder. Other problems aze not as apparent on the
surface. For instance, this building has repeatedly had
problems with cockroach infestations which inspectors
attribute to the poor housekeeping skills of some of the
tenants.
One informant advised that the building used to be
horrible yeazs ago, and maybe getting bad again with
drugs, guns and fearful residents. There is, indeed, a lot
of police activity with this building involving drinking,
fights, theft, assault, azson, burglary, fraud, weapons
and nazcotics. Staff have also reported evidence of
prosriturion in the pazking lot. During our study period
alone, the police have been called to this building 185
times.' The greatest number of these calls have been to
the common azeas of the building, but several uuits
have accounted for more than 20 police calls each. As
an illus�ration, there was a case where a mentally ill
woman was plagued by the real disturbances made by a
drug dealer in the unit above hers. Unfortunately, after
the drug dealer vacated, the woman continued her
constant calling of the police— not understanding that
the bad tenant had actually moved. The new trnant was
a young law-abiding woman who then had to put up
with yelling and a broom handle tapping on her floor
whenever she walked from one room to another. In
another case, one unit in the building was condemned
as the result of azson damage caused by a tenant.
Notably, there were also seven police calls to this
building during our study period on vandalisn� three
instances in general azeas of the building and four in
specific units. Nearly all of these resulted in police
reports being written.
Not surprisingly, the Fire Depaztrnent has frequently
been called to this address. In only two years, there
have been 13 fire runs and eight Emergency Medical
Service calls. These are exhaordinary service demands
for a building of this size. Not al] the building's code
violaTions aze severe or dramaric. Rather, the primaiy
issue at this property aze the behavioral problems
caused by residents and their guests.
� Police calls in 2001 decreased some 43%jrom 2000. The Zypes and incidenres reponed are much the same ar ihey were
w
�.,....
3+
a
„�,�s .
,.�,;�:�,�
:`y'i ,
When FORCE officers do not have sufficient cause to obtain a search warrant, they frequently
conduct "knock & talks" with the residents of suspect properties. This occurred with 14 of the
study properties. These visits usually involve two officers going to the premise and explaining
their concems and suspicions to the residents. They then strongly suggest they refrain from any
further illegal behavior. Somewhat surprisingly, these "knock & talks" aze ofren quite effective.
They sometimes lead residents to stop drug dealing, at least for a while. Other times, the
residents will allow officers to enter the premise without a warrant and, on occasion, the officers
observe evidence of illegal behavior which can then be used to make an arrest or to obtain a
seazch warrant. As is appazent from the numbers, the same property may experience both a
"knock & talk" and warrant searches at different times. Most commonly, officers will conduct a
"knock & talk" if initial surveillance does not justify the execution of a search warrant in the
hopes the apparent problems will resolve themselves. When "latock and talks" do not work and
the problems persist, the police may continue to obtain sufficient additional evidence to justify a
search warrant.
Tab1e 25. FORCE Intervenrions
Interveotion
Propertiesin Group(N =)
Residentiat
1-2 Unit
19
3+U¢it Commercial
9 4
Total
32
15 (46.9%)
1.5
14 (43.8%)
1.0
13 (40.6%)
0.8
Il (34.4%)
5 (15.6%)
FORCE: buys/surveillance
Average FORCE: buys/surv
FORCE Knock d Talks
Average FORCE K d Talks
FORCE Arrests
Average FORCE Arrests ( z)'
high levels of planning and coordination. They often yield illegal weapons and sigmficant
qualities of illegal drugs. They are also very expensive operations involving many officers,
squads and special tactical weapons.
FORCE Warrants
10 (52.6%)
13
6 (31.6%)
0.9
8 (42.1 %)
0.7
8 (42.7%)
3 (15.8%)
1 (25.0%)
0.5
1 (25.0%)
0.5
0 (0.0%)'
0
0 (0.0%J
1 (25.0%)
Warrant Arrests (Patrol)
4 (44.4%)
2.2
7 (77.8%)
1.4
5 (55.6%)
1.1
3 (33.3%)
] (11.1%)
Cost of FORCE Unit Services
Given the work force cequired, the special skills involved, the need for special equipment and the
cost of informants; the FORCE Unit is an expensive activity dedicated to an especially difficult
problem. There is little doubt that attempting to interdict street-level drug trafficking is an -
expensive undeRaking. This may be a necessary public investment to preserve order and
livability in Saint Paul given the enormous social cost of unrestrained drug-dealing. Given the
complexity of FORCE Unit operations, creating reliable cost estimates is difficult. Our methods ,
for reaching the estimates used in this section aze exptained in the "Methods Section" beginn�ng
on page 13. These estimates are admittedly conservative. The true costs aze almost surely higher
than our estimates.
2002 SaiM Paui City Council Research Ce�
Couneil Resea�ch Center
Case Study: La Cucaracha
72
- Up� c �ao � . �+
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso '�pnic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Casa Study Lessons
�S "G�,,.
""�" Il en rimes and experienced six "lmock &
The "Dog House" is a very old, low-value central City
duplex. One unit is an owner-occupied homestead with
the other unit being rented. Both the owner and the
tenants have been sources of conrinuing problems.
There are a steady steam of problems at this address
with peaks during the summer months.
Since this is an owner-occupied building, the City has
no information about the condition of the interior of the
building, not having been given perrtvssion to inspect
it. The exterior has, however, been the source of
several problems. There have been many orders to
remove gazbage from the yazd. Tags have been written
for failure to maintain the gazage and there is still an
outstanding wamnnt for failure to appear on one of
these tags. The property was condemned in one
instance because electrical service was shut-off due to
failure to pay a bill of more than $3,000. The
condemnation was lified when they paid the bill with
County assistance.
Dogs aze [he major source of problems at this address.
It appeazs the tenanYs son ]ikes to conduct dog fights
with pit bulls. These dog fights have taken place in the
basement of the building, so it is apparent the owner is
aware of this illegal activity and has not interoened. It
is unclear if the owner is an acrive or passive
pazticipant in this dog fighring acfivity, but it is
obvious he ]mows it goes on in the basement. There
have been many Anima] Contro] calls to this address
and subsequent Humane Society involvement. This
dog fighting is ]mown to have occuned from 1998
through 2000. In 1999, Animal Control impounded a
dog from this address after the people moved
(temporarily) to Saint Louis and abandoned it. The
tenanYs son has been tagged for many dog related
offenses such as dog fighting, rurming-at-large, no
license and no shots. The tenant was finally cited in
2000 with running-at-lazge, no rabies shots and no dog
licence, and she cunently owes $400 in fines.
The tenants, and perhaps the owner, are believed to be
involved in other behaviotal problems such as drug-
dealing and prostimtion. The tenant's daughter is
thought to engage in prostitution and her boyfriend
reportedly deals drugs from the house, possibly in her
absence. The property was raided by FORCE in 1997
and again in 1998. Despite the long history of
problems at this property, there are few police calls to
this address in recent yeazs. Since cruninal activity
continues, it may be the neighbors have come to accept
a high level of illegal activity at this location or have
simply given up hope that the City will effectively
intervene.
La Cucaracha was under FORCE Umt survei ance sev
talks" and two FORCE Unit arrests during our two-year study period. The total estimated cost of
° surveillance of this property was $1,950 or almost $1,000 a year. The cost of six "knock &
talks" at $200 each is an additional $1,200. This yields a total cost of $3,150 or about $1,575
«.., annually for "laiock & talks" and surveillance. Also, the two arrests made by the FORCE Unit at
this address cost an estimated $914 each for a total of $1,828. Totaling the cost of FORCE Unit
acrivities at these property results in a total cost of $4,978 or an average of $2,489 annually.
};�„
r .
e.;
,
<�;�v
:.�:_.
5 (55.6%) 3 (75.0�
0.4 002
9 (100.0� 4 Q00.0�
8.9 0.6
7.0 0.0
8 (88.9%) 3 (50.0%)
0.5 0.06
7 (77.8� 4 (100.0�
p,g 0.06
32
- 12 (37.5%)
0.3
27 (84.4%)
2
32 (]00%)
24.0
10.6
17 (53.1 %)
0
21 (65.6%)
0.8
able 26. Properties Req
City DepartmenUAgency
PropeKies i n Group (N = )
Certi£tcate of Occupancy
( C of O) Rogram
Per Unit Average
Code Enforcement
Per Unit Average
Police
Per Unit Average (z)
P Unit Median
Fire
P Unit Average
Emergency Medical Services
(EMS)
Pe U nit Average
Lice
Zoning
e.,...,.,1 t'�rrr�l
19 (100.0�
4.0
19 (l00.0�
35.8
24.0
6 (31.6%)
03
10 (52.6� '
0.9
0 (0.0%)
2 (10.5� �
o ro.oiJ
2002 Saint Paul C'rty Council Research Gen
Dirry Dealing was also under surveillance by the FORCE Unit seven times during the study
period for an estimated cost of $1,950. In addition, the FORCE Unit conducted two "Irnock &
talks" plus one warrant service and an arrest. They yield an estimated $400 for "laiock & talks,"
$1,950 for surveillance, $914 for an arrest and $2,127 to serve a warrant. This yields a total
esrimated cost of $5,391 or an average of $2,695 annually. The Brothers Grim is yet another
example of a drug dealing locarion with considerable FORCE Unit costs. Within only two yeazs
the FORCE Unit had it under surveillance four times, conducted four "lmock & talks" and made
three arrests. These activities cost the City at least $1,300, $800 and $2,742, respecrively for a
total cost of $4,842 or an average of $2,421 annually. These aze only some examples of how
much it costs the City to attempt to deal with the drug-dealing within some chronic problem
properties. For our sample of 32 chronic problem properties, we esrimate that the total FORCE
cost was $55,300 during the two-yea study period.
Residential
1-2Unit 3+Unit
Commercial I Total
19 q 4
N/A 9 (100.0%) 3 (75.0%)
N/A 0.6 0.02
3 (75.0%) I 3 (9.4%)
Ciry Council Research CeMer
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0�
5 (55.6%
1 (25.0�
I (25.0%)
3 ( 9.4� '
6
Case Study: Dog House
74 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso °"`` i � P v ��� � ,�
�s ,;;Chronic Problem Pro erties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
"Misplaced" is an o]d gas station converted into a
towing service and gazage. Fire seriously damaged the
building in June 1999 and it has been a registered
vacant building since that time. The owner has
continued to try to operate a business there and
sometimes tows vehicles and stores them in the lot
adjoining the damaged building. The building is m an
historic preservarion district and has been designated
by the Historic Preservation Commission as a
sig�ificant site. The site is polluted and is a"dirty
business" with an excessive number of cazs associated
with it, often occupying local streets. While perhaps
not the most desirable neighbor, there were no special
problems with the proper[y until the fire.
During the study period, the owner has been cited for
gazbage, an electricity shutoff, a water shutoff; roof
damage, outbuilding condifion, junk vehicles and an
illegal advertising sign. The Ciry also responded with
t}uee vehicle abatements, two summary abatements and
the proper[y has been condemned three times. Finally,
there have been many issues conceming iYs business
]icense, but no significant police activity.
This entire problem revolves azound the owner. He is
`4nisplaced in rime and location." He is not a clean
person, drinks a°fair biY' and has an old time junkyazd
mentality according to al] of our interviews. Some
people have reported that drinking may be a factor,
although it is uncleaz whether this is significant. A
female City Inspector reported that on two occasions he
appeazed intoxicated and invited her to go drinking with
him. Not surprising, she declined. Some staff see him
as a drunk who does not know what he is doing. Others
believe him to be a weird chazacter who ]acks the
mental capaciry to run this or any other business. Ciry
staff report he drinnks and is seemingly unable to
complete even the s�mplest tasks without neaz daily
monitoring. He does have a son who has proposed
moving his landscaping business to this location, but
the neighbors find that prospect almost as unappealing.
As to the current situation, this is a hansirional
neighborhood and very sensitive to anything that may
discourage investment in the azea. The Ciry's
Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development
(PED) has tried to broker a sale of [his proper[y but
could not make it work. City staff have h'ied just about
everything with this property and have communicated
well among themselves. The situarion is at stalemate
and will likely remain so until there is a new owner with
a plan consistent with neighborhood redevelopment.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department has both systematic and call-based responses to problem properties.
Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical Services aze usually dispatched in response to specific
calls for service. The Code Enforcement activities of Fire Prevention are, however, both
complaint-based and systematic. Fire Prevention is responsible for ensuring compliance with fire
and property maintenance codes for residential buildings with three or more units plus
commercial buildings. To fuifill this mission, Fire Prevention relies primarily on its Certificate
of Occupancy progam. This program requires buildings to successfully pass a fire safety and
property maintenance inspection every two years. Failure to pass such inspections may lead to
the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy and, ultimately, to the closure of the building.
While biennial Certificate of Occupancy inspection is the Fire DepartmenYs primary tool for
ensuring compliance with property maintenance codes, Fire Prevention does respond to
complaints from tenants and others who may be concemed about the safety or maintenance of a
building within their azea of responsibility.
�ire Suppression and Emergency Medical Senrices
Fire Suppression is the function traditionally associated with fire departments. 'Fhigactivity,
simply put, protects lives and property by extinguishing fires and providing related safety ,
services. Emergency Medical Services provide paramedic and emergency ambulance services.
While it might seem chronic problems properties would not require any special leve7 of fire
suppression or emergency medical services, this is not so. Some chronic problem properties used
exuaordinary levels of fire suppression and emergency medical services during the study period.
There is wide variability in the fire suppression services used by the chronic problem properties
in this study. Almost half (15) of the properties experienced no fire suppression caAs at all
during the two years study period. Another five had only one call for fire suppression services.
Eight properties had between two and five fire suppression calls. As for emergency medical
services, six of the properties received emergency medical services more than ten time within
two years. The extraordinary finding is that four of the properties experienced ten or more
emergency medical service calls lead by Motel California with 31 and Cash Cow with 51.
The total fire suppression costs for the 32 properties studies is estimated to be $63,066. We
estimate emergency medical services costs to total $80,432. This represents a total estimated
cost for Fire Department services for these 32 properties to be $143,498 or $71,749 annually.
Cash Cow is a 69-unit building on the East Side of Saint Paul with 51 fire suppression and 38
emergency medical service calls within only rivo years. This means Fire DepaRment services were
dispatched to this location an average of about once every two weeks. In seeking to understand the
very high number of both fire suppression and emergency medical services calls, it is important to
understand that when responding to a ca}4 for emergency medical services, the Fire Department
dispatches the neazest unit. Commonly, this nearest crew is not a pazamedic crew, but rather a fire
crew. They also dispatch a paramedic crew. This is to ensure that response time is a fast as
possible. This does, however, mean that they often dispatch two crews to a single emergency
medical service ca(l. So in this case, 38 of the 51 fire suppression responses were probably "first
responses" to emergency medical service and not responses to actual fire alarms. The fact there
were 13 fire suppression calis without emergency medical service calls does, however, suggest
comparatively frequent fire alarms. There were clearly significant problems at this property related
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Cente�
�2 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
Case Study: Misplaced
76
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson 3,?j�,�hronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons VO ` '
,,
�;k;: ,.
f Th cost of
The "Watering Hole" is a baz with bad managemeni,
resulting in license and crime problems. It is in a mixed-
use azea sutrounded by a few other businesses, some
residential and lazge indush tracts. Initially the dish
council did not realize this properfy was within their
azeas of responsibility. This low profile is puzzling given
its long history as a problem property, except that it is
physically isolated and it may not have generated a
significant number of complaints to the district council
from i[s immediate neighbors.
Licencing problems resulted from failing to pay licensing
fees, and for serving alcohol and tobacco to minors. At
one point, they owed $3,769 in delinquent license fees
and LIEP had to initiate adverse actions to collect fees
several times.
The Police have been called to this bar, on average, more
than once every week for the past two years. They had
dealt with all types of criininal behavior from public
drinking, alazms, child abuse/neglect, disorderly boys,
domestic assault, fights, theff, assault, vandalism,
aggavated assault, auto theft, fraud and nazcotics. The
Ciry Council closed the baz for five days in 1999 because
of mmderage drinking and refusing admittance to police
officers. Police officecs were again refused admittance
in 2000 resulting and another closure and a$1,000 fine.
The owners, a couple retired from traditional 9-5 jobs, do
not seem to caze about the problems at the baz and have
occasionally been belligerent with police and Ciry license
inspectors. They oftrn hired patrons to tend bar, but the
patrons seemed more interested in drinking on thejob
than managing the business. Management operated
under a` just let things happen" atti[ude and not
surprisingly, things did. Towazd the end of the study
period, the owners had both financial and health
problems. At their last appearance before the City
Council they promised to sell the business. This came to
pass. Unfortunately, the new owners have had a similaz
run of problems and the business has again been closed
down the City �
As a post script, it is interesting to note that in 200! the Police Department made 3 visits in May and 2 visits in August to
work with the new owners to solve these problems prior to the most recent clasure.
to fire safety, arson and false alarms reqmnng frequent responses from ue crews. e
these Fire Department services to Cash Cow aze substantial. The 38 emergency medical services
calls cost an estimated $17,366. Adding to this an estimated cost of $23,307 for fire suppression
yields a total cost for Fire Department services of $4Q673 over two years or $20,336 annually.
Since the property paid only $9,145 a year in municipal tares, it is appazent the financial drain
the property creates for the City.
The Motel Califarnia generated 31 £re suppression responses and 30 emergency medicai
services. As with Cash Cow, these probably mostly represent two Fire Department responses to
the same incident. Nonetheless, this is still a very high level of use Fire Department services.
Adding together the cost of fire suppcession response of $14,167 and emergency medical services
of $13,710, yields a cost of Fire Department services of $27,877 for two years or an average of
$13,983 annually.
Fire Prevention - Certificate of Occupancy
The Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O) program managed by the Fire Department is a powerful
weapon in the City's war against substandard buildings. Under this program, all buildings with
three or more dwelling units and all commercial properties are required to acquire and maintain a
C of O. For an owner to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, Fire Department inspectors must ,
find it to be in full compliance with State laws and City ordinances regarding fiie safety and
property maintenance. Inspections are conducted every two years unless complaints result in ,
more frequent inspections. Failure to maintain a current C of O can result in a building being
closed. Both the City and most building owners take this program very seriously as the lack of a
Certificate of Occupancy can have serious financial consequences for the property owner if the
building is ordered vacated.
Thirteen of the 32 chronic problem properties in this study aze required to maintain Certificates
of Occupancy. All these properties have experienced C of O inspections in recent �ears and six
have had their Certificates of Occupancy revoked. Misplaced, Watering Hole, Alligator Alley
and Cash Cow all had their Certificates of Occupancy revoked once during our two-year study
period. Old and Ugly and Case Case experienced four C of O revocations each during this time.
Despite the vigor with which the Fire Department manages the C of O program, it alone is
insufficient to eliminate chronic problem properties. While it seems the revocation of a
' Cedificate of Occupancy would be a powerFul tool in attempting to deal with substandard
buildings, its effectiveness is limited by the Fire DepartmenYs reticence to order tenants to vacate
a building because the owner does not have a current C of O. The consequences of effecting
such an order can be devastating to tenant� who have no where else to go. This is paRiculazly the
case with large buildings where vacation could result in the displacement of lazge numbers of
tenants. Recalcitrant owners who are willing to challenge the Fire Department can often continue
to operate their substandard building despite the Fire Department's refusal to issue a C of O.
Also, as is apparent from the properties with four revocations, the owners may comply briefly
only to revert to their earlier unhealthy ar�d dangerous behavior. �
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
Besides the regularty scheduted bienniat inspections, Fire inspectors respond to complaints about
safety and property maintenance in building subject to Certi6cate of Occupancy inspections. Not
surprisingly, they have received complaints about twelve of the thirteen C of O properties in this
study. The highest number of complaints came from The Case Case with twenty. La
Cucaracha, Motel California and Cash Cow were the next highest with eleven, ten and nine,
respectively.
Ciry Council Research Center
„
Watering Hole
78
.. ll�I ca+l0'179
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons `�{�onic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
"Alligator Alley" is a relatively new 30-unit apartment
building in a central and highly visible ]ocation withm
its neighborhood. It has been a problem properiy for
many years. Records show concems about the behavior
of tenan[s going back 10 years or more. Maintenance
of the properiy has also been a continuing problem with
regulaz reoccunences of gazbage and abandoned
vehicles on the outside. The interior of the building has
exhibitedjust about every possible property code
violatioq resulting in the Certificate of Occupancy
being revoked on two occasions during our study
period. Upon one of many visits to [he building, a City
inspector found one unit occupied by seven pit bulls
and an alligator, in addition to its human occupants.
Behavior problems aze evident. The police aze called to
this property on a regulaz basis to deal with
misbehavior principally emanating from five living
units and the pazking lot. The behavioral problems,
such a domestic assault, runaways, disorderly boys,
tbeft and other minor crimes, aze symptomatic of
troubled family situations. The pazking lot has been the
source of many police responses for lazgely minor
offenses. There have, however, been allega6ons of
prostiturion and drug dealing in the pazking lo[. The
general situation is that a few tenants regulazly rngage
in minor criminal behavior that scazes and intunidates
the o[her residents and neighbors. The police response
to most calls has been to advise with few repor[s being
written. During our study period, 3 units and the
general azea of the building generated 55 percent of the
calls to the building while 11 of the units generated no
calls whatsoever. In the yeaz following our study
period, a similaz level of calls for police service came in
to the City.
Some of the occupants, but certainly not all, aze not
fulfilling their responsibility [o behave in a responsible
and law-abiding ma�ner. This continuing misbehavior
poisons the living environment for most of the residents
who do not cause problems. These neighbors have
attempted to respond to these problems by calling the
police and even considering a tenanYs remedy action to
seek court assistance with building maintenance. These
efforts have been largely unsuccessful. While the
police have responded to literally hundreds of calls to
this building, they have not affected the continuing
misbehavior of some tenants. Similazly, the occupants'
effort to initiate a tenanYs remedy action failed due to
the complications in [rying to invoke this unwieldy
remedy.
There is little evidence that the owners and managers of
this property are interested in fiilfilling their obligations
to their law-abiding tenants and neighbors. The owners
have been uncooperarive with City inspectors and have
refused to make needed repairs or have made them in a
substandazd fashion. The CiTy has inspected this
property frequently and issued many corzection orders
which have, for the most part, been ignored by the
owners. This led the City not only to revoke the
Certi£cate of Occupancy, but to issue a citation when
occupancy continued despite the revocation. However,
when brought before a judge, the matter was disposed
of with a$100 fine and a brief lecture.
As may be the genesis of chronic problem properties,
all of the responsible parties have been unable or
unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities. The tenants
continue to misbehave, tenants' organization is lacking
or ineffective, the police mostly advise, the landlord
poorly manages the property and City mspectors issue
orders that prove to be lazgely tooffiless. The only real
teeth in those situations aze in the mouths of the seven
pi[ bulls and the alligator who, at least for a while, were
seemingly happily residents of unit 307.
The high number of repeat inspect�ons required m response to the high number of complamts
from these properties greatly impacts the Fire Department's costs in administering this program.
It is also further evidence of the resistance of some property owners to maintaining their
properties in a safe and healthy manner.
We estimate that the cost is about $150 per call. Of the 13 properties studied, subject to
Certificate of Occupancy requirements, twelve were the subject of complaints to Fire Prevention
during our two yeaz period. A total of 77 additional inspections were required for a total
estimated cost of $12,150. This is an average of $1,000 for each property or $500 annually.
These calls were not, however, distributed evenly among the subject properties. While most had
more than one, the Case Case was the leader with 20 inspections in two yeazs. Also in the
double digits were the La Cucaracha and the Motel California with i l and 10 respectively. The
cost of these additional inspections is notable but not extremely high. For the worst offender, the
Case Case we estimate the additional wst to be about $3,000. For the other two high cost
properties the costs were $1,650 and $1,500 each. For all twelve of the properties, we estimate
the additional cost to be about $]2,150. This is a significant sum but it pales in comparison to
the cost of Police Patrol, Fire Suppression and Fire Emergency Medical Services costs.
CITIZEN SERVICES OFFICE ' �
The enforcement of the City Code of Ordinances dealing with building maintenance i� divided
between two agencies based on the type of property. Regulations regazding the maintenance of
one and two unit residential buildings aze enforced by the Code Enforcement Division in the
Office of Citizens Services. The Fire Prevention Unit of the Fire Department enforces
regulations regazding the maintenance of multi-unit buildings and commercial establishments.
The inspectors in these units are empowered to use wide array of sanctions in seeking to achieve
compliance with property maintenance codes. Most of these tools are available to all inspectors,
except the Certificate of Occupancy Revocation which applies only to multi-unit and commercial
buildings.
Correction Notices
Correction notices are used to inform property owners they may be violating a provision of the
property maintenance code and instructing them to correct the violation by a specified time. This
is the most frequently used enforcement tool and is effective most of the time. Generally,
property owners will make the required correction within the specified time and, upon
confirmation, the inspector will close the matter. Conection notices are often written but may
also be verbal. In either case, wrrection notices are subject to appeal to the City Council but, in
practice, relatively few aze appealed and even fewer appeals are sustained. The correction notice
is used frequently because it is relatively easy, inexpensive and usually effective. It also has the
virtue of being more like a reminder than an official sanction.
Interestingly, despite their popularity with inspectors as a response to code violations, correction-
notices were not often used with our group of chronic prob(em properties. Only four properties
received five or more correction notices: La Cucaracha (�), The Watering Kole (5) and Dog
House (6) and Dirry Business (5). Ten of our 32 properties received no correction notices at all
during a two-year period. Since these properties aze all notorious with neighbors and enforcement
agents, it is most likely that inspectors are electing to bypass correction notices and immediately
invoke more aggressive sanctions. Analysis of these more serious sanctions in subsequent
sections will support this contention.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
�2 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
P9:.
Case Study:
Alligator Alley
80
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso
"Bad Boys" is a cute bungalow style single family
home. Two women own this home, one of whom
has iwo teenage boys. One of the boys Is her son and
the other a nephew. They pay the taxes and the home,
at least on the exterior, is in reasonably good shape.
Conection orders have been issued for relatively minor
violations involving paint, doors, windows, house
numbers and gazbage. The owners have responded to
the orders promptly. A summary abatement order was
issued for a junk vehicle, in addition to a gazbage
aba[ement, but both were taken care of before the City
needed to take further action.
Because of misbehavior by the two teenage boys, the
police have been called to this address an amazing 81
rimes during the two yeazs studied. Occasionally they
have responded to several calls within a few hours.
The greatest majority of [he calls have been about noise
and disturbances. Initially, the responding officers
simply advised the occupants and left. This changed,
however, after a gun incidrnt in the property's front
yard. From that point foiwazd, most of the calls
resulted in reports being written and, in a few cases,
azrests being made. Police ca11s later involved —
besides the noise and disturbances — weapons,
vandalism, disorderly boys, hassling neighbors and
hazanguing neighbors. There were also arrests made
for auto theft and assault. The FORCE unit conducted,
or rather attempted to conduct, several "knock and
talks" at this address. Once they d�d have a
conversation with one of the boys in the yazd. On other
occasions the occupants were uncooperatroe. There
have also been a number of extraordinary incidents
involving neighbors. Once one of the boys was
involved hit and run in front of the house and on
another occasion they dischazged weapons in a
neighbor's backyazd. The neighbors aze afraid and
intimidated by the family.
The mother was unwilling to cooperate with the police
and very defensive of the boys. She and the boys, aze
said to be very sheetwise and know how and when to
exercise their rights to thwart Ciry interoentions aimed
at cooperation. The boys are lmown to be gang
members and the mother is seemingly supportive of this
affiliation and is absent from the home much of the
time.
The City even took the exfraordinary step of having the
City Attomey meet with the owners but this was futile.
The City also attempted to apply its ordinance
regarding excessive consumption of police services, but
this was also ineffective. This failure lead to revisions
in the ordinance but this did not happen quickly enough
to address this situation.
This case cleazly illusfrates the limitations of Ciry
interventions in the face of sophisticated and resistant
property owners. To this day the City has never
succeeded in entering the intenor of the home and all of
its other efforts have been lazgely ineffective. It seems
the only real hope of resolving this siNation under
cuirent law is to incazcerate these bad boys.
As a post script, police calls to the properry diminished considerably ajter September 2001, when a warrant arrest was
made at ihis property.
2002 Saint Paui City Council Research ��
..„ . [�01 �-l�(O`1 81
s��'"": �ironic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
<"�;�;.
�
Abatements
Abatement orders aze used to correct pubtic nuisances. An abatement order directs the owner of
� a property to correct a nuisance situation and advises that failure to act promptly may result in the
City taking corrective action and assessing the cost of such action to the property owner.
Abatements are a more aggressive action by inspectors because they not only advise of a problem
in need of correction, as do good neighbor letters and correction notices, they also contain the
threat of City action if the property owner fails to eliminate the nuisance. There are three types
of abatements used by inspectors. Summary abatements aze used when they expect the
conection to cost ]ess than $3,000. Enforcement officials may undertake summary abatements
upon proper notification and after an opportunity to correct is given to the property owner.
„�,_:.. Substantial abatements aze used for wrrections anticipated to cost more than $3,000. Substantial
abatements require prior approval by the City Council. Exceptions to notification and approval
processes can be made in emergency situations, but emergency abatements are subject to appeal
by the City Council.
"$�
�;;.
wt��
iY:.�.
y�,z,
e:i,
s4G
:,.c,.
:�;
�,�;..
`�_^�.;,
As might be expected with chronic problem properties, abatements aze more frequently used than
the more benign correction notices. Twenty-four of our 32 propeRies have experienced at least
one abatement during the study period and some have had many. Errant Investoril had twelve
abatements within two yeazs and Empry Promise and Errant Investor II had eight and seven,
respectively. Several properties had five or six abatements. As a group, our 32 propeRies
experienced 85 abatements in 24 months. This is an average of more than 3.5 abatements each
month for our 32 properties. Another way of looking at this is to see this as an average of more
than 2.6 abatements per property within two years or more than 13 abatements per year for each
property.
While it appears abatements aze the response of choice for City inspectors when dealing with
chronic problem properties, it is useful to cazefully examine the cases with very high numbers of
summary abatements. Errant Investor I and Errant Investor li were both in the hands of a
compietely irresponsible owner. The owner was drug addicted, unresponsive and difficult to
find. Likewise, Empry Promise was a vacant duplex owned by a crack addict and frequented by
drug dealers and drug users. Cleazly, inspectors concluded correction orders were a waste of
time with such owners and elected to conduct an abatement whenever problems got out of hand.
Orders to Remove or Repair
The City is responsible for eliminating public nuisances. When the City determines a structure
constitutes a public nuisance, it may order the structure to be repaired or removed within a
specified time. If the owner fails to make fhe necessary repairs or otherwise remove the nuisance
condition, the City may remove the structure through a substantial abatement process. Under this
process, upon approval of the City Council and the Mayor, the City removes the nuisance and
assesses the cost of this demolition to the effected property. This process is mostly used for
vacant buildings in a serious state of disrepair. None of the properties in our case study have ,
been ordered to be removed or repaired by the City through this process. The City typically
invokes this authority about 30 or 40 times each yeaz. The City actually razes about 10 to 15
such buildings each year. Since the cost of these substantial abatements are assessed to the
propeRy, the City often recovers the cost when the property is sold. However, when the property
goes "tax forfeiP' the City like(y does not recover its wsts.
PaW City Cou�cil Research Center
Case Study: Bad Boys
82
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson
Table 27. Citation Summary Table for Code Enforcement (CE), Certificate of Occupancy
( C of O) Program and Animal Control (AC)
Code Name Tag Disposition
Alligator Alley C of O tag: ATSP, $100
CE tag in July 1999 for violarion of minimum property standazds (exterior): warrent for failure to appeaz,
Dirty Business $IOQ bail.
CE tag in Mazch 2000 for violation of minimum property standazds (exterior): found guilry, $400 fine.
$ 3���� problem PropeRies in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons L��S-��t! L 83
���� � Citations and Housing Court -
r'„n�::
�,.,
�'.k'�'w��A?<
+An� n
';�'s ;
Criminal citations or "tags" were not often used for our group of chronic problem properties.
>*��g e Only 38 tags were issued to these 32 proper[ies over a two-year period. This is only slightly
��� more than an average of one tag each over two yeazs. They aze even more infrequent when it is
realized six were issued to Weird Neighbor and five to Empty Promise. Excepting the eleven
tags for these two proper[ies, only 27 tags were issued to the other 30 proper[ies over two years.
The multiple tags to Weird Neighbor were the result of the owner-occupant's recumng
challenges to the inspector's orders. Once he fought a City order to remove a vehicle and won.
�"`��'' In other cases he resisted inspector orders to complete home repairs and clean his yard. It is clear
�;F>
that multiple tags were issued not because of the particularly severe nature of the violations, but
rather because the owner continued to challenge the inspector's determinations. The many tags
for Empty Promise resulted from the owner's absolute refusal to respond to inspector's orders.
Interestingly, even given the problems with this property, the judge, upon the first conviction,
only fined the owner $700 and suspended $500 if there were no same or similar violations in the
future. There were, of course, similaz violations the following yeaz for which the judge again
sentenced the offending owner to $700 with $S00 suspended. It seems the earlier suspeaded
sentence was forgotten as the previously suspended $500 was not ordered to be paiil. �'
Gangster AC tag for dog running at lazge and no licence or shots.
Boyfriend
}�:.:. em �o7le��� n � u � YO �' '7Ci� O ���~n' �s� :uu nK ' �et� .:a=
;?� wm.kg�. ' 6xms.i ��.:. �t ;�" � � tma.._s �' �t��rs � �'�� � _.��.f'����
Nasry Four C of O tag in 7une 1999 for nuisance conditions: dismissed and retagged new owner.
Over the Edge C of O tag in December 2000 for faulry/missing smoke detectors: ATSP," $75.
The Brothers CE tag in July 1999 for violation of minunum proper[y standards: wazrant for failure to appeu and $200
� bail set.
CE tag in May 2000 for violation of minimum property standazds: wazrant for failure to appear.
�aiTiw ' i IKnRn..��.r P�*e'^ ^a€ �s �'i+� � s'y�.'" AF�'
�� �ase E �� ` w S 00 kit 10U�� �`,„�* �tNlr �, � t � �`�' �
� _ �_:t�� � ,��,�.._ 4ti:. _�. u,-�.. � E�� � � �
Through the CE tag in January 1999 for violation of minimum property standazds (ex[erior): wazrant for failure to
Cracks appeaz, $50 bail.
.r. �;t,'�;-?o-F:m}ta".;i ....
� f`
Wate�pg.,F,�'q�e�';' .
�;�;,€�.,sn�.w,.a.. .
CE tag in September 1999 for nuisance conditions: 3 court appeazances resulting in court order to
complete work in 6 months.
Weird Neighbor CE tag in September 2000 for nuisance conditions: warrant for failure to appeaz, $500 bail set.
CE tag in November 2000 for violation of minunum property standards (exterior structural condirions):
w azrant for f to appeaz an $ bail set.
Z � ATSP is an agreement to suspend prosecution, where the City and responsible party agree there will be no
prosecution of the violaTion for one year, if there aze no same or similaz offenses, there is compliance with the relevant code and
the responsible party pays court costs.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Cer�
Because of the time and difficulty involved in prosecuting tags and the generally unsattisfactory
results, from the inspectors perspective, tags are seldom used and housing court is generally
avoided even with the serious chronic problem properties selected for this study. Unl�ss
prosecution can be speeded up and the sanctions selected by the judges become more severe, tags
are unlikely to be a major Code Enforcement tool.
Condemnations
Both Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement inspectors have the authority to condemn a property
as unfit for human habitation and order it vacated until needed repairs aze made or essential
services restored. The most common causes for condemnations are loss of electrical, gas, water
or sewer service. Buildings can also be condemned based on gross unsanitary conditions or
unsafe conditions caused by fire, high winds or other forces. When a building is condemned,
occupants must vacate the propeRy. It cannot be re-inhabited until inspected and approved by
the appropriate City officials. Condemnations aze also sometimes used as a sanction of last
resort when owners refuse to correct serious threats to the inhabitants' safety. Inspectors aze
loath to issue condemnations because it means occupants must vacate and often have no where
else to live. Inspectors aze very reluctant to make people homeless.
Nonetheless, eleven of our 32 properties were condemned at some point during the study period
and three were condemned more than once. Misplaced was condemned three times and Double
Gross and Nasty Four were each condemned twice. Misplaced is a commercial towing service
which was fire damaged. Condemnation of this propeRy did not displace any residents. The
owner did, however, continue to try to use the property for business despite it having been
determined by Fire Prevention to be unsafe. The repeated condemnations were required because
the owner seemed to refuse to "get the message" he could not continue to do business at this
location. As the names would suggest, Double Gross and Nasty Four are residential properties
where the owner did not maintain the properties to a level that they were fit to live in.
P'+�� City Council Research Center
1) CE tag in December 1999 for violarion of minunum property standazds: pled guilty. $700 £ne, with
$200 payable and $500 suspended if there aze no same or similaz offenses.
Empry Promise 2) CE tag in January 2000 for violarion of minimum property standazds and illegal pazked abandoned
vehicle: pled guilty. $700 fine, with $200 payable and $500 suspended if there aze no same or similar
offenses.
84
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessop
"Danger Island" is an eleven-unit apartment built in
1961. This apartrnent building is in a remarkably
isolated location. It is sunounded by a bridge, railroad
tracks and open space to the extent that there aze no
immediate neighbors at all. The lack of neighbors
probably accounts for the fact that nerther the Ciry
Council Ward Office nor the Dishict Council were
awaze the building was in their area of responsibiliry.
Police and Fire Prevenrion aze, however, very awaze of
the problems at this building.
The cunen[ owner purchased this building, along with
about ten others, in 1999. He appazently had no prior
experience in the residential property management
business which seems to have con[ributed to the
problems here. Most of the buildings he purchased were
disfressed when he bought them and remain so. While
the owner has been generally cooperative with City
officials, his properties aze suffering from poor
management. Almost hatf these properties have some
level of tax delinquencies and most have problems with
bad tenants.
This apartment building has experienced numerous
interior and exterior code violations. Such problems as
water damage, overcrowding, broken smoke detectors,
holes in walls and heaUfumace problems have been cited
by inspectors. Similazly, they have noted exterior
violations for such things as gazbage, walls, paint and
retaining walls. The owner has; however, responded to
all these problems when cited and has maintained a
Certificate of Occupancy since acquiring the building.
During the study period, the owner hired a cazetaker for
the property, but an inspector noted the odor of
mari�uana emanating from his doorway.
The compelling problem at this property ts that the
tenants bektave terribly. Drug dealing and violence aze
the order of the day. Police have been called to this
address 213 times during the study period. They have
confronted drug users, violent altercations and other
criminal behavior at an astonishing level. They have
dealt with narcotics, fights, assaults, vandalism, fraud,
azson, auto theft, burglary, stalking and other offenses.�
The FORCE Unit has raided the building twice
yielding guns and drugs on both occasions. Tenants
deal drugs, figh[ and engage in all sorts of criminal
activity on aa amazing scale. When evicted they aze
sunply replaced with others who aze similazly
predisposed and the problems condnue. In some cases,
where drug dealers have been evicted, their girlfriends
often remain behind and provide retum shelter as soon
as the heat is off. More than 50 of the police calls have
been to general azeas rather than specific units. Most
of the drug dealing activity seems to be in the
building's common azeas along with £ghts and other
disturbances. Much of the violence, however, goes on
within the individual units. Every unit, except one, had
calls for domesric violence. Some units had as many as
twenty to thirty police calls in only rivo yeazs. The
high was 33 calls with other units having 29 and 23
calls each. Mental health issues are also appazent in at
least one unit with the police needing to transport a
disturbed resident to mental health facilities.
Despite the very high level of police activity at this
addtess, offier City staff aze Iazgely obIivious fo the
problems az this address. Even Ciry building inspectors
were lazgely unawaze of the behavioral problems that
plague this building. They see the owner as a generally
cooperarive person who just does not know how to
manage residenrial rental property. The police,
howeve�, see this as a hotbed of criminal ac[iviry. The
lack of immediate neighbors seems to prevent this
proper[y from coming onto the radaz screen for either
the Councilmember or the Dishic[ Council. It is
obvious improved communication among City agencies
is needed if the causes of these problems aze ever to be
resolved.
� In 2007, the police call level was comparable with previous years. Reporis were written on incidents relating to
treatment ofchildren, theft, domestic violence, runaways and vandalism.
s '� problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �"'��� 85
It is informative to note that although they issued orders of condemnation-for eleven of our 32
;''` properties, no one was ever actually forced to vacate. Every time, the placard was lifted before
- one actuall had to move out This is not always the case as there are instances where
any y
vacations do occur. Condemnation orders usually result in corrections being made, at least to the
�r+� extent that occupants aze not forced to evacuate the premise. Whether this is because owners
make needed corrections or inspectors relent, when faced with actually making occupants
homeless, it is difficult to know. It is the case, however, that condemnation orders do have a way
of getting owners attention. The prospect of being forced out of their home or losing the income
from tenants can be a very effective enforcement tool when nothing else seems to work. It is not,
however, very effective with lazge apartment buildings as owners know that the City is loath to
make large numbers of people evacuate.
�
Rental Registration
Rental Registration is a City program requiring properties with one or two rental units to register
" with the City. It does not, however, apply to homesteaded properties or three or more unit
buildings included in the Certificate of Occupancy program. Registration requires basic ownership
�; information and the payment of an annual registration fee. The ordinance provides for the denial,
;";� or revocation, of a rental registration certificate when owners aze observed violatiqg City maes an3
regulations regarding the management of their properties. The ordinance also gives City officials
expanded access to inspect these properties when violations of City codes aze found or suspected.
i"r';
�;:
.�..
tYl:,
�-.
<:��„
�.
i
t..
u
xn.
q.;r..
f.�
,�a:;�
2002 SaiM Paul Ciry Council Research Ce�
T'here have been several attempts to implement parts of this ordinance. These attempts have been
rather half-hearted and generally ineffective. It is clear the Administration, during the study
period, had little interest in enforcing the requirements of this ordinance or in using the powers
granted to them thereunder. For example, the fact only three of the eight chronic problem
properties in this study, that should be registered were actually registered, despite their notorious
histories. Notably, there have been no appeals to the legislative hearing officer nor any criminal
prosecutions under this ordinance. Presently the City has a Rental Registration Progam in name
only, and until the Administration decides to take this ordinance seriously, the powers granted to
enforcement agents under this ordinance will remain largely unused and, therefore, ineffective.
Problem Properties 2000
"Problem Properties 2000" was an initiative launched in the yeaz 2000 largely in response to a
series of newspaper articles raising questions about the efficacy of City Code Enforcement
activities. The idea behind this program was there were thought to be a few property owners who
owned many problem propeRies and Code.Enforcement officials should identify these owners
and given them special attentiott. This initiative began by identifying some problem owners
through a process Code Enforcement officials have been consistently unwilling to document or
even describe. The general sense was they Imew who to include and establishing explicit criteria
might not always select the "right" property owners. It was also apparently feared that
documenting the selection criteria might pl�ovide a basis for those selected for special attention to
challenge their inclusion. Since the selection criteria were unknown and undocumented, there
could be no basis for challenge. While there can be questions raised regarding the
appropriateness of such an approach by a govemment agency, it worked to the extent that no one
successfully challenged their inciusion. Code Enforcement officials consistently denied they
were "targeting" selected owners although the fact they were seemed obvious.
Council Research Cen[er
Case Study: Danger Island
86
Chronic Problem Propertiesin Saint Paui: Case Study Lesso�
The PP2000 approach was to call selected propeRy owners in for a meeting with Code
Enforcement o�cials. At these meetings they told the owners the City was "fed up" with their
irresponsible behavior and intended to do something about it. It was believed these meetings
were successful in convincing some problem owners to "clean up their act" or to "get out of the
business" by seliing their Saint Paul properties. In cases where these owners were unresponsive
to City coercion, Code Enforcement activities were "stepped-up" for their properties. It is widely
believed by the Code Enforcement ot�icials involved in PP2000 that they were effective in
dealing with many of these problem owners. No data was collected regarding PP2000, so
assessing the effectiveness of this effort is impossible. No matter whether it was effective, the
program just faded away. There was no formal termination of the program, it just stopped being
discussed. [ts proponents claimed it ended because they had successfully dealt with most of the
serious offenders. Others suggest it was just another fad program that fell by the wayside when
media attention moved to other azeas of interest.
Table 28. Property Interventions
Residential
In[ervention 1-2 Unit 3+ Unit Commercial Total
Properties in Croup (N =) _ 19 9 4 I 32
Code Enforcement Citations
Average Code Enf. Citations
Abatements (Summary & Vehicle)
Average Abatements
Conection Notices
Average Correction Notices
Condemnations
Average Condemnations
CeRificate of Occupancy Revocations
Average Enforcemen[ Actio�s
Problem Properties Task Force ,
PP2000 Program
Tenan[ Remedy Act
Housing Court Outstanding Warzants
In Rental Registration Pro�am
11 (57.9%) 4 (44.4%) I (15.0%)
1.6 0.7 0.5
17 (89.5%)
3.6
13 (68.4%)
1.8
6 (31.6%)
0.4
N/A
10.5
2 (10.5%)
4 (21.1%)
0 (0.0%J
8 (42.1%)
3 (15.8%)
5 (55.6%)
12
6 (66.7%)
1.9
4 (44.4%)
0.6
4 (49.4%)
] 0.8
5 (55.6%)
2 (22.2%)
3 (33.3%)
I (1/.1%)
N/A
2 (50.0%)
1.5
3 (75.0%)
23
1 (25.0%)
0.8
2 (50.0%)
6.5
2 (50.0%)
0 (0.0%)
N/A
0 (0.0%)
N/A
16 (50.0%)
1Z
24 (75.0%)
2.7
22 (68.8%)
1.9
11 (34.4%J
0.5
6 (78.8%)
10.1
9 (28.1 %)
6 (18.8%)
3 (9.4%)
9 (28.1q)
3 (9.4%)
Good Neighbor Notices
Two years ago the City began experimenting with a progam where inspectors train citizens to
identify certain exterior code violations such as tall weeds, snow removal, trash and abandoned
vehicles. Following this training, citizens would conduct exterior inspections of neighborhood
properties and send or deliver form letters to proper[y owners who may not be meeting code
requirements. The program began as a pilot program in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood and
was deemed successful with about one-half of the "good neighbor" letters resulting in
2002 Saint Paul City Council Researoh Cence+
,?:�:.
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Q�` ��� $�
correcfions. Because of this perceived success, the program was expanded to three additional
azeas in 2001. It is unclear at this point if the program has continued to enjoy success. This
program 2�as recently been reviewed by Council Research. In any case, it is unlikely this
program would be effective with chronic problem properties due to the serious and enduring
exterior, interior and behavioral problems commonly found there.
Problem Properties Task Force
The Problem Properties Task Force (PPT'F) is yet another attempt by the City to address chronic
problem properties. The distinguishing characteristic of the PPTF is its overt focus on
coordinating the enforcement acrivities of all City agencies engaged in dealing with problem
properties. The basic premise of this effort is that City agencies meet formally and regularly to
exchange informarion about problem properties. To this end, a formal PPT'F was created and a
high-level City official was designated as the leader of the task force. It is now lead by a senior
Fire Prevenrion Inspector.
Emergency Medical Services!Fire Cost Average
FORCE Arrests Costs Average
FORCE Knock and Talks Average
Licensing Average
Total Costs Average
$130
�'� �`�' 7�1`:W-
$380
� ae�rg�� tt i���:
�.e�i«.., $Z0�'r.
$136
$75 .
�1,,717
Zl Medians aze provided only for Police, Fve and Code costs. In other categories, the medians aze either zero or lack
arive sigoificance and, therefore, aze not presented.
Counal Research Center
The task force continues to meet monthly and discuss specific properties to coordinate agency
enforcement efforts. Again, no data has been collected or analyzed to evaluate the effecriveness of
the PPTF. The general impression of the participants is that it is a good idea and;has sometimes'
led to more effecrive enforcement. The extent to which this is true has not been documented. �
�
- - - - - . "' '. .. , v �
,
es `�`
Chronic Problem PropeRies in Saint Paul: Case 3tudy Lesso� � A�"'���';,�Ghronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL Case Study Lessons Q�, 0�09 89
e; -..,
owner challenged this determination and was successfui in achieving a court ruling de[erminating
OT H E R C ITY E N F O RC E M E N T AG E N C I E S �at he was not in violation as he did not actually use the vehicle in question for commercial
purposes. During this dispute, zoning staff conducted 11 inspections of this property for an
Animal Control
estimated cost of $1,650.
Animal Control is the activity within the Licensing, Inspection and Environmental Protection
(LIEP) responsible for the enforcement of City ordinances regazding animals. It also engages in
wildlife protection activities by capturing and relocating wild animals that mistakenly venture
into the City. Animal Control also handles animal licensing and is responsible for the hand]ing
of dangerous or abandoned animals. Animal Control is almost entirely complaint based. They
respond to calls from citizens and other City agencies where animals are involved. While an
Animal Control o�cer may observe and apprehend a stray or dangerous dog while on the street,
the overwhelming majority of their work is in response to a call for service.
While animal problems, especially dog problems, reflect a general disregazd for the peace and
safety of their neighbors, animal problems aze not the sole cause any of our chronic problem
properties. The reason may be that Animal Control can and does directly intercede if problems
persist. They issue citations for repeated failures to comply with City animal control ordinances
and seize and impound dogs when warranted. There is a dear identifiable source for animal
controi probtems and cleaz and direct interventions the City may use to immediately stop the
nuisance. This clarity and focus make it relatively easy to effectively intervene when animal
problems occuc It is much easier to stop a 6azking, or even dangerous, dog, than to prevent
domestic abuse, drug dealing or prostitution.
Fourteen of our 32 chronic problem properties generated calls for animal control assistance
dureng the two-yeaz study period. Most of these calls involved dogs. An interesting exception
was the alligator for which we named Alligator Alley. The greatest number of calls to a singie
property was to the Dog House. Not surprisingly, a11 of the Animal Control calls to the Dog
House involved dogs. These included dogs mm�ing at lazge, dog bites, abandoned dogs,
unlicenced dogs, stray dogs and dog fighting. These calls reflect two episodes involving two
dogs and two dog owners. Empty Promise generated six calls regarding dogs to the Police
Department and Animal Control. The neighbors stopped calling when Animai Control seized
and impounded the dog.
The cost of respond to animal contro] calls at the chronic problem properties in this study does
not represent a major expense for the City. At an estimated $150 per call, the 44 calls created an
estimated total cost of $6,600. While this is swely a cost above that of most properties in the
City, it does not constitute a major financial burden for the City. The Dog House was the single
most expensive animal control property with nine calls for an estimated cost of $1,350. Many of
the chronic problem propeRies, however, involved no animal control services or costs.
Zoning
The City of Saint Paul, as almost all large cities, has zoning ordinances which define the types of
land uses and activities permitted in each geographic azea of the City. City zoning staff aze
charged with the mission or ensuring property owners comply with zoning ordinances. They do
this by reviewing proposals for new uses and by responding to complaints regarding possible
violations of the Zoning Code. Three of our chronic problems have been the subject of zoning
staff inspections. YVeird Neighbor was storing a commercial type vehicle on his residentially
zoned property. Based on the presence of this vehicle, he was deemed to be in violation of the
zoning code banning commercial activity in a residentially zoned neighborhood. In this case, the
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center
�sptaced is a towing garage that bumed. Subsequent to the fire and the Failure of the owner to
make prompt repairs, zoning staff determined this was a non-conforming use that could not
continue under the zoning code. Nonetheless, the owner continued to try to operate his towing
business at this location. The continued illegal use precipitated at least two visits by zoning staff
for an estimated cost of $30�.
Dirty Business is a classic example of a zoning violation. This is a single family home in a
residential neighborhood where the owner decided to operate a landscaping business in their
driveway and backyard. Not surprisingly, neighbors complained and zoning staff were
dispatched to remedy the situation. Despite directions from zoning inspectors, the homeowner
persisted in trying to operate this business which ]ead to more complaints and more visits from
zoning staff. In total, three zoning inspections were conducted in the two yeaz period at � cost of
$300.
Licensing
7ust as a newspaper pundit said "almost everytliing is illegal in Minnesota." Almost everything
that isn't, requires a license. Two of the businesses requiring licenses are operating a baz or a
towing business. In the case of Misplaced, discussed in the preceding section on zoning, the
owner of this towing business persisted in trying to operating this business without a licence to do
so. Not surprising this brought complaints from neighbors that brought licensing inspectors.
They made ten visits to this property over two years and despite, explanations, wamings, orders
and citations, never really succeeded in convincing the recalcitrant owner he could not do business
without a]icense. These ten visits aze estimated to have cost the City $1,500.
The two bazs included in this study, Fight Club and Watering Hole both had serious license
problems. Fight Club was ultimately closed because of license violations and the Watering Hole
was sold under threat of being closed for license violations. As these two experiences suggest,
revoking a bars license to operate can be a most effective way of dealing with a chronic problem
property. The difficulty, however, is that it generally requires a series of serious violations for a
long period of time to justify revoking a baz's license to operate. City licensing staff responded to
I1 complaints at the Watering Hole and eight complaints at the Fight Club before the problems
were deemed to be sufficient cause to commence license revocation proceedings. These license
inspections are estimated to have cost $I,fi50 and $1,200 respectively. As is appazent from the
cases in this study, licensing revocation can be an effective tool in seeking to eliminate chronic
problem properties but it is slow and only applies to those relatively few chronic problem
properties required to have licenses. � �
�Saint Paul Ciry Council Research Center
�
90 "..
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessoq �; .,a:onic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Q� -o�(p g�
�
SUMMARY
An overview of the extent and manner in which chronic problem propeRies use City services
shows the Police Department beazs the greatest burden. Within the two years of this study, the 32
chronic problem properties required 2,488 visits by Police Patrol, with an additional 121
interventions by the FORCE Unit. The Police Patrol services are estimated to have cost $323,440
or $161,720 annuaily. Adding to this estimate is the cost of FORCE Unit services equaling
$55,315 or $27,657. This means these 32 property aze costing the Police Department an estimated
$189,377 each year. That equates to $5,918 spent per chronic problem property per yeaz in police
service alone.
The Fire Department expended an estimated $143,498 responding to 138 fire suppression and 176
emergency medical services calls to these 32 properties over two years. This was an average of
$71,749 each year or $2,242 per year per property. In addition, fire prevention responded to 81
calls at a cost of $12,150 or $6,075 annually. On average, this represents a cost of $1,898
annually for each chronic problem property in the study.
Table 30. C6ronic Problem Properties Total Costs b
Cost Category
Properties in Group (N =)
tudy Period
Rental Total
17 32
Police Costs
Emergency Medical Services/Fire Cost
FORCE Arrests Costs
FORCE Buys and Surveiltance
FORCE Knock and Talks
FORCE Warsants
Code Enforcement Costs
Certificate of Occupancy Costs
Mimal Con[rol Costs
Licensing Costs
Zoning Costs
Commercial
4
$59,670
$32,447
$o
$650
$260
$0
$900
$1,200
$150
$4,350
$300
gory for the
Owner
Occupied
11
$63,500
$5,941
ss,2oo
$5,525
$1,690
$5,200
$9,000
$1,OS0
$4,200
$0
$2,100
$200,720 $323,440
$]05,110 $143,498
$7,280 $12,450
$9,100
$2,210
$18,200
$9,300
$8,850
$2,250
$0
$0
$15,275
$4,160
$23,400
$19,200
$12,150
$6,600
$4,350
$2,400
$566,953
Total Costs
$1OQ997 $102,956 $363,020
The Code Enforcement Unit of the Citizens Service Office responded to 128 calls about these
properties for an estimated cost of $19,200 or $9,600 annually. The average for the 32 properties
is estimated at an annual cost of $300 per property. While this cost is notable, it pales in
comparison to the costs borne by the Police and Fire Departments
The costs associated with providing animal controt, zoning and licensing services for these 32
property are comparatively small. The total estimated two year cost of these services were
2002 Saint PaW Ciry Council Research Cenre�
$6,600, $2,400 and $4,350 respectively. This amounts to about $103 for animal control, $50 for
zoning and $68 for licensing per property per year. While these sums aze undoubtedly higher than
average for propeRies in the City, they are comparatively minor when compazed to the almost
$6,000 the Police Department and the almost $2,000 the Fire Department spends on each of these
properties annually.
Curing chronic problem properties is an expensive business. Not curing chronic problem
properties is more expensive. We know the 32 chronic problem properties we chose for this study
have consumed, and in most cases continue to consume, an enormous amount of City resources.
They generate thousands of visits each yeaz from police officers, fire fighters, pazamedics, fire
inspectors, code inspectors, zoning inspectors and animal control officers. These services are
expensive. The "cheapesY' of these properties for the City received an annual average of $1,289
in these City services during our study period. The most expensive received an annual average o£
$34,534 during the same time period.. Based on our estimate there are between 220 and 284
chronic problem properties in Saint Paul and our finding the 32 properties in this study consumed
in excess of $250,000 worth of City services each yeaz, we estimate the City spends
approximately $1.95 to $2.52 million each yeaz attempting to ameliorate chronic problem
properties. This cost might be acceptable if these expensive interventions were effect'ive but we "
know, for the most part, they aze not. At best, they keep the situations at these properties from ,
getting completely out of control. They do not, however, resolve the underlying �rqblems nor
relieve the pain these properties cause for surrounding neighborhood. � ,
While the direct costs to the City of attempting to deal with chronic problem properties are
impressive, the indirect costs of the continuation of these problem situations aze surely higher.
The social costs of the violence, drug dealing, domestic abuse, public disorder.and neighbofiood �
disruption must be many times the direct service costs. The costs of emergency room visits, lost
jobs, missed schooling, sickness, work absences, out-migration and reduced pioperty values can
only be imagined. Other costs that can not be quantified are the lost of the loss of peace, comfort,
and freedom caused by these chronic problem properties. We know from the cases studied here
these chronic problem properties often cause people to live in fear- afraid to venture out of their
apartrnent or into their own yazd. This loss of public peace can not be quantified but we all
understand this is unacceptable if we aze to provide citizens with the quality of life they expect in
Saint Paul.
Ciry Ceuncil Research Center
92
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Les�.
CURING THE PROBLEMS
Curing the problems associated with these properties means moving beyond reacting to the
individual symptom presenting itself, such as garbage, a broken window or disturbances. Rather,
it has to do with finding out why problems remain unmitigated for so long and keep recurring
even after they seem to have been handled. Part of finding these answers is to look at all of the
problems, and therein may lie the answec If there aze several children, a lack of money, drug use
and domestic violence, it is little wonder that replacing a window or picking up garbage crops up
as a probiem. In this chapter we wiil examine the role the various actors can play in resolving the
ongoing recurring problems at these properties, and the tools they can use to assist them in this
effort.
UNABLE AND UNWILLING
Eazlier in this study we established that in order for a chronic problem property to develop, the
key actors must be unable or unwilling to fix the problems at these properties. It is more likely
that a problem will develop if risk factors aze present which predispose the property towazds
chronic problem development. Clearly the key to curing lies in making the key actors able and
willing to fix the problems at these properties, and minimizing the risk factors for problem
development.
On the surface making someone, some group of people or some agency able and willing to engage
and fix a problem or problems seems like a relatively straight-forwazd proposition. If they are
unable, then they need the resources and where-with-all to deal with the problem. If they aze
unwilling, then rewazds and punishments can be put into place to persuade them of the error of
their ways. As simple as this seems, figuring out whether it is the actors' inability or their
unwillingness that is preventing them from fixing the problems on the property is difficult. If that
is figured out, the next step is to choose the correct tool(s) to enable or persuade them to take
action.
A case-in-point comes from the stories of Errant Investar. Here was a property owner who, at
one point, owned nearly thirty properties in a several block azea that were not problem or chronic
problem properties.'� However, as the owner fell into drug addiction, the problems at these
properties were not resolved when they surfaced. Surprisingly, not all of his properties became
problems, although many of them did. A review of calls for police and code enforcement services
shows a distinct point in time when some of his properties began to slip. As the addiction
deepened, he became much more disconnected from the neighborhood, and networks of people
with whom he had interacted. He also began to sell off some of the properties to finance his drug
usage. Clearly, this property owner was both unable and unwilling to deal with problems as they
azose. In the end, it was a combination of incentives and punitive measures which brought these
propeRies back into control.
�� Owners who own multiple properties are no[ necessazily problematic. But as this case demonstrates, if the owner
"goes bad" the impact is broad, and in a small area such as this, deep.
2002 Saint Paul City Gouncil Research Cei
oblem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons �a �.�o 93
ACTOR INTERVENTIONS
Each of the case studies presents a story of a chronic problem property. [n these stories,
presumably, lies some explanation for the choices people and organizations have made. It is
evident from the 32 case studies that each suggests its own, idiosyncratic set of solutions. The
cure for the chronic problems has to do with changing the motivations of the actors involved, and
in some cases, providing them with the new or improved tools for dealing with chronic problem
properties. Using our current tools, we seem to have a 63 percent likelihood these chronic
problem properties will show up again, as was demonstrated in Table 8. Indeed, 63 percent of the
case studies would have been defined as chronic problem properties in the five years preceding
our study period.
It has generally been our contention that owners are ultimately responsible for the physical
problems a property experiences, and occupants are generally responsible for behavior and crime
problems. Government, of course, is chazged with making and enforcing the laws that govern
these actions. The following sections will address these groups and tools, with an eye towazd
suggesting possible improvements. Possible improvements relate to the role local
can play. However, it should be noted that all levels of government, neighborhood organizations„
neighbors and individuals have options for improving the way they deal with chronic�problem
properties. " ,
Government
The term govemment, as it has been used in this report, covers a broad array of functions and
services. These include law and code enforcement agencies, the courts, elected officials and
service providing agencies. Given the broad definition we aze using, it is cleaz that the public
sector has the potential to interact with chronic problem properties at many levels an� at many
different points in time. Therefore, there aze many approaches and tools dift'erent parts of
govemment have the opportunity to use. We will discuss these as existing tools and approaches
which may be improved. In this discussion we will present ideas that seemed logical based on the
case studies, but there aze, no doubt, additional improvements which could be made. We will
then discuss new tools and approaches which may be developed.
Improvement of Existing Tools and Approaches
Knowing About the Probiems
The first, and perhaps the most impoRant, thing govemment needs to do with respect to chronic
problem propeRies is to become aware of them. If a complaint-based method of law or code
enforcement is being used, then govemment relies primarily upon occupants and neighbors to
alert it about problems. This also holds true for the periodiasystematic approach, in that
problems occur between regulazly scheduled inspections, and govemment needs to become aware
of those as well. The health and vitality of the household and neighborhood likely play a role in
how occupants and neighbors relate to government and its ability to help them address the
problems in their areas. As discussed eazlier, a neighborhood or individual may be fatigued from
having dealt with similar problems for so long, or they may be afraid of reta(iation. In the case of
Errant Investor II, an eleven p.m. shooting on a front porch elicited only one call from a neighbor.
There are likely many cases of domestic violence where the victims do not alert police. Also,
there aze many tenants who fear losing their housing if they complain about conditions.
Additionally, there aze some who have
Paul Gity Council Resea'ch Ce�rter
::,:��'.s.,
94 Chronic Problem Pro erties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lesso p rties in Saint PauL• Case Stud Lessons E7a,'c�,(P 95
P Y � �.�� ^��,onic Probtem Pro e y
"Double Gross" has a long and co]odul history as a
problem property. It is an older, extremely low-value
duplex in an azea with a lazge Hmong popularion. This
property is located in a poorer neighborhood, but not a
"bad" area except for this property and [he house
adjacen[ to it. Double Gross has been the scene of
major problems for at least the past six yeazs. The
significant problems seem ro have come in waves
cresring in 1995, 1998, and in 2001. In the yeazs
preceding our smdy period, the FORCE unit raided the
property on fout different occasions. These raids were
provoked because of drug dealing and pitbull (dog)
fighting. Both the upstairs unit and the downstairs were
condemned in 1998 because of gross unsanitary
conditions, including excess animal waste in the upper
uni[— no doubt connected to the resident fighting
pitbulls. More recently, the property was condemned
because of a gas and electricity shut-off for nonpayment
of utilifies and meter [ampering.
In 1999 and 2000, the police were called to ffiis address
40 times. These calls involved nucotics, disturbances,
disorderly boys, domestic assault, vandalism, fraud and
animals. Many were prompted by illegal business often
transacted on the front porch. In 2001, police visited
the duplex 60 times (a 94% increase over 2000), mosdy
for nazcotics and domestic assault. Other police visits
involved burglary, "other sex offenses," the ezecurion
of seazch warrants, warrant arrests, violations of court
orders, and "other violarions.° Some of these reports
may indicate that someone on pazole or probarion was
either living there, or a frequent visitor.
The owner of this proper[y is a notorious slum landloid
who owns 16 other one- and two- unit buildings in
older, poorer inner-ring neighborhoods in Saint Paul,
including the aforementioned problem property
adjacent to Double Gross. He is variously described u
a diunk, stupid orjust incompetent. He also appears to
be exploitarive of some of his tenants and is recalcitrant
about completing order to repairs in a timely fashion.
He daims not to understand why the City is picking on
him and somefimes calls City staff for help in managing
his properties, specifically looking for City staff to
condemn units so that he is not bothered with an
eviction process. Since the owner chooses not to
manage his properties, he seems to think City staff
should do i[ for him. Repeated efforts to educa[e him in
property management have failed despi[e the best
efforts of City staff and Saint Paul Association of
Responsible Landlords (SPARL).
Despite his appaent lunitarions, he seems to have a gift
for acquiring property and making money in the
process. He is, for example, credited with buying a
property in the moming and reselling it in the aftemoon
to another notorious slumlord for a$10,000 profit. He
does not, however, seem to have any interest or aptitude
for managing these properties once he acquires them.
had a bad experience with govemment and aze hesitant to bring forward their concems. For
example, a particularly serious set of tenant concerns was calied in to the City.about Through the
Cracks. In this case, there was mis-communication within the department and the complaints
were not investigated. It is hazd to imagine this tenant wi11 turn to the City regarding similar
concems in the future. At a very basic level, govemment needs to invite the participation of the
community by encouraging communication on chronic problems properties.
Citations, Prosecution and Housing Court
In the area of Code Enforcement, we found there was a distinct tendency of inspectors to tum to
<, using the "tooP' of abatement as a first or second resort in dealing with chronic problem
properties, rather than the issuance of conection orders alone. This response by staff in the field
is reflective of their experience working with given propedies, people and situations. Issuance of
abatement orders is, in their experience, more likely to rectify the problem situation quickly. No
doubt, this is connected to the fact that once an abatement order is issued, owners have a given
amount of time to clean up the problem situation before govemment moves in to clean.it up for
them— and assess the cost to their taYes. �
Experience has taught inspectors (and in some cases police officers) that using a citation yields
little, by way of results, in fixing problem situations. Table 27 provides information on citation �
activity for our 32 case studies during the 24-month study pedod. It shows a pattem of the court
system not taking seriously the chronic problems at these properties and the adverse affects these
problems have had on their neighborhoods. This may be reasonable, in the sense that the typical
approach of govemment interventions is to look at the individual violation at hand, rather than the`
entire situation. Additionally, enforcement officers consider citations a tool of last resort, rather
than one which is commonly used when approaching code violation situations. However, the
courts tend to view citations as the beginning of their experience with a particulaz property or
owner.
The court system is uniquely positioned to consider situations broadly, and id the context of their
history. They must also be presented appropriate information about the entirety of enforcement,
and possibly service-providing, agencies' experience with a property. An excellent example of
the court using its "bird's eye view" to deal with a chronic problem property found in the case
studies, Errant Investor I and IL Here the courts specifically took into account the role the drug
use of the propedy owner played in the deterioration of his many property holdings. The court
did this by staying imposition of some of the penalties, if the owner were to undergo a chemical
evaluation. However, the fine levels and jail time ultimately imposed seem pale in comparison
with the devastating effect his properties had on the neighborhood.
The situation in Empty Promise is typical of the frustration with the citation process. Here code
inspectors had conducted eight summary abatements (clearing the exterior of the property from
"everything imaginable" and some vehicles� and written five citations. The police had also been �
very active at this property, with 72 calls for service in a 15-month time period. They responded
to many concems, but almost all rooted to drug use and suspected drug dealing. In December of
1999, several Code Enforcement tags were disposed of with a$700 fine-- $500 of whiCh was
suspended if there were no same or similaz violations. In January of 2000 the other citations
received an identical disposition— with apparent disregazd for imposing the previously suspended
fine. Additionaily, it is not clear whether negotiated "ag'eements to suspend prosecution" if there
aze no same or similar ofFenses are revisited to determine if there have been no same or similar
offenses.
2002 Saint Paul City Council Research Center '� ��^t Paul City Council Research Certer
;�.;+u'�5����'
Case Study: Double Gross
96 Chronic Problem Pro erties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lesso perties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lessons f� :��o 97
P Y ns ,<"�ironicProblemPro y
"Duty Business" is a nice home in a nice
neighborhood. The current owners, a fanuly with
children, have homesteaded the property for more than
20 yeazs. The City has been trying to address the
problems in this property's yazd for years. During our
study period, the property owner has had interactions
with Code Enforcement, License Inspection and
Environmental Protection jLIEP], Animal Contro] and
the Poiice.
The basic problem is [hat the primary owner is trying to
run a]andscaping business out of her home.
Consequently, there aze recucring complaints from
neighbors about storin$ landscaping ma[erials in the
driveway and yazd. In response to these complaints the
City haz ordered cleanups of garbage, hash,
]andscaping materials and wood. The City has, at one
time or another, used virtually every one of its
enforcemert tools to address the exterior code and
zoning violations. It has issued correc6on orders,
condncted snnvnary abatements, issued citations and
sen[ nofices of zoning code violations. Most recenUy,
the ovmer was fined $400 for exterior code violarions.
On several occasions Animal Control has also had to
cite the owner for dog leash law vio]ations and failure
to cleanup dog feces. The owner finally bougHt a dog
license, but violations cominue on a regulaz basis. The
property continues to have some sanitary problems and
the City may again need to cleanup the property.
The neighbors have been sensitive with this woman.
She suffers from depression, seems unable to work
from time to time, and reports she has been in
treatment. Neighbors have periodically hied to help
and also asked a priest to intervene. She seems to have
little outside support to help her run her business in
accordance wi[h property and zoning codes that apply
to residential areas. The City's interventions aze
unlikely to be effective in the long-term as long as her
mental illness remains untreated.
"�" � Finally, another additional frustrating aspect of using citations to deal with code violations is that
in many cases defendants do not appeaz in court. This results in the issuance of a warrant for
s failure to appear. Four months following the conclusion of our study period, in April of 2000, six
of the seventeen case studies which had received citations continued to have outstanding wa�rants
for failure to appear.
�
In summary, these concems speak to the initial preparation of citations, the context in which
citations aze presented to the court, the seriousness with which the couR views these code
violations and follow up on citations which have been brought forward—including pursuing
warrants for failure to appear. Each aspect of this process should be reviewed for improvement to
better deal with the problems presented by chronic problem properties. It may be the City should
pursue "presumptive penalties" for violations of these codes (as are used for license violations),
that the process and reasoning for using citations be changed, or that the current processed used by
Housing Court need to be evaluated. All of these ideas, and more from the actors involved,
should be considered to improve the effectiveness of governmenYs use of citations in handling
chronic problem properties.
Improvement Using New Toots and Approaches
Knowledge in the Field & Referrafs
In most cases, if there has been no complaint on housing or building conditions, the first
govemment staff to become aware of those and other problems are paramedics and police officers.
In both cases, they have been summoned to the propefty to handle a particular crisis. However, in
the process they often see other problems. These front line staff need to be awa�e of the dynamics
of chronic problem properties, and the process for communicating information they came across
needs to be simple and effective. For example, a police officer sent to a proper[y to investigate a
domestic violence situation who observes housing conditions that clearly violate codes, should be
encouraged to pass this inforcnation on to insgection staff— without spendingan inordinate
amount of time filling out forms and dealing with bureaucracy. This communication may take the
form of a simple "check-ofY' on the standard reports used. Additionally, photos could be taken if
the situation permits.
Information Systems
A possibility that could be used on its own, or in conjunction with case management, is the
"flagging" of chronic problem properties in the City's information systems. This would be
initiated at the department level using a pre-determined definition of chronic problem propedy.
Code Enforcement may wish to flag, as chronic problem properties, all propeRies which have
required five or more inspector visits in the past year. A similaz system is used by the FORCE
Unit in the Police Department, where suspected drug-dealing properties aze flagged and when
patrol officers are dispatched on calls for sen%ice, reports aze mandatory. The same type of system
could be used on a city-wide basis, and wbuld provide all staff with better information to deal
with the problems they are confronting at these properties.
2002 Saint Paul City CouncJ Research Gente�
�2 Saint Paul City Council Reseaech Center
_ _ .
Case Study: Dirty Business
98 Chronic Problem Propsrties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessap '.. anic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons D� c�Cn� 99
"Overwhelmed" is a nice 1920's Cape Cod style house
in a pleasant neighborhood. A nonprofit developer
recently rehabilita[ed this pmperty. A woman owns it
and lives there with her two older boys and a younger
girl. She works full-time in a third shift job to support
her family and battles a chronic illness. A boyfriend
somet�mes lives there when he is not either in prison or
with another girlfriend. He is currently in prison.
This property has a]ong and colorful history as a
problem property. Problems go back unfil at least 1994
involvmg both property maintrnance and criminal
behaviors. This property always comes up in
neighborhood meetings as a problem.
The owner is a poor housekeeper, and while the C�ry
has not conducted an inspection of the interior of the
home, i[ is reported by a neighborhood police officer ro
be a mess and the upstairs bathroom has been called a
"disaster." The exterior has received considerable City
attenrion. The City has issued orders to clean up
garbage, vehicle parts, a bathtub and weeds. In all, the
City has wnducted five summary abatements during the
study period and issued one citation in April 2001.
The boyCriend and the two boys aze sources of ongoing
criminal activity requiring continuing police
interventions. During our study period, the police
responded to 36 calls at this address. These calls
involved child abuse, child neglect, d�sturbances,
domestic assault, thefr, auto theft, vandalism, burglary
and dangerous conditions. The boyfi is trouble. He
is la�own to be involved in auto theft and is a drug user.
When he is in residence, he assaults the mother and,
perhaps, the children as well. Ironically, while he
abuses the family he also seems to create some level of
discipline as the yazd is kept clean and the boys aze
more under control. In essence, when the boy&iend is
there, the exterior is neat. However, on the interior
there is violence and intimidation. VJhen the boyfriend
is not there, the exterior deteriorates, but the violence
inside the home subsides and the boys seem to run wild.
The boys often refuse to go to school and they aze an
unending source of disturbances and generally tenorize
the neighborhood. The schools have been ineffective in
dealing with this truancy. However, given that police
calls dropped off dunng the school yeaz, some
neighborhood benefit from the school is obvious. By
way of fo]]ow-up, a similaz pattem of calls for police
service continued through 2001.
The police have attempted to intervene in this si[uation
and have organized meetings with the woman and [he
neighbors. These intervenrions have been lazgely
ineffect�ve because of distrust and frustrarion from both
sides. Things may have improved somewhat after these
interventions only to retum, after a while, to prior
pmblems.
The core of this problem property seems to be the
mother who is simply overwhelmed. Because of her
work schedule, occasionally incapacitaring illness, out-
of-control children and an abusive partner, she finds it
difficult ro cope. She is said by staff who have worked
with her, to see herself as a victun and is ashamed of her
situation, but seems powerless to do anything to help
herself. She has financial problems and may also have
alcohol problems of her own. She needs personal,
fmancia] and mental health counseling, plus personal
and financial assistance. No one seems willing or able
to effectively intervene. The scope of the fanuly
problems aze so broad and deep that nothing short of a
ful]-scale, long-term social service intervention has any
hope of addressing these problems. No one seems
willing to take on this challenge.
2002 SaiM Paul C'M1y Council Research Ce+�
Cross-Departmenta� Case Management
Communication on issues concerning specific chronic problem properties across different
agencies within local govemment tends to be spotty. Part of this is likely due to the fact that a
chronic problem propeRy for one agency may not be one for another. Currently, the main
mechanism the City has for communicating on these properties is the Problem Properties Task
Force. In order to solidify communication procedures, two ideas present themselves. First, a
"case manager" system could be developed where there is one central person responsible for
uacking problems on particular properties. This manager would be responsible for "flagging" the
property for all staffwho interact with it, as well as working with the owner and other involved
parties on plans to resolve the problems. This person could also be responsible for gathering
appropriate background information for prosecutors and the couRS to be used in the pwsuing
citations.
Changein Focus
One particulaz featwe of case management that deserves further discussion is how govemment
approaches its work. The majority of situations enforcement and service providing agencies are
faced with respond well to standard intervention tools, such as citations, abatemenfs and acrests.
However, as we have discussed, the case of chronic problem properties is different and they
require a more "in-depth" approach that takes into account the many problems occurrirtg at the
property. This change is approach represents a fundamental change in focus from "dealing with"
or "handling" the problems— to solving them. Whether this change should be made exclusively
using a case management system, or across all staff groups, we cannot say.
Knock and Talks
Another activity which could be urideRaken using a wmprehensive "listing" of the City's
interactions with a chronic problem property is the equivalent of a"knock and talk." Here City
staff would meet with the relevant owners and occupants to discuss the magnitude of the problems
the City is observing, the costs of responding to these problems, and possible ways to resolve
some of the problems.
City-Initiated Interior Improvements Using TRAs
The City almost never conducts abatements to improve, and bring into code compliance, the
interior of a property. The exception to this is that the City sometimes removes interior garbage
build-up that has led to gross unsanitary conditions. Almost always, correction orders and
abatement notices are geared towazd the owner ensuring that conditions aze in compliance with
relevant codes. Several of the propeRies in this study had Tenant Remedy Actions (TRA) brought
to fix interior code violations. State law provides that TRAs may be initiated by tenants, some
community organizations (such as district councils) and the City itself. In Saint Paul, these
actions are brought by tenants and community organizations, often with the assistance of Southern
Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS). However, the City has not pursued this type of
action. Staff for the City of Minneapolis report success in using this tool, and it merits serious
consideration by the City of Saint Paul as well.
Paul CiCy Couneil Researoh Cen[er
Case Study: Overwhelmed
100 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint PauL• Case Study Lesso ' '' Y �^�G 1�1
ns ��r ... rbn�c Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Stud Lessons
"Career Criminals" is an older, owner-occupied
single-family dwelling on a corner of a troubled
neighborhood. The owner is an old man who, of
late, requires a wheelchair to get around. Living
with him are two nephews and several women. Most
of these women are prostitutes including the owner's
daughter whom one nephew reportedly pimps.
During the study period, at least seven women who
were airested for prostitution-related offenses listed
this property as their home address for police
records. The nephews aze cazeer criminals with drug
abuse problems. The nephews aze involved in drugs,
pimping and street crime. They aze also believed to
be involved with gangs. The owner claims to be
unable to control what goes on in his house, but he
may actually be facilitating what goes on there. His
cooperation with the nephews creates a stable living
situarion, which is, as a po]ice officer said "close to
work." In addition, police officers who have been
inside the house say the old man is a"collector" who
has tumed the interior into a floor-to-ceiling maze.
Since this is a single family home, City inspectors
have been unable to conduct an inspec[ion of the
interior, which could lead to a correction order or a
condemnation.
The exterior has received the attention of City
inspectors because of things in the yazd. Two
summary abatements have been conducted to
remove propane tanks and appliances. A vehicle
abatement was also done to remove an abandoned
truck in the backyazd.
The police had been called to this address an
extraordinary 46 times during the study period, or an
average of almost twice a month. These calls
involved domestic assault, theft, vandalism, fraud,
stolen property, auto theft, loitering, disorderly boys
and warrant arrests. The FORCE unit had conducted
surveillance and attempted buys of illegal drugs.
Seazch wariants have also been served at this
property resulting in the recovery of drugs and guns.
Atrests were made for operaring a disorderly house
and possession of drug paraphemalia.
The role of the owner in these criminal activities is
uncleaz. It is noteworthy that this property was not
considered a chronic problem property before the
nephews entered the scene, and the o]d man was
more or less capable of owning and managing the
house. It was only when the nephews entered the
scene that his household management skills were put
to the test and he failed. In any case, the neighbors
aze afraid of this property and the ]eve] of criminal
activity in the azea reportedly drops off significantly
when the nephews aze in jai] or prison. However, on
the whole, the Ciry's efforts with this property have
been largely unsuccessful in altering the behavior of
these cazeer criminals or improving the feelmgs of
safety and security among the neighbors.
: ��.
>s -.
*°;
��R,
Sr
�u�;:
>,�:.
k`.;:
Interior Inspection of One- and Two-Unit Rental Housing
The lack of an inspection system that allows predicable access to the interior on one- and two-unit
rental dwellings continues to be a problem. Rental Registration, as has been discussed, has not
facilitated inspector access to even some of the worst condition one- and two-unit rental housing
in the City. This problem needs to be engaged. Policy discussions need to take place which
address the need to expand City inspection powers in these cases, whether it 6e through a revised
rental registration program, landlord licensing or a CeRificate of Occupancy Program for one- and
two-unit rental housing.
Government Role in Dealing with Abandonment
There were two cases among the case studies where the properties were, for all practical purposes,
abandoned by their owners, but continued to be occupied. These were Errant Investor II and Old
and Ugly. In both cases, tenants were not paying rent, and problem behaviors of these occupants
went largely unchecked. There seems to be no "in-between" category for ownership that
acknowledges this abandonment scenario. A method of govemment "conservatorShip° of �ese
properties should be explored, whereby necessary repairs aze made, basic services�are paid for, ,
behavior and observance of standard lease provisions is monitored, and rent is cotlected.
Neighborhoods
Central to our definition of chronic problem property is the idea that the neinhborhood is
adversely affected by the property in question. Neighborhoods themselves are not in a position to,
ensure problems are addressed, as aze property owners and govemment. However, neighborhoods
aze not without power in helping to cure the problems. Developing a strong sense of
neighborhood cohesion and shared values/expectations plays an indirect, but overarching rote in
identifying and dealing with chronic problem propeRies. Relatedly, battling the fatigue of dealing
with chronic problem properties is best shared as a neighborhood, rather than individual
victimized households. City and neighborhood actions that can be taken to work towards the cure
of chronic problem properties.
At another level, once a chronic pcoblem property has "come into being" and its groblems have
been addressed by relevant agencies, there still remains a tear in the fabric of the neighborhood.
This teaz is exemplified by the boarded vacant former drug house which stands as a reminder of
past troubles and a lack of reinvestment in the present. Clearly, housing rehabilitation and
occasional demolition are a part of inending the fabric of the neighborhood. Beyond that, there
aze many cases too where the housing or business continues to be occupied. For example, in
Career Criminals, the house is occupied and the young men are in and out of law enforcement
� custody. The cases of Bad Boys and Overwhelmed aze similar. The experiences of these
properties are that the neighborhood will continue to suffer and occasionally be traumatized. The
concept of restorative justice' holds some promise for repairing the relationship of the neighbors-
to the property, its owners and occupants.
�
� 23 Restorative Justice is a vaVue-based approach to crimina3 justice with a balanced focus on the offender, victim and
'� the community. Involves the creation of programs designed to serve the needs of victims by providing a holistic approach to
� healing the hartn suffered, while offering opportunities for offenders to realize the hartn they caused, apologize for the wrong,
n.
„ help repair the harm, and eam their way back into good standing in the communiry.
Cye�
N;.,,
M;:, .
2002 SaiM Paul City Counpl Research Ce� `�'a� ��� P�� City Council ReseaKh Center
w;t"'-
Case Study: Career Criminals
102
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesson
"Nuty Four" is a four-unit apartment building that was
recently "deconverted" from an eight to a four-unit
building. This property is located in an historic
preservation distric[ on a block known by the
neighborhood to be a"problem azea." It has been a
problem proper[y in its own right for at least the
decade. Members of the same faznily have owned it.
Notably, members of th�s family own many properties
in th�s neighborhood and throughout the City.
Maintenance and sanitary conditions have been a
conrinuing problem There have been exterior
violaTions involving siding, trim and fencing in need of
repair, as well as uncollec[ed gazbage. On the interioy
problems have been found with holes in the walis, mice
and cazpet damage. Unit one was condemned after a
fire causing $15,000 in damage in February 1999. Unit
four was condemned after a fire in May 2000. In all,
four coirection orders have been issued for gazbage, the
broken fence and mice. 11vee citations have been
issued, rivo of which were for the broken fence and one
for failure to vacate a condemned unit. The later
citation resulted in a$50 fine. Inspection staff
indicated they have tried both cooperation and gettmg
tough, to little avail.
The police have been regulaz visitors to this address,
responding to 47 calls during the two-yeaz study period,
and 45 in [he one yeaz following it. Residents of a114
units have had at least some interactions with the
police. Fifteen calls were to unit one involving
vandalism, theft, landlord/neighbor situations and
domesric assault. The police also conducted a"]rnock
and talk" at unit one during which they recovered drugs
and drug pazaphemalia. Unit rivo had the least activity
wi[hjust three police calls involving auto theft and
domestic assault. Unit three had I S calls about assaults,
theft landlord/neighbor and domesric assault. An
occupant of unit three was also arrested for driving with
drugs in the vehicle. Unit four expenenced 10 police
calls for such offenses as assault, theft, familyJchildren,
runaway and domestic assault. The general azeas of the
building produced ten police calls for fights, assaults
and dangerous conditions. At one point, the owners
asked the police to azrest trespassers— ostensibly to
discourage unsavory chazacters from hanging about.
The core problem here is the ]andlords aze "jerks."
They are very clever and wholly uncooperative with
City efforts to protect the inhabitants and neighbors.
They seem to have little regazd for the neighbors and
kttow how to evade the system. In one interv�ew, it was
said "they could write a book on how to exploit tenants
and evade Ciry intervenrions." In an example of this
behavior, the landlords hired a cazetaker during the
study period to help to keep this and some of their other
properties well-maintained. While this has been the
case, we also heazd reports that the cazetaker acts as
"muscle" to see that rent is paid on time. They aze also
said to rent to "bottom of the banel" tenants and take
advantage of them, often by tuming over tenants while
azranging to keep their security deposits and last
month's rent deposits. 'I`his allows them to maacimize
income from an otherwise undesirable properiy. They,
themselves, may be involved in drugs and alcohol but
aze said to be "too smart to get caught at it " The
simadon was thought to have improved recently. The
landlords said they were doing more screening of the'u
tenants and tuming away the worst prospects. The near
doubling in the level of police calls to this property
suggests these efforts were parricularly ineffecrive.
There was, at one point, speculation that a neazby
college would acquire this property with expansion
plans. At this point, however, problems with this
property continue to plague the neighborhood.
Interestingly, this 4-unit building generates 10 times the
calls per unit as its 20 unit neighbor, Down `n Out.
However, the neighborhood takes a somewhaz dimmer
view of Down `n Out.
Y.r
e:, �o Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons (`')�, 103
�','< -�i Ultimately, these relationships must be restored. Almost all offenders are released and will retum
' ���.�
3 ,,�, to the same property or azea. This is the cuaent experience of Los Mgeles neighborhoods as
��' gang members aze released from prison and re-enter their neighborhoods. Restorative justice
;_:�.. for neighborhoods could involve sentencing practices that work to restore and rebuild the
'�"� dama ed neighborhood or facilitated oeighborhood-based mediation. Whatever tk�e approach,
.'�E.
.re
, �,,
> sn:.
;':`„
`.' -
';_
g +
attempts to mend the neighborhood when the offenders remain in the midst of those who were
harmed is important for the existence of neighborhood cohesion.
Owners
Owners aze an essential component of curing chronic problem proper[ies. Recall that the essential
elements for the development of a chronic problem propeRy aze the owner and the govemment
being unable and unwilling to solve the problems. There are a huge variety of problems the
owners could be experiencing, and the solutions to these prob(ems aze also varied. If it is the case
that the owner lacks the resources or ability to effectively address the problems at hand, options
which empower owners and provide them with necessary resources aze called for. If it is the case
that the owner is unwilling to effectively address the problems, then options which provide
incentives and penalties for noncomp(iance should come into play. Unfortunately,
problem properties, owners are usually unwilling and , to some extent sometimes unable as well.
At the simplest level, is the option of bringing a new owner into play. In Yhe Case Case, many
believe the new owner was key to tuming this complex around, and the initial reports aze good. In
other rental property case studies, such as Cracking Up and Alligator Alley, new owners have not
brought about changes in the situations of these properties. Changes in ownership for owner-
occupied propedies also have the potential of changing the status of these properties from being ,
chronic problems to good neighbors. In both cases though, it is important that the new owners aze
cleazly awaze of the history of the property and the community standards which were violated.
Direct provision of services may help some of the owners in ow case studies with the problems
they aze experiencing. In the case of Dirty Business, assistance in securing an altemate site for the
landscaping business would likely help. In the case of Overwhelmed, a broader range of services
may be needed. What seems to be lacking in our service systems is the ability to provide these
people with the services needed, with strings attached to ensure they aze addressing the chronic
problems. For example, if money is provided for removal of gazbage, the rebuilding of stairs and
a new roof, it seems reasonable to need assurances that the money will be spent on those items.
SOCIAL & PERSONAL PROBLEMS
Overall, one is struck by the profound impact of social and personal problems in the lives of the
owners and occupants of chronic problem properties. Issues of poverty, violence, alcohol and
drug abuse aze riddled throughout all of the case studies. Not surprisingly, this research process ,
did not provide us with profound insights as to the ultimate solution of these problems. However,
we will summarize some of our findings on how these factors act to make owners and occupants
less able and willing to deal with the probiems which confront them.
' LA. Gangs Are Back, Time Maeazine, August 26, 2001.
�23ai�H Paul City Council Researoh Center
20U2 Saint Paut City Council Research Ce���
��kw;
Case Study: Nasty Four
704 Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso o r�. c�,C0�1 105
ns ; : `���ic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
Case Study: Fight Club
"Fight Club" was a downtown baz w�th a restaurant and
entertainment ]icense. It was ]ocated at street level ai a
lazge building used for residential, office, light
manufacturing and retail. The surrounding buildings
aze priman]y commercial but there aze several lazge
residential buildings in khe immediate azea. The
residential neighbors were very feazful of this baz and
its customers. In fact, several residential neighbors
reported being tiveatened by employees and customers
of the baz. This business had been a problem almost
since it opened and was on the problem properties task
force working list.
The Fire Deparhnent and Code Enforcement issued
orders regazding maintenance for this business dealing
with gazbage, doors, sprinklers and blocked exits. The
primary problems with this business regazded crimmal
actrvity and failure to pay app]icable ]icense fees.
This baz had been the site of serious criminal problems
involving shoo6ngs, assaults and gang activiries. The
police responded to I 12 calls during our study period.
This means the police were called to this business, on
average, once each week. These police calls involved
narcotics, distutbances, domestic assault, fights, theft,
aggravated assault, vandalism, weapons, hazanguing
and hassling. Eighteen of these calis involved fights,
in addifion to four aggravated assaults, tluee other
assaults, domestic assaults and disturbances. Because
of this high level of criminal activity, the City required
metal detectors and video cameras to deter weapons
and other violence. These requirements were not
always met— resulting in a series of adverse actions
against the liquor license. This license was actually in
the nazne of the manager's mother as he, himse]f, was
ineligible to apply because of his criminal background.
The manager of this baz, at best, tumed a blind eye to
criminal acnviry in the baz. At worse, he allowed and
encouraged criminal activity. Certainly he catered to a
bad clientele. He was also chronically ]ate in paying
his City license fees and, when he did pay them, it was
always in cash. He was very sophisticated in working
City license and police agencies, and seemed to Imow
just how far he could go and yet remam out of [he
reach of City enforcement agencies. This abiliry has,
however, broken down m view of a recent series of
adverse actions resulting in the ulfimate closure of the
baz.
The presence of poverty, and its concentration, is a factor in many of the case studies. It is
demonstrated by the high level of delinquent taxes, ufility shut-offs and relatively low market
values of these properties. In some cases, this poverry turns into an unlikely tool for removing, or
temporarily removing, chronic problem properties from a neighbarhood. For example, a utility
shut-off will result in a condemnafion, and orders to vacate the premises. In other cases, unpaid
tases will lead to the eventual forfeiture of the property to the state. Or the inabiliry to keep up on
payments in a conh for deed will lead to the occupants losing the pioperty. However, these aze
not real solutions to the chronic problems of these properties. Urility bills are almost always paid
again at some point. Tax forfeiture is a very long process, and leaves a neighborhood stuck with
problems for years at a time— as is demonstrated by The Brothers Grim and Old and Ugly. In the
case of properties sold on a contract for deed, if they end up being ceded back to the original
owner, they are typically resold on a contract for deed under very similar circumstances. In all of
these cases, poverty undoubtedly brings more problems than it solves for these properties.
Alcohol and drug abuse were strong influences on the owners and occupants in the case studies.
Although we have no drug use/abuse statistics, the stories of the people involved at these
properties aze indicative of high levels of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as addicrion. In Dowtt
1V Out, it seemed the majority of people in the riventy-room building had these problems, with the
building being characterized as the "first half of a half-way house," meaning it �vas occupied by
people prior to recovery from addiction. In the Errant Investor stories, we saw ho� Yhe property
owner has ulrimately lost most of his property holdings and seriously damaged the neighborhood
through mismanagement and neglect related to his drug addiction. In the Brothers ,Grim, the drug
abuse of the two brothers was a primary contributor to them ulrimately losing their family home
and hurting the neighborhood. Similazly, the drug abuse of the man living in and attempring to
buy Empty Promise made his occupancy of the property untenable. And certainly the many times
police officers were required to transport people to detox are indicative of serious problems.
Drug dealing in chronic problem properties is often connected to the drug abuse of the occupants.
There also seemed to be a number of case studies in which drug dealing was reported to be a
problem, but where the occupants were not reported to be using drugs in a way that led to police
intervention. The Police Department had founded calls conceming drug dealing at 59 percent of
the case studies. These situations varied considerably. Errant Investor I involved drug dealing,
both open air and within the premises, with the lmowledge and complicity of the property owner.
Cracking Up was occupied by one, and sometimes two, women who likely had serious drug
problems, and were believed by some to be assisring local drug dealers by allowing them to use
the property. Danger Island is a mulri-unit apartment building where it seems there is
considerable drug dealing activity in the shazed, general spaces of the building. This also seems
to be the story with both Alligator AIZey and Case Case. The fear and despair iniroduced into
these properties and neighborhoods related to drug dealing is immeasurable.
Violence, in particular domestic violence, turned out to be nearly a hallmark of chronic problem
properties. As has been stated frequently in the report, 88 percent of the properties had founded
police calls for service related to domestic violence. Police were also called to two-thirds of the
properties studies to handle `bther violence" situations, and to 38 percent of them for fights. The
sense of chaos one gets from the physical disorder pales in comparison to the social disorder
associated with drug dealing and violence. Damage clearly occurs within the household where
violence is present. Damage also occurs for the neighbors of these properties. One need hardly
imagine that hearing, and sometimes seeing, repeated episodes of domestic violence is just as, if
not more, harmful than dealing with mounds of gazbage or junk vehicles on the neighbor's
property.
2002 Saint Paul City CAUncil Research CentN
Ciry Council Research Center
106
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Le
Case Stud_y: Case Case
"The Case Case" is a IZ-unit apartment building and is
one building in a four-building complex. It is neither
the best nor the worse of the four buildings. This
aparhnent complex is in a fairly nice neighborhood
made up of primarily single-family homes neaz an
elementary school on a block of generally good
buildings. The owner of this building owns three of the
fwr buildings in this complex and has an attomey
manage the buildings. There is no on-site cazetaker
although the condition of the ownePs 36 units seems to
justify such a service. This landlord owns other
buildings in Sain[ Paul and manages them in what City
staff generally cons�dered to be a peculiaz manner. He
seems to reflexively resist City efforts to address
problems in his buildings for reasons known only by
him.
In recent years there have been some violations of Ciry
building maintenance codes. In the interior there have
been problems with heat, locks, doors, cazpe6ng and
screens. Exterior violations have involved such things
as paint, lack of ground cover and abandoned vehicles.
The ownePs failure to respond to City correction
notices has lead to the Certificate of Occupancy being
revoked rivice, once in 1999 and again in Z000. The
building also experirnced an azson fue. The reluctance
of the owner [o make prompt repairs from this fire
damage has caused great frustration aznong some
tenants. There is a genera! feeling of the building being
overcrowded with 1(ttle space within which to ]ive.
The beliavioral problems in this building are
considerable. The police have been called to this
building I 14 times during our sNdy period. These calls
have involved quite serious matters such as dmg
dealing, prosritution, burglary, fights, nazcotics and the
reported murder of a drug dealer in front of the
building. Foriy-three calls have been to the common
areas of the building such as halls, entrances and the
pazking lot. Notably, all drug and narcotic-related calls
have been to the genera] areas of the building. Three
units account for another 44 calls with one unit
responsible for 28 calls. The calls to individual units
aze lazgely for domestic assault along with other family
and child-related matters. The FORCE Unit has also
visited this building in 1997 and again in 1999. Blatant
drug activities, along with physical intitnidation, have
kept many tenants in a state of atixiety regarding their
personal safety. Some forty-sis percent of the
bui]ding's units aze responsible for generating zero [o
three calls for police service each. This crowded
building is cleazly occupied by some who do the crime
and others who aze intimidated by them. In response to
the extraordinary demand for police services, the Ciry
sent two "excessive consumption of police services"
letters to the owner. Tt is not apparent if these letters, or
anything else the City has attempted, have resulted in
any improvement in this unhappy situarion. Indeed,
police calls in 2001 were 25 percent greater than had
been experienced in either yeaz of the study period.
Six months following the complerion of our study
period, all four of the buildings in this complex were
sold to a new ov✓ner who has installed a caretaker. It
remains to be seen if this ownership and management
change will result in safer, healihier ]iving spaces for
the tenants and a better neighborhood generally.
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons f��.-D�C61 107
CONCLUSION
Almost everyone, at one point or another, has had experience with chronic problem properties.
They aze occasionally on the evening news, as was the case with the McGuckin family of
Sandpoint, Idaho in the early summer of 2001. This family was living in a remote cabin with few
resources and the father had died earlier in the spring from multiple sclerosis and starvation. After
the mother was removed from the home for felony child neglect, the children, aged 8 to 16 holed
themselves up in the cabin with the many family dogs— fearful of all outsiders, as their (probably
mentally ill) mother had been. The property was poorly maintained, with a build-up of household
garbage and dog feces inside.
Not all chronic problem properties receive such wide media coverage— in fact, the vast majority
do not. However, the McGuckin family situation, of which most of us became aware, bore some
of the hallmarks of the chronic problem properties we have studied. These include the loss of
control of one's surroundings which is exemplified by the gross unsanitary conditaons, an dwner
who is both unwilling and unable to deal with the problems, as well as the predisposing and
complicating factors of poverty and poorly constructed housing. `,
Chronic problem properties aze chronic because of the number and complexity of the problems
concentrated in the property. These problems can be lumped into the broad categories of social
and physical disorder which have an adverse affect on the surrounding area. These problems
range from the domestic violence we saw all too often, to drug dealing to junk vehicles,
appliances and mattresses. The over-riding themes aze these are cases where people have loss
control of themselves— with drugs, anger, violent acts and victimization by violence. They have
also lost control of their surroundings— with poor or little maintenance of the household, doors
and windows often being broken allowing intrusion, auto theft, theft and burglary predominating.
Chronic problem properties, in some form or another, seem almost a given as a part of the human
condition. There will always be some level of deviance— those who do not share and will not
abide by the expectations, values and laws of society at lazge. But in urban areas, the impact of
these deviant actions is too broad and deep to allow them to go unchecked. It is incumbent upon
society to minimize and eliminate the chronic problems of these properties whenever possible—
not only to decrease the vast amount of resources the public spends handling these problems, but
to improve the general health, safety and welfaze of the city. The challenge lies with individuals,
community organizations and govemment to make owners and govemment itself able and willing
to engage, resolve and cure these problems. Preventing the creation of more chronic problem
properties is the next challenge. If chronid problem propedies never "come into being; ' they will
not hazm the community. The rewazds of engaging these challenges lie in the improved quality of
living residents and visitors alike will enjoy.
�
Saint Paul is a typical city. While remarkable in many respects, it is no more predisposed to
...... develop chronic problem properties than most cities. City of Saint Paul analysis of the 2000
Census Supplementary Survey indicates that Saint Paul is perhaps the "ultimate middle class
city." This is based on income levels, poverty rates, unemployment rates and housing
affordablility— both rental and owner-occupied. Saint Paul also ranks very high in retaining and
attracting middle class. Yet Saint Paul has chronic probtem properties, not to the extent of some
cities, but certainly its fair shaze. The question that now faces the City is: with what we know
now, can we meaningfully lower the number and severity of chronic problem properties in Saint
Paul?
�'"F'7 City Councii Resaarch Center
2002 Saint PaW City Council Research Cenre� ��;,;,
'5����,,`,�.
, o�-� 9
j APPendix Page 2
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Appendix P ` ' p Y
age I �,�'; ..��¢ problem Pro erties in Saint PauL• Case Stud Lessons
APPEND/X A: CHRON/C PROBLEM PROPERTY CASE STUDY REFERENCE LIST ` " City Services Problems Page
,,.:� :�
'°' "` Name Property Information Information Experienced #
Ci Services `
tY Probiems Pyge Rental Duplex Bml[ in 1893 Absrnt Lhug-Addicted Landlord,
Name Property lnformation Information Experienced # ���ro�I CityTa�ces:8219
;' i MV $$53 600 MV per Umt Drug Dealmg InSm�dat�on Iater page 28
Cost for Mnual Calls to C�ty $2,985
$26,8�U a Vacant Property
30 -Uni[ Rentai Built m 1967 �.��
AlLgator � Ci Taces: $2,242 . � x �e�i' °t a m ss �.z ry C�' 3: s � 3 :' �+ „ .t v��n c. -sr ,_ �;`,�
�� MV. $618,000 ty UncoopemHve Landlord, Code ' - " d,t , � ui*1� i� � 's �"" � �
MV per umt $20,600 Cost for Annual Calls to CiTy: $13,829 Violafions, Tenant Crime p �$ n � �, °Px "� 'L0� � � s':: 4 i � ` ��'" 4 _� �age�?" ' ,� Y �� ��' � t�;
� �� � :.; k i� ' � a ,n � : •s�:a .,t �v �� � r' � � �'�':,�a �R �%� it¢: ccasi .. amsrs
} .ik`� h. „> t , �'�' C .�i:.�t � i . ,.,.�. � ,..z� ,�, u•,�. . 5 ,. s . g�� _ _ ' . '
fi _ �s � ��� n � p . , . ,,. ¢5 1t ik: Y55p 2x
. �t ru '. , �,t }I� ',�; ,'. ` � '.,g:� Sj . A :zi' ; � ; - �t d�t� .: , ,:� C„ �. { ,�t , :� , ,a � � ey . .� �. � h � 1�..F'Y . . � _ _.< � . _. , _. �. , . _
,�i. t� �� , n, •�'�; �� . ��t , �. ��mkS �' �' !�` 7:;� '9'' e .. 7'. � "' '�` � , s �. } i .c. ",��`'� s�. � s-�,s . � ..:tia, >��:i� .�V � .. , ...�a .,t�. � `<.»G
�$a'3$ �r � ome'&�il@Yn' . ... � �+ s it x - `e` " �� ... �, $ `� ..,,`,` 4 i�: �,.��, ��' �� , . o- . D 5,�.� OwnerOccu iedSin leFamiL ... :z ��
�
,�� ���,,(� '�.:� p� ���f 5 9y,' 3 � � 1� l;t "'yf.� � ,.a����C�'t�f� . � � ��! �u� 4 ,�, : 9 P� ,� a � ., ` P g Y CiTyTases:$793'� , . � ,..,:; .., .
�_, �..�e '�,'x '�t IF� ���. t�.�t' ,.?�.3�€ r.d� � t� ��� ��� i� ���� . � n r Fear FaMOr Home Built in 1909 Garbage� Lhugs, Int�mida6on Page 50
. ,t, .. Ut'„,y. at,,., �..{a�„ �� s �� � Cost for Annual Calla to C�ty. $1,259
a�..�l.:N�, w,� ,��+;1 ,a�t� �i � .;' � ���`��'.�� Mv sss ieo
BrotNers Owner Occupied Single Family � � y � , .
Grim Home Built m 1924 CiTy Taxes� $471 Drug-Addicted Brothers, Garbage, � q :� z �`� [ '���=3��{pCEi � '� � � ' � �`'��'"� .. �. � � �o ilY'4 , . ���. �.,.m
MV. $] 19 000 Cos[ for Annual Calls [o City: $5,891 Sewer Line Break in Basement p � S ��" �'$' �,� g b� �} �� �` � � � I I t� � �.�a ryy
{ �i" "r-gifr �5� .�`', ? �"��ry° .�,:dY'.�}'i` i t;,t�g �;.�9 n +� t w. n , } � .<1 Is �" ?y� >{ - 1' ..t� - �, :u+�' .s.� �tm' .._. m� _�. su �RWw _ ur l4., .a. PE_ v. i� , � 4�..�!� �z��:�� .n:�:,:' �..,i.L'� �7� ,..�„e �fi
G�� : :��"� up;ed��S, am r4 ,� �;tr�(�� � { c: tt �yS { .�� .�1 �!�} �1 . �i �'� �Y� : p� 43 � t � i � i �: j, .'p; _ � CriminalCompanion,Disorderly .
� a.;�m'�ina�Ts� �,� {� � �� �� ;�� � `�{i `., '�'� �t` f ��' .. � �i' i;'�H� "'1t ":4l "�y} i 'g i R'��' i . ' �. �` T�' t `�{� �='1{=�'t{� � �� Gaugster Single Family KenTal built in 1888 City Taaces: $150 Boys, D`uSs, Probable Child and Page 32
,„ ;#,. T3r"> ,''nC!'ji�.,�yH ;����� `��; ���(+i '���'����4�F �' t r� ?� T � + r. �. � �p % '. � � A i yt ° Boyfriend MV: $42,300 CostforAnnual CallstoCity: $2,845 AmmalNeglect
�' cx, t.s41�, t��!�: �� •. ' :���8'"�����`'����k��',y ` "�..' tl �''., t pv' �s n'�m ��� �:�
u�„•,� �t,�, �
�� �' � '' � �
12 Unit Rental in a 4 Buildmg � a , a . op a ,� ��,a
Complex C� Taxes: $708 Esterior Violations,Criminal �� � ` � �' { y � ' � � � .. Gu ,� �d! �
CaseCase t7' - �;� t�d S �,�^ �s s "° � - 1 � �"
MV: $ 200,875 Cost fot Annual Calls to C� $15,179 Activity, Domesdc Abuse, page 106 + ' R '�
tY� �n e � � Ei .�° G:::. � 9 '1� nn �;s � :.., s!r ��...z:�
MV per Unit: $ 16,740 Unresponsive Owner �' JvfY ntt�� OQ � ,.; '��� i w � ., t . .� . ���
" fl" S 94Y'�p , t .. s , ,_. ei. >, ....;aw�r .�,...�;d ��4 <. -...inS' n a.' Kw..a(' �a�'� _� �, � u�...�Nw� d.!�
{ � 4
�',� �� `4�'� � � 1;�69�� �'� g�' �" r 'H � �`" r �` � °' N " ' "' 4 . �� 24 Unit Rental built in 197t MV:
� �� s �a�,��4"������' > ,� � : � g a .:i� t � `� ' �I CiTy Taees: $4,245 Coclaoaches, Crimina] Acrivity,
� t �( A tt 5 �tF j� q ����'�� � + ` r t : i� ' La�Cucaracha $1,107,800 Cost fos Annual Ca1ls to Cuy: $19,696 Prostitupon, Drugs page 70
�t�';� t �'�Pn�i�f .: R s va�� k���3' ���,.',"_, �. i��� x, . • �� � . t K �' � .{ s 4 ' MV per umt: $39 564
� i + i t � {�.� I
;
{� a
. §':. .: _ th _ .3t . .i{:�a,_.A.. a� ' < �� .. i � �` � �Y��� � �` y ul& `iw�#';�XB s4 �'� b p9 "V.t � �,n (��°, �IC .y°^i �s4 Nr � ��'1
� ", �f .a �k ' �}i ��x � �. s'$r Si� fr� .}. � �Y� ��15..
Rental Dup7ex Built in 1893 � � ^ � � ;
Cracking-Up MV� $59,000 C ��' T��� $Z�A Slumlords, �minal Achviry, :� k: ` � _ ,�
MV per Unit $29,500 Cost for Annual Calls to C�Ty: $13,294 Drug pealing, Proslitu5on p g 6 t �
3 � �. .:: .� w . . .. r � .. . � M '' 4 .. . «. _<v .. , vx� id. so'2. . ��GtI ��6�.:w v.>�a�.
a e2 I;'",.���� � �� sel' �`�� �5•, -'" �r��.� r9 a " k.�.
,`' t'�S `p ' ` � ,{'� . , '� , � '�� - n { _ " -' � � t °' ' � Commercial Motel � Uncanng and Possibly Comtpt
i i '� ',� ��� i � �'. rt ; F Motel City Ta�ces: $3,028
_, o � �r S �� � F r �" ��� t .� . '� 1 , '. „ MV: $303,400 Management, Code Violarions, page 20
; �*��.�F�� h . . .. ,.t; �� 3 i ' t n ,�. � C, r. �. > � '� � } '�. Califoruia CostforAnnualCallstoCily:$34,534
.. ; '.� r •;. . , � � ' � ". MV per Room: $2 408 Crime
. .. ' d .� � .. . :� . � ' w. ..5 , .� : . a � . w . >. .." .. F`�t�� � .,� � . ' x ��,. �.- _ ..
1 I Unit Rental Built in t 960 Inexperienced Owner, Code t +.,'::�° " � k `� ?
DangerIsland MV:$273,600 . �� �•� � rr:. � ffs � .�.�:
City Ta�ces: $993 Violations, Roperty Isolation, ' C "`.,y3 ,�,� ^2i� . .� � .�+�
Cost fot Annual Calls to Ci $23,289 Hi h Tenant Criminali Dtu s, Page 84 z�� �. � ='$2' � ; � � � �, , i�, � � �p ',, � �. � '.��� ;��� `�o�
MV per Unit: $24,873 tY� g Ty: g � t�
� Violence .�' � �4 Unit Rcntal Buil[ in 1888 �
p��y� qp , e, '"� r: -� City Taees: $d70 Absent I,andlord, Drugs, Interior
(�i �'` '��}'� �•*�,N," i � � ; „ '� � � ' ,;. � �, . r ; ; , s f � , Old aod Ugly MV: $54,000 Page 54
p ��� '� s � � � . ; . � ±,; S Z �p . . ;' � . ,' �' '� 3 Cost for Annual Catls to C�Ty. $9,5'75 and Esterior V�olarions, TRA
4• a ' s . �_.-, ;#t i } '� ,.:��� +, . ' r a � ; ;� �(, MV per Un�it: $13 500 , ,,�,..,�:, qi. . �•°;�. i �'_'
,�i :�� ��' ..� ,,, Q � ,�
����,.�u �b.� e ��Gl� - '�` `. •� �������� � c . �� 4 ��i ` ;'r �t rl ��i � : y^ = g � tu '" � ,� ..� C 1 s ." r t : ,,.. t`�-�. ::"� zi F �:.
. . . �� . � .. _ .��. ��. z. . ,:, t:.3 .< ' '. ?:�� a ;s . `:;:�5,�� ' 't' �m�";� �°� �6AP1 4" r ' Gy s ;�' N �;�' +��.�f x ��..�. � l��I'.Yi..
Owner Occupied Smgle�Family CiTy Taxes: $221 Caoss Unsanitary Condi4ons, y= y � i�a � a :. � d s�� ��.; ��C ... �� 4 ` � ' 43 ;�I. �� 1� PosSi p a e�
Dir[y Dealing Home Bnilt in 1889 . " '' i.. rc �. pn . �� �
�s,�, "
MV $56000 CostforMnualCa]1stoCiTy:$13,131 OccuionallyVacant,Crimma7 page58 , .. w, . ;d �,��`" , :�tF.,�...�...��... ki.�'�k�i ,tP"'«'.'.. �.,, .._ .F�....,.„� U_. .=NV� in�,.'� e..,.� ..._... ....�.:::to.. E...4.�
� � ,E� . � �
„ � � # ; £ n � ` Nu�sances, Rac�st Neighbors � ' Owner Occup�ed Single Family
y, y, k y�,�,, z ', 4 �.m t ;� .� , �k<� CiTy Tarzes: $234 Gazbage, Abusive Boyfiiend, a e 48
j? � s , � i � i3 �: �� �i&� ���� � •: � dt��;� i� � ' �'"� .�.; � , t�i � ��.. "jfi 1 ; , - Overwhelmed HomeBUiltin 1919 P S
� �, = Cost for Annual Calls [o City: $2,790 Disordedy Boys
D�u , oUS'e�E` , p c , ..�, �''�,;-.:� , ,,�}c.� r: , . . , � s a 4 ,: T �1�;'�� � t" � $'i � ? MV:$68,900 '
�A
t. .it�3..�{F . P, �t�� Ct •tR ' � x . �' , s , �;.. ,: ,t`• . "'',��, s ' 1 _ ..n;;:-� au;;.. � .N;J
,, r ;� ; �' . ,1;,,. 3:. � � � � " � � .. � � t; � : � 4 6 . W. ,.:.: , ' 3. . .; a � . . �.r y � ,• :� ,- .�; ;. . .. c.�::.m 7,,� ri f r� . � i� . `�' ' �� �` � �: :
,,:r „a ,t ..t,.::+., � ���.,� ,,�.,,,� . ���� , ., ..� ._ ,. .... ti.. „>, .� , �.,; `; �h .��j"'... i s�'k� .';"+I �`d lt� �q �.� r� !� o Tenaii�. �t .rca.
.,r�; . .x .f ��",'n, . �. . �«��j ., ,.. ,�. a .,._ "1��,�g� a' - - }'�,- . � . � e..��,, y , � � f�r,, . •12#`�t3�3. �tm d& { ,s';��� �� 3+�. : r., af�� ros ' }��� .v�.t� g � j
,��.� a,,. , z , ,, , . , �r".. . �I�'� ; ., .:, ��s > .,fg � �,.: ,. .���?•. .��. : � ..� . . , .: ^ ,:.:.. b ; TLeuu the, ; ,, y �� w . i ;n:i[� - t .City'. �:!$1 � �j� �.r,� ;�s�:
:,� , �u�.�:a 1 �`��_:� , �.:����:.�� E ����..�w.�..'�i_ ° � : ����:��r� t:u+ .�.+�'�.'�`������."��. . . t` � .r..�. .� $4 �c�#a.-: �El. { � T �..� ��.�.� Vff'�'<i �".°..�� on .� E F�.3.¢i,'�
' u.�s...�i�' , _��'S��sa �Craq7c�, �� ��� at��� �.�I� �' . C<rs�fi�Aim�Callsfi���y $Cy�Q� .�. °�,����y � . . r'f�
.. _ , : . r ,s�., .. ,.
.._ , � �: .,�
Double RentalDuplexBuiltin1885 loiriveLaztdlord,Criminal ' ��a,,,..ii. "� '�F�4Umt$ ,- �• t t -s � �� Fg ,��y+�+B� n r+n;
MV: $49,700 City Tarzes: $298 �P ... � , .u3...,� :tS4,,;_r�' �.�,a�t,n�a...�..� ,,•. _:,.,;�ta.�vs. :.,;�."�asr �...'`�'d�'�, � rk:s+��, . :..�.a.�k�E�:�iw� �, _.. +� . .,, awt�mn� �1i�...�' .. .;.a�' _�
Trouble Cos[ for Annual Calls to C� $8 523 Behavior of Unscreened Tenanfs, page 64 � � License Roblems, Public
MV per Umt $24 850 ty E e V I tl µ, Commercial B Bmlt m 1949 Ci Tazes: $664
. ,, �,_;� � ; xterior Cod io a ons atering Hole MV: $94' OO az Cos[ for Annual Calls t� Ci $6,307 �^nldng, Assaults, Indifferent page 76
:,, ., .,� ';� *' ��1➢npfe�xf3'urlcin:$'v�3"^�" �"'�� �`'�`�;��'��'�'3��!'`-�'T >�. �'• . ..,r:- 'L � owne� -
:D6uble Gross .: . �. ', `.'� ...� y;.. � G'i ,� aXes:.fi123 ; , 4 > E .. .t;=�l r ; : ��� . ., ,. � , f� ., _�';. - -� .. ,,.� ., .....� . . r.-.; . .,�. . .,, a ,...,.,� ,, c , �,,..,,y� .:.
s
_. ... 338�0. �t? �,. :r �• .:�. •� �r�`�;.:�, q . a ,�
- ,� ..+ ..�.. .,_ 3 ,.._ ...,.--,,..„� �?s . �,`r��..;,.: ;� .wcz:.,.,, �.. . a. ��°=.
- �r .:: � .. . > . . . ; . : .a „m I�. ; �: : a �. .. . �7.�, . : �! i � ...H. X� ','� '�k 1;# . �.;;; `�.-4. v . � . ..;_ �.. .i �r�'��.. . >. �... x �
.. : :. . �. � �,. � . :,, '� ;. � u5e�or�Av!aai�Gatisfo�C} .,$6534� ����: �._ �. ; ,.,:. �� ,A ;t. a e94,:.; .. � ;",:. , lePamily �, .� .� . ,rau��,Elt'•+ .<�:.� , �� .. � - .:.:?�.�„i�,s�o '
,_ . � . h4Y�perUmt $�L6.9C10 . � �-. -_.., �Y' � . � .. _ . . . y ���� � , e -,��., ���,,� . �_ q
,: ..,_ . : . w.,.....�, .. �.. et�,. � .n„ E�.'��. 7K .� �,,� { ;. "' a ,.. �:� ,: . s , x x,�. _ a � �. ..� . ; � y . �',`y�'eqd_ � � ..,s:tar , . � �4+t,ty;Tases.`�394 ,r�� . s . , nv[�erc�al Vetucl������' 'Se�� ..
.� ,.. , ,,.>_�� � .z.,.�i._ �i�:k; .u't� .�. �,..._ �S �'A��: �.��:�' � �; ,-..��! . . ° ., � � , "'amu m t9zo , � � � Pm�ecq Co �� �- � t� � '� r��s;�
.Su=' K.�.... ss�..!a�^ ..0 - +�iqgqbor Cd�.£a[AffiU9bCa7Lrtto�City:$2;21fl �'.:ssa ����t � �; .r�
� ''_ .� ., . �, �. ": � , .��. +.��;:.,.. '-StoiaBe �:.`s.�r, s c ."'"o�v.3�... ' `='
20Uni[RrntalBUiltinl867 TenantBehav�ora]Problems, � ` <.*z.,. �MV.S.IOk;800' - -
Down •N Out MV: $121,300 Ciry Taees: $440 '�
Cost for Annual Calls to Ci $11,017 ��°g� �sorderty Boys, page 44
MV per Unit $6,065 Ty " Into]erant Neighbors
e � *'�`
..Empty �-.;� OwnaOccup�edDuplexBmltl$&9�% :�<=�s; � - u� �.. y ..-"'�'„. �-"'�::-.,,,�` �a��"`; ,�`��e i .r {��
� Promise ' _ . MVc u$i3,90U .�,. � � `�YTazcc"$319 z '� Code �olahops, VacaptBmtdmg, � �.
,
.,'. Costfor`A�uaiGa115ta,Glty$$.062 > IhugS%leslUse,`3quatfu&�'"'` > `PaB�:� �..
_ , _ . MV per TTnifi$�6,�� ; . � ° ' . � .. _ . _ . . . _ _ _ .. _, _ �. . . ,
i NIV is the mazket value for the properiy used by Ramsey County.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
APPEND/X B: B/BLIOGRPAHYAND REFERENCES
JOURNALS
Dubin, Robin. "Maintenance Decisions of Absentee Landlords under Uncertainty." Joumal of Housine
Economics 7 (1998): 144-164.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Margery Austin Tumer. "Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing Recent
Evidence.° Housine Policv Debate 8.4 (1997): 833-866.
Goetze, Rolf, and Kent W. Colton. "The Dynamics of Neighborhoods: A Fresh Approach to
Understanding Housing and Neighborhood Change." Joumal of the American Piannine Association
46 (1980).
Greenberg Michael R. "Improving Neighborhood Quality: A Hierazchy of Needs." Housine Policv
Debate 103 (1999): 601-620.
Grogger, Jeff, and M. Stephen Weatherford. "Crime, Policing and the Perception of Neighborhood
Safety." Political Geoeraohv 14.6/7 (1995): 521-541.
Kutty, Nandinee. "A Dynamic Model of Landlord Reinvestment Behavior." Journal of Urban
Economics 37 (1995): 212-237.
Labott, Elise. "Slum Offensive: After Yeazs of Inaction, Governments are Starting to Crack Down on
Blighted Property Again." Govemine July 2000.
Megbolugbe, Isaac F., and Marja C. Hoek-Smit, Peter D. Linneman. "Understanding Neighbourhood
Dynamics: A Review of the Contributions of William G. Grigsby." Urban Studies 3310 (1996):
1779-1795.
Perkins, Douglas D., and Ralph B. Taylor. "Ecological Assessments of Community Disorder: Their
Relationship to Feaz of Crime and Theoretical Implications." American Journal of Communiri
Psycholoev 24.1 (1996): 63-107.
Sae� David. "Discerning Where They Are: Understanding Current Housing Trends and Related [nternal
Processes of Six Minneapolis Neighborhood Organizations." Conducted on behalf of the
Minneapolis Neigltborhood Eazly Warning System. December 2000.
Smith, Steven Rathgeb. "Partnerships, Community Building, and Local Government." National Civic
Review 86.2 (1997): 167-174.
Taylor, Ralph B., et. al. "Street Blocks with More Nonresidential Land Use Have More Physical
Deterioration: Evidence from Baltimore and Philadeiphia." Urban Affairs Review 311 (1995): 120-
136.
Temkin, Kenneth and Wil(iam M. Rohe. "Social Capital and Neighborhood Stability: An Empirical
Investigation" Housin¢ Policv Debate 9.1 (1998): 61-86.
Vidal, Avis C. "Reintegrating Disadvantaged Communities into the Fabric of Urban Life: The Role of
Community Development." Housin2 Policv Debate 6.1 (1995): 169-230.
Pa<
�blem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. "The Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows."
The Atlantic Monthlv Mazch 1982: 29-38.
GOVERNM�NT DOCUMENTS
oa-a�9
idix Page 4
Bratton, William J. "Great Expectations: How Higher Expectations for Police Depar[ments Can Lead to
a Decrease in Crime." Measurine What Matters: Proceedines from the PolicinQ Research Institute
Meetin¢s Ed. Robert Langworthy. United States Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice,
July 1999.
Kelling, George. "Measuring What Matters: A New Way of Thinking About Crime and Public Order."
Measuring What Matters: Proceedings from the Policin¢ Research Institute Meetin¢s Ed. Robert
Langworthy. United States Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice, July 1999.
Memphis Shelby Crime Commission. "Best Practices Number Ten: Fixing Broken Windows -
Strategies to Strengthen Housing Code Enforcement and Related Approaches to Communtty-Based
Crime Prevention in Memphis." By Phyllis Betts. April 200L
<http://www.memphiscrime. org/research/bestpractices/bestpractices- l 0.hhn1>
�
Saint Paul City Council Investigation and Research Center. "A Study of Remedies for Chronic Problem �
PropeRies." March 1995. ,
Skogan, Wesley G. "Measuring What Matters: Crime, Disorder, and Feaz " Measuring What Matters:
Proceedines from the Policine Research Institute Meetin¢s Ed. Robert Langworthy: United States
Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice, July 1999.
Stephens, Darryl W. "Measuring What Matters." Measuring What Matters: ProceedinQS frorri the
Policine Research Institute Meetines Ed. Robert Langworthy. United States Department of Justice:
National Institute of Justice, July 1999.
Taylor, Ralph B. "The Incivilities Thesis: Theory, Measurement, and Policy." Measurin¢ What
Matters: Proceedines from the PolicinQ Research Institute Meetinps Ed. Robert Langworthy. United
States Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice, July 1999.
United States DepaRment of Justice, National Institute of Justice. "Crime and Place: Plenary Papers of
the 1997 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation." July 1998.
---. "Prevention Through Community Prosecution." By Catherine M. Coles and George L. Kelling.
1999.
---. "Reseazch in Brief: Controlling Drug and Disorder Problems: Oakland's Beat Health Program.°
By Lorraine Green Mazerolle and Jan Roehl. M�rch 1999.
---. "Research in Brief: Crime, Grime, Fear and Decline: A Longitudinal Look.° By Ralph B. Taylor.
July 1999.
---. "Research in Brief: Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods-Does it Lead to Crime?" By Robert J.
Sampson and Stephan W. Raudenbush. February 2001.
---. "Research in Brief: Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising." By
Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris L. MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and
oa a�9
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
Shawn D. Bushway. July 1998.
---. "Reseazch Preview: Attitudes Toward Crime, Police, and the Law: Individual and Neighborhood
Differences.° By Robert J. Sampson and Dawn Jeglum Bartusch. June 1999.
---. "Reseazch Preview: Neighborhood Collective Efficacy-Does It Help Reduce Violence?" By Robert
J. Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. April 1998.
---. "Research Report: `Broken Windows' and Police Discretion." By George Kelling. October 1999.
---. "Research Report: Physical Environment and Crime.° By Ralph Taylor and Adele V. Hazrell.
January 1996.
REFERENCE
City of Madison, WI "Chapter 32: Landlord and Tenant." Municioal Code
< http://www.ci.madison. wi.us
Minnesota Attorney General's Office. "Landlords and Tenants: Rights and Responsibilities.° October
1999 < httn://www.ae.state.mn.us/consumer/housine/Uct/LT htm>
Reynolds, Osbome M. Jc "Chapter 18: Local Control of the Use of Property: Zoning and Related
Methods." Handbook of Local Govemment Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company.
1982. 352-414.
---. "Chapter 19: Municipal Acquisition of Property: Eminent Domain and Other Methods."
Handbook of Local Govemment Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company. 1982. 415-
443.
---. "Chapter 30: Local Govemmental Liability in Tort and Related Theories." Handbook of Local
Government Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company. 1982. 670-722.
NEWSPAPERS
"A Blight on the Cities: Problem Properties Series." Pioneer Press 1999.
Beckstrom, Maja. "State Leads U.S. in Youth Issues Index: Kids Count Measures Dls Linked to
Poverty." Pioneer Press 20 June 2000.
Burson, Pat. "Neighborhood Info in the Bag: Frogtown Activists Have Compiled Details About
Programs and Resources that are Available in the St. Paul Neighborhood. On Saturday, Volunteers
will Fan Out to Distribute Bags of Information to Each of the Area's Households." Pioneer Press 7
May 2000.
Burson, Pat. "Neighborhood Seeks to Take Back its Pazk: Residents Say Some Visitors Make it
Unsafe." Pioneer Press 7 August 2000.
Char�en, David. "Woman in Gazbage House Chazged with Child Endangerment." Staz Tribune 13 July
2000.
Coleman, Toni. "Finances Hobble Tenants Union: Funding Problems Force Reduction in Activities."
Pioneer Press 8 June 2000.
Page 5 `:i 5 �� problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
Duchschere, Kevin. "St. Paul Appeals Federal Decision to Save HUD House." Star Tribune 19 May
2000.
"Fatal Shootings by Minneapolis Police." Star Tribune 15 June 2000.
Graves, Chris. "Woodbury Police Shoot, Kill Man; Chief says Man Tried to get Officer's Gun." Star
Tribune 5 June 2000.
Hayes Taylor, Kimberly. "Landlord Agrees to Relinquish Rights to Building." Star Tribune 28 June
2000.
Kazlson, Kazl J. "Tenants Tum up Heat on Housing Issues: 1�` Landlord Singled Out Says Fixes in
Progress." Pioneer Press 17 April 2000.
dix Page 6
Laszewski, Charles. "Cleaning Up the Property Mess: Initiative Developed Locally and Elsewhere Offer
Hope for Fixing Chronic Housing Code Violations in the Twin Cities." Pioneer Press 7 Recember
1999. '
<
---. "Frustrated Neighbors Seeking own Solutions: Groups Pressing Landlords, City on ProBlem
Properties." Pioneer Press 3 December 1999.
---. "Housing Inspector has Thankless Task: Demands Come from All Sides.° Pioneer Press 7
December 1999.
---. "Housing Plan gets Cool Reception: Commissioner's Bonding Proposal Stirs Tax,Concerns."
Pioneer Press 7 June 2000.
---. "Housing Sweep Brings Arrest: More Were Sought; Letters Prompted Some to Pay Fines." Pioneer
Press 18 December 1999. _
---. "Management Problems: Landlord: School Official Owns Problem Sites." Pioneer Press 6
December 1999.
---. "Problems Move with Residents: City's Empty Homes not all Crime-ridden." Pioneer Press 4
October 1999.
---. "Putting Screws to Crime: How Much is Enough? Frogtown, Still Troubled but Better, Duels for
Resources." Pioneer Press 5 June 2000.
---. "St. Paul Focuses on Problem Area St. Paul Housing Code Inspectors and Police Began
Concentrating Tuesday." Pioneer Press 16 June 2000.
.
--. "St. Paul Lists Names of Violating Property Owners on Intemet." Pioneer Press 13 September
1999.
---. "St. Paul to Start Arresting Housing Code Violators with Court Warrarits this Weekend." Pioneer
Press 14 December 1999.
---. "13 TaY-forfeit Properties Transferred to St. Paul." Pioneer Press 7 June 2000.
Laszewski, Charles, and Janet Roberts. "A Blight on the Cities." Pioneer Press 3 December 1999.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
---. "Problem Properties Owners: HUD, Ramsey County Draw Complaints." Pioneer Press 6 December
1999.
Lundy, Walker. "Hell-raising' Policy Keeps Public Officials on Their Toes." Pioneer Press 19
December 1999.
Mayron, Amy, and Lisa Donovan. "Confrontations with Mentally Ill Can Overtax Police: Recent
Deaths Raise Concern Over Training." Pioneer Press 18 June 2000.
Moore, Natalie Y. "Resident Down to Last Chance to Keep her Home: West St. Paul says House Isn't
Fit to Live In; Inspection Today." Pioneer Press 17 July 2000.
Ngo, Nancy. "Fire Blamed on Methamphetamine Makers: Damage Leaves 18 Units Uninhabitable.°
Pioneer Press 28 June 2000.
Olson, Rochelle. "Study: Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program a Stabilizing Force." Star
Tribune 20 dune 2000.
Powell, Joy. "Police Confrontations with the Mentally Ill aze Common." Star Tribune 18 June 2000.
---. "Police: 911 Caller Wanted Crisis Team to Calm Woman." Staz Tribune 15 June 2000.
"Problem Properties in the Twin Cities.° Pioneer Press December 1999.
"Resources: What Can You do if the House Next Door Has Trash Piled on the Front Lawn, a Car Parked
in the Yazd, Peeling Paint or other Problems, and your Pleas to the Owner that Something be Done
Have Not Been Heeded?" Pioneer Press 7 December 1999.
Roberts, Janet. "698 Edmund Avenue Tells Tale of Long-running Neglect: Inspection Record Says How
Problems Lingered Six Years." Pioneer Press 7 December 1999.
---. "Some Local Landlords Fault Tenants for Their Troubles: But Others Dispute that Contention, Call
Their Actions Lacking." Pioneer Press 5 December 1999.
---. "St. Paul Inspection Data Proves Hazd to Track." Pioneer Press 5 December 1999.
Rybin, Virginia. "St. Paul to Fight Decision on HUD: Judge: City Can't Force Housing Code on
Federal Agency." Pioneer Press 19 May 2000.
Sherman, Amy. "Council to Discuss Rules for Problem Properties: Plan Addresses Exterior Condition,
Vehicles, Sheds." Pioneer Press 2Q June 2000.
Stassen-Berger, Rachel E. "Code-violating Property Owners Face Crackdown: Those Who Ignore
Waming Letters May be Arrested." Pioneer Press 16 June 2000.
---. "Minneapolis Apartments Illustrate Complexity of Problem: After `98 Homicide, 1818 Pazk
Redone; Complaints Continue." Pioneer Press 3 December 1999.
Wildeboer, Kathy A. "E.L. Oks Inspection Firms." The State News: Michiean State Universitv's
Independent Voice 9 April 1998.
Page � ,,,� ic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
APPEND/X C: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Abatement — The process by which the City takes action to put an end to a nuisance condition.
Summary Abatement — The process by which the City intervenes to put an end to a nuisance
condition where the cost of the City's intervention is less than $3,000. (example, removing gazbage
from yard, removing an abandoned vehicle, boazding a broken window, etc.)
Substanrial Abatement — The process by which the City intervenes to put an end to a nuisance
condition where the cost of the City's intervention is more than $3,000. (Example, removing a
delapidate building, removing heavy machinery from a lot, etc.)
Broken Windows Theory — A theory, developed by James Q. Wilson and George Keiling in the eady
nineteen eighties, which holds that if physical and social disorders aze allowed to go uncorrected in a
neighborhood, others will be emboldened to create more disorders. Eventually, this environment will
attract criminals, who thrive in conditions of public apathy and neglect.
Buy and Sells — For purposes of this study, the process of having a police informant attempt td buy or
buy drugs or nazcotics from a suspected drug dealer.
Calls for Service — These are the telephone calls which come in ttuough the City's 911 line requesting
police, fire or medical service at a particulaz location.
Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O) — All non-residential buildings and non-owner occupied residential
building with three or more living units are required to obtain a certificate issued by the Fire Marshall
ceRifying the building is in compliance with applicable codes. `
Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O)Revocarion — The Fire Marshall may revoke a certificate of
occupancy if it is determined the building is not in compliance with applicable codes:
oa-ac��
dix Page 8
� Chronic Problem Property — Chronic problem properties aze properties with serious (founded and
substantial), repetitive (at least 3 instances of problems in 18 months) and enduring (active as a problem
�•` �_• property for at least 18 months) problems which adversely affect their neighbors and/or the community
� �� � as a whole.
Code Violallon — A behavior or condition prohibited by Code. (occupying a building lacking in proper
smoke detectors, failure to provide heat in winter, maintaining unsanitary conditions, etc.)
Collective Efficacy — The level of mutual trust among neighbors combined with the willingness of a
�"�s individuals to intervene on behalf of the common good; for instance to supervise children arid maintain
«�r., public order. �
x„ Community Expectations/Standards — A set of beliefs expressing a community's vision, derived from
°.:- �' the historical and leamed framework of shared assumptions, values, norms and local laws that a group
;;i�.... of interacting individuals, in a common location agree to abide by as an expression of their tolerance
;° for behaviors within their community.
Complaint-Based Enforcement — A method of ensuring property, housing, health and building codes
aze followed throughout the community by responding to specific complaints or concems cititzens or
others informed inspection o�cials about. This is considered one of the three basic approaches to
ensuring codes aze observed in the community.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
CondemnaHon – A determination by City officials a building is unfit for human habitation and ordering
the buiiding to be vacated.
Conflict Theory – One of the major theoritical approaches to sociology which traces its roots to the
work of Karl Marx and his critique of capitalism. In general, conflict theory assumes that social life is
shaped by groups and individuals who struggle or compete with one another over various resources and
rewazds, resulting in particular distributions of wealth, power and prestige.
Correction Notice – A notice issued to the property owner by a City inspector noting a violation of City
Code and directing the violation be corrected.
Disorder, Physical – Physical conditions, such as broken windows, junk cazs, and garbage houses, that
aze viewed as troublesome and potentially threatening by its residents and users of public spaces.
Disorder, Social – Social conditions or activities, such as prostitution, drug-dealing, and loitering, that
aze viewed as troublesome a�d potentially tl�reatening by its residents and users of public spaces.
Disorderly Boys – This is a term used in the Police DepartmenYs call-management system which refers
to sowdy and/or disorderly youth.
District Council – City of Saint Paul citizen participation process whereby the City is divided into 17
districts which set up advisory councils that plan and advise the City on physical, economic and social
development of their azea, as well as on Citywide issues. In addition, they identify neighborhood needs,
initiate community programs, recruit volunteers and inform residents through community newspapers,
newsletters, flyers and community events.
Domestic Violence – Acts of violence, sexual assaults and or child abuse directed against family
members, relatives or roommates, by another family member, relative or roommate who lives in the same
house or apartment.
Exterior Code Violafions – These aze violations of City and State building, housing, health and
property maintenance codes which occur on the exterior of the building or in the yard/area surrounding
ffie building. For purposes of this study, we have have divided these violations into two categories:
1) structural code violations— broken or missing windows and screens, broken or missing ]ocks on
doors, paint or siding in bad condition, roof/fascia/soffits with holes or leaking, outbuildings in poor
condition, building walls with holes and stairs which are broken or in bad condition; and
2) garbage/yard violaHons— gazbage or trash build-up, junk vehicle, tall grass and weeds, junk
fumiture, mattresses and appliances.
FORCE Unit – The Focusing Our Resources on Community Empowerment (FORCE) Unit of the Police
Department was established in 1992 with the mission of providing a comprehensive approach to drug-
related problem properties. Its purpose is to work with the community to reduce the level of drugs,
narcotics and disruptive behavior at the neighborhood level. The FORCE unit has staff dedicated to
crime prevention and block club coordination, code enforcement and street-levei drug interdiction.
Good Neighbor Program – A program administered by Code Enforcement which trains citizens to
identify certain exterior code violations such as tall weeds, snow removal, trash and abandoned vehicles.
Foliowing the training, citizens conduct exterior inspections of neighborhood properties and send or
deliver form letters to property owners who may not be meeting code requirements. The program began
Page
;;y, .
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
as a pilot program in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood and was deemed successful. It has subsequently
expanded to three additional azeas in 2001.
Heavy Enforcement Activity for Thirty Days (HEAT) – A Saint Paui Police Department effor[ to
cancentrate law enforcement activity on a padicular area in order to fight street level crimes, such as
narcotics dealing, prostitution and tra�c violations, which effect neighborhood quality of life.
Housing Court–A part ofthe Ramsey County Disctrict CouR system which exclusively handles
housing, health and building code related citations and complaints. It was formed with the intention of
providing a venue for hearing housing code cases which was expert in understanding the impact of code
violations.
oa �t�9
idix Page IO
InciviliNes (see disorder) – Incivilities, also known as disorders, aze social and physical conditions in a
neighborhood that are viewed as troublesome and potentially tiveatening by its residents and users of
public spaces.
Interior Code ViolaHons – These are violations of City and State building, housing, health and pLOperty
maintenance codes which occur inside the building or dwelling on a property. For purposes of this study,
we have divided these violations into three categories: <,
1) house systems violations— heaUfumace, electricity, water shut-off or malfunction, gas shut-off or
malfuction, refridgerator failure, water heater failure and stove/oven failure; '
2) structural code violafions— floor coverings, missing and broken doors, holes in walls, water
damage and stairs which aze broken or in bad condition; and
3) hea(th-related violallons— rodent or insect infestation, gazbage build-up, overcrowc�ing, missing
or malfunctioning smoke detectors.
Intervenfion – Government action to address the practices and or habits of its citizens and businesses
that aze perceived as violating local codes, nuisance laws and or community standards.
Knock and Talk – For purposes of this study, the activity of police visiting people, mostly in their
homes, where the police discuss the concerns of drug dealing and use with the people thought to be
involved.
Market Value – The assessed value of a property calculated by the County that uses the current real
estate activity in the surrounding azea to determine the property's value. This value is the basis for
determining property taxes for the propeRy.
Minnesota Gang Strike Force – A state-wide law enforcement agency created to identify, investigate,
, arrest and prosecute gang members engaged in "cr�minal activity."
Nuisance Crime – These aze sometimes also called "quality of life" crimes. For purposes of this study,
we have labeled the following types of criminal activity as nuisance: disorderly boys, nazcotics/drugs,
disYurbances, public drining, prostitution, loud music, harraaguing ofpassers-by, dog £ghting, and
bazking dog problems.
PP2000 – A Saint Paul Code Enforcement program which existed from January – December 2000 which
sought to identify property owners who have had repeated complaints against their properties and
assigned these owners to an inspector who case managed the owner's properties.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
Periodic-Systematic Inspection — A the method where buildings and conditions are comprehensively
reviewed on a regulaz basis.
Problem Properties Task Force — This is a group of City staff representing a wide range of City
activities which meets on a monthly basis to discuss problem and chronic problem properties they are
working to devise strategies to fix the problems.
Property Crime — For purposes of this study, we have labeled the following types of criminal activity
as property crime: theft, vandalism, burglary, auto theft, dangerous conditions and arson.
Remove or Repair (Order to) — An order approved by the City Counci] determining a property
constitutes a public nuisance and ordering the owner to remove or repair the nuisance condition with a
specified number of days.
Restorative Justice — Value-based approach to criminal justice with a balanced focus on the offender,
victim and the community. Involves the creation of programs designed to serve the needs of victims by
providing a holistic approach to healing the hazm suffered, while offering opportunities for offenders to
realize the harm they caused, apologize for the wrong, help repair the harm, and earn their way back into
good standing in the community.
Saint Paul Association of Responsible Landlords (SPARL) — An non-profit organization which
educates landlords in effort to make them more successful and responsible members of the community.
Slum Lord — A slang term referring to an owner of rental property who behaves in an irresponsible and
exploitive manner.
Social Cohesion — The degree to which participants in social systems feel committed to the system and
the well-being of other par[icipants.
Social Capital — Social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and
social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS) — A law o�ce for low income persons and
senior citizens which provides free civil legal assistance to eligible persons in Saint Paul. SMRLS
provides help in the following areas: housing, public benefits, family law, education and consumer
problems.
Structural Functionalism —A theory that suggests a society functions best when individuals share the
same norms and values because it promotes solidarity. Subsequently, because a society has established
nonns and values, that society will also have deviance because the rules ofthe society witl not be agreed
to or shazed by everyone.
Surveillance — For purposes of this study, the process of police observing people suspected of being drug
dealers, or locations where it is thought to occw.
Symbolic Interaction — A theory that attempts to explain the development of one's identity through one's
interaction with others and how acts in response to what one perceives of what others think of oneself.
5ystem Failure — When govemment, community and family interventions fail to keep a household or
business from becoming a chronic problem property.
P;
�roblem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study
�a a�9
endiz Page 12
Tenant Remedy Acrion — Also known as a TRA, this is the means by which a tenant or group of tenants
may take action through the court system to get needed repairs and maintenance completed on their
building or in their units. This is accomplished by the tenant(s) paying rent to a court-appointed
administrator, rather than the landlord, who then oversees the correction of problem conditions.
Vacant Building, Registered — A legal term used by the City of Saint Pau( to mean a building that is
unoccupied and meets one or more of the following conditions: unsecured, or secured by other than
normal means; or it is a dangerous structure; or is condemned; or has multiple housing or Building Code
violations; or is condemned and illegally occupied; or is unoccupied for a period of time longer than one
year during which time the Code Enforcement Officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions.
Viotent Crime — For purposes of this study, we have labeled the following types of criminal activity as
violent: domestic violence, assault, fights, aggravated assault, weapons, missing persons, stalking and
robbery.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Stutly Lessons Appendix Page i3
APPEND/X D: CALLS TO C/TY, BY V/OLATION, BY CASE
Licensing -
Name Code C of O Po6ce FSre EMS Animal Zoning
Alligator Alley 0 5 146 4 10 5 0
�s 9%F�.�iC�' ���-�..'�,-�� z " ° - s �� �: , '�
-.S . :`£ c..�#��.:'.`��sE k i ' � . :3
Brothers Grim 6 0 46 0 3 I 0
Case Case
Cracking Up
� 2�
5 s .i � �
114 5
164� �� � 2
9 1
� � H
4 1
0
0
Danger Island 4 2 214 5 19 0 0
< � .
;, a u ! � lt� . .�.", ..t�� � � ., � v: t �� :�. v� ���u��{6.� .'�
Dirty Dealing 13 0 I50 0 1 0 Q
F : � r , a
£ -0 �t
� . �a . . ., u ' 4. , . '� f
Double Gross 2 0 40 0 4 1 p
�" �3 Fq
� { :. . ... . p �„c �+ . �� .a �... � � 1's .' . 5P
Down `n Out 0 0 91 10 12 1 0
- .. • ' ` z�;. : � .. : , � a� : : ... � . .
Emnt Investor I 6 0 29 0 0 0 0
� . � ... s �^... -�m^�4 � � �'u'�It'���`�s��� ��"�#ett�'ti�` �;tAAE'.L�k� "�fl..�.+�slffi6����+r .
Feaz Factor 2 0 14 1 0 0 0
e , a s a,
��� �
s .� ,� .m! .� , � � �m��� ., , �������
Gangster Boyfriend 3 0 24 0 0 � 2 0
'K � Z� - w � p ��
� i � . � _ ,. . � .. .. > ' 3.�1� . � � LLk�;` .,� � r,�� � -`S�4 �F.��3.«��� �:,�a"��
L.a Cucaracha 0 11 1 SS 13 8� 0 0
„t�"<,�vv. ��� ` :� e. .,: � . A � ��� ix .,��: ,����� y�,.. °.�.,���
Motel Cahfomia 1 10 296 31 30 1 0
� � �� .. a����� d.m-, ����l�`����-0���"F`��j'�� 3�l x E,� n
x �� }
� �,.� ..,3,,.,a,. - �..��-.�..�.:,����...»� �;�..a,n ,�_
Old and Ugly 3 � ^- 6 55 5 12 1 0
e ��t ��� ���..��}?. : ., C §.� t�' .����+£�. � _ � ) T$ ..� ...�
S � e � .�� ��=��� � ��.afi�.�:'�s.a.n�..��€��.:�..�.u��'a�'���'.��,� ���'; w..;.
rcS�.' 6 ..w.:'rv3l� �� S
Overwhelmed 6 0 36 0 0 0 0
k.t c- �'
SLa ;, ��K ��.' a � 's "�.��. , ..,,,.� 4 I � � � ^i- �� 1`°y , w � s�"'��, a � h� ��� � �, . �.,:�„ .� ...
�
�_.. �;. �" ,.�.,>�.�.._,...�...�..�<:�...;......�,.. .,:.-..w.a, _� �. �' .� �
Wazering Hole 2 0 75 0 2 0 I 1
� � � �, � �� � ,� - °
�cad'Ne�hb ��„�� p `� y ' �"'��_,.��, ��,*�?0� '�s�..-:�..�q '0 0 7:� .'II � "
i
�
�a a�
problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Appendix Page 14
APPEND/X E: CALLS TO CITY, TOTAlS AND A VERAGES, BY CASE
Plame Total-Study Period Average Per Year Average Per Month
Alligator Alley 170 85 7.1
srothers Grun
� a. � r�
Case Case
e � :a
h � w, � ,. , y �
Cracking-Up
�.`;2 �
Danger Island
��N f *�'"��� {- p s
� �
�
k,s
Dtrty DeaUng
�7: �
Qi 't
Double Gross
�' :
Down `N Out
� � �
m
Ettant Invest I
, 4jx � . `b�
u4e�. �:JeA�_
Feaz Factor
�c: i . �- ;_''
Gangster Boyfriend
�3 F
IDE ..�. s ...�.
La Cucazacha
r - �
r,.. �.
.� " >
Motel Califom�a
�5;' ��
f j
ast3'�. �,.�
Old and Ugly
, `""�.�..�'.����,�- �.
rs;
� _ _ .'� �.,�, t
Ovetwhelmed
Thron ;,�
Watering Hole
u
��
42
:�
156
N'
176
t
90
�P4
164
�:
47
���
92
35
�
17
p€
29
217
�aar
����
369
un-.,
�57�
2
2�
90
13
21
��c^rx
78
["'
88
R4
�
45
82
24
�^'
46
�,
IS
:�
9
�.
15
�
�a
109
185
�
��:iu`n
41
��
��._3,'�'�..-.
45
io
�._ Gi
�, d:�., a�.,: �
1.8
� (34+.
65
�•,. � z,_�1��€
: 73
F �; � ?ri»
�ar t
4 :t��?
3.8
> -x�
3 RF : 3.
6.8
�"` 9k�, s 3
� w
2.0
��:���' ..�
3.8 � �
e'€ q� N�
3im �
1.4
;�.t:.. � rr
0.7
}+ a+
.. ... r,.a .::�
12
»� �,� •�
s�� i
., � t � �5'�
9.0
�
�:vZ�Q'§''�tu. f�"�:'�
15.4
�;���(�'� `3,�°�S� �-
3A ��F
� 1.0
y � 3.8 ..�.. � _.�_
.:�3,. .<�F -- - -
_;n;.
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons A
APPEND/X F: PROPERTY CODE INTERVENT/ON, BY CASE
Correction Housing Ct. Condem-
Name Notices Abatements Citations Warrants nations
Alligator Alley 0 4 1 no 0
.�',� rv+ :. � '� ' ` ,f.-'�
� tu;:;'.. � '�-`'' � �'. :� � . KK „.� ° `�.a . Z;' �
�..� . . v � � � �� � � � �
Brothers Grim O �:._ . �.....,. O s. ,. c, ,� ,.�,. 3 :4 ���, . P 3!�,:� Ye SZ.a i_� mn � 1,; `.
� ,� ,... ej' "*t- .. t' e
.:a ' .. `_stu:4. �.�i� _... F �t 4 a.� x ��� �"" � E O C � '; �„a « ,,. �'#4
Case Cue ,� 0 . . ' .,.., ; O , -,' no p .,
:.: �� � ... � ,
...,iA� . -',�,' ,a� ...,;,:�; �'s� a. „�'��' .�,Y'`�� n._ :�;. v. � � ,�
Cracking-Up 3 6 0 } no �� � 0� µx
�9 x ` �� I'' (� tpx t� 2'4YtG ry e . � 's`� 't 4K tt ,^ Y .
F 3I° 'rv�.. .xl #1�`Js� .�:,. [`�� .A4� 3 t.,, � : �L � 0;:s" {�uui� „F '.v„ ` �
Danger Is]and 1 2 0 no 0 ��
� 3 � i' d�R 4Y. ff
� ., 1' T :� £ ':�
� , � 5 : t ,�.� , � s �' -' ' ��u . -. �, l�" � R' '" `
34t�l:.�' hlm,... , r�� �'<' � ,� `.:<qt $ .;a � ..�� .., w �. a... :: . , �'az
D'uty Dealmg 3 6 2 no 1
�p r. .y �„ jy.: �-:, �.� ..,. ° n
k �v� 4 � �°�'
�»��. .s.o t ���� �� nv. .xxA T � �"�' �d ��� '� ....,2�4 c2 f ���� 4��
Double Gross 0 � 1 � 0 ��yes � 2
d s«
, ; .,�. r. . . �.. ���� �� �t������ .
. ..' _�� :. � .
a„ t"' � ... ,.z� .,� `ru..'.�,m�:,a:x��� ' � � 6 'a�i �'u' �yty � '�z�
Down N Out 0 0 0 no 0
g.. �+e� . , 4�,
�n ?ink..t ��. .�..x a�'... 4 ..."% �.i. �'ry {i @y.�� f$t. �
. d e u
Erran[ Investor I 2 � 12 1� yes j
n�..: v �;.. »..... i v ; . �,�.,�. `3 �::' �4'T'� .ei 4�:E
Fear Factor + '�. &r..: o , . .� � � � O � `� �}I:�n�.�' ,., :,. �r,. ....
� .4=;��� t;. � �� .,. � � „ m � �'� a�' s��'"'a
,.. :,a.�'� .� ,,n ., w ,. ... ,��
GangsterBoyfriend 1 2 . , 2 . .. no .... 0
�°.. � ai t? • a• ;.�,.
d�Y As' I, �� rv �, "�{,� �: a � -� �n5.
� .. u.. �;�Edt�:L�m„'�'��� .�,. , . n � � ip �'*r,..,,. 8.-:. � �....z� ""`� .,-�#.. � „� 4 V � ,
I,a G�caracha 7 p , 0 no �.. ,� :.: �,
� ���"' k �" � - :�;a �'� - 3 � •• , .,z R �'i. ` s '.i ����+h `�':a
�]���. , �' ' 3;, e r' ,s <; 6: �, � �o t`�
, .� � .. .. : :a.� ".. &. v:x C., «. .. �t: v}:;. � �4.: y� . C!'._.,; d S. p: . �e�.w. a z'' .f�
Motel California 1 1 0 no 0
� 'V-;` �z �+��,�¢
� tyc.��0� ?.:fi°. .fk Y� t';` 4 �. '�' � ;. :d !{"i; �} ,. _3I tu� .s�.� � � 'At:O
x 4?.. 2 t`4 ,.. N. P3.'.=t
.3 � ..,x,.�E ' 'm..` ' F ..,:�G . '`�."-...', �,.��'� t.�:-.. . O .. 'r}. a -_, k.�'y�
Old and Ugly 1 3 0 yes 1
�:� d?�] �
;, � ° �"' < .. _- �
"� ' � � y r^ r� � €. .n
..a' �,.,fjl uQ�$�@.._�� t ,>'"� ,..,,�:� 'fi.. � i.'I�: n � .:'f.'' a ' �y� 7 t4�j� ....�., . � ., .:.�` .
..t� ..ss:.=.��S.,,t,..x, k.,.:.'�}���'�:: , wa_���."".�.�.......:� ��:.� ..., � �.��:::, ..,3...:.:'
Ovecwhelmed 0 5 0 yes 0
�„ , r
1lutitigh �Saoks x�' �i`�'` �`. D�#�E"r � � �,r `p�` � y� '�' �.�� � 3s�` � ar� ��'�` ...k; � ve� � � �
t e .� ,_ �.<Ye �'e ��.�. 9�.
-.:r ,_m,.,.,..-.. ».0 - .ww�._.,.�oc,... � . ... _ - .�,'. ".
Watering Hole 5 0 2 no 0
� � - >,:�s ;- :� ..:: , -_.� ,-.- ,_ . �.,, . . ,
VTe�rdNeigTibo[��-.< . .� _ � . 1�-. 6 -,� r... .Y� � . . ,,.- . . €Q�:,� `,��r
Pa9e
oa-a��
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Appendix Page 16
APPEND/X F: PROPERTY CODE INTERVENTION, BY CASE �CONTINUED�
C of O Rental Problem Prop.
Name Revocation Registration Task Force PP 2000
Alhgator Alley 1 no yes no
., � ay ..'� 'i G.�" Yz .�'� � �. 4 �
� �'
ef h��H�.� fi '.P. �] ,9 , ' �� 4 ' y .... . �
�� �'a �ri., �'k.,. _?�!�,��.�i'u,�,.:s c,. �.,�� E� �;`� .., as'.;fl ,�n qa �.a *.," t `N ...d A��
Brothers Gnm 0 no no n �
� ha �s . �:z�,. � -'����A.P' tS+l '. �i `-;s ,� �S ��.� g:; ' .,. �.e;�����
: u�:;, �� . a,�'.� ���v..x'�., ����...� ��"�� .�, a. ., a.A x..�"`l� hL ... �`,zri . ,+ �".c
Case Case 4 no Yes Yes
., � � � �����,.�, �"�fi tk.., � �;: i °;' n aa,p� �� J� �. �;k }�. .
ld;:: �. Ik.«.. .F�...l. s,�S ti`.. .� x..�' � ,..- . ,», �;.:� .� .v,
Cracking-Up 0 no no yes
� �, �.;; �'n t :?� u �� `z K;: �„ h;: ��'�.rr m ue;� � �., '`��
r
;;. �.�.. � , < .�;'�� ' � ":"� � �, � :sc r,.a .',�ti �'4. ' �..� s�:' G' s� ..__s
Danger Island 0 no no no
µ� � r .� Rnttte pu1•i•• 'fl .. .r
�#'-`n s. � . f ,�' 3 I �`..- � s, �I .. �. .':_�t x I. � ii sh�'� � k .�� a� �� }r-�
� �s_x.� `�..+" .,.,.�.' .. � ����. �.�.� u�.n ri�.t . ,� .s .�. r.. .
Dtr[y Dealuig � ° II0 �� ��,
qI '£� �iN' 7 :4� p .
:.� � ;� � � ��'' �-:t �� � ��� E .: Ge .., '-_ b b
x« a�«. ''P.! �' ^. 'u. �5.. 'ms9 , i+., a ���� !s; ii.., ��... 7Ge.,
Double Gross 0 no no yes
fi .:'f .,. x"„y, Ss �
� ^..� ^n .� � .v� �, . 'e. f a ar. `� � !a �.e°,�
. �.J' �.�.A ra •.u. 3^,MF .. • �+ ��'. ��, �� ' �'
k'
mJ II
Down N Out 0 no no no
{
A( ' 'c'Mr „ aF t t�,.
�� _ ' � ..:� Fj . NN g� �a�{ S ,� S � .:.q � a. ��
�,� .:' � � 7 �' '. .� �'3� , �3%: t ^ , , f.e. .tal �'u' �. �..' `; . _.
Eaant Investor I 0 yes no yes
�a mt .�.f ..Ht `$e' ki �; S� y� ir. � r ��a. �i;I; �
�'✓ ..F Ss4 .� . �� .':: �t'�H �S� Cv �,: {w: '.. .i � 4 r�� ` � �" �. . ..
Feaz Factor 0 no no no
n, : � , . � M u�, ,.
F � � ��. �:;. �Y. r FY ,, , '
�Zn.. � �,.,.. ���..u� �,�,.�. � w "�;. , _ � �, .�. �... �� �^R �.�, � � � �„ �
Gangster Boyfnend 0 no no no
;`}• 3+(' f .�'k:.`� 3(. �t m^.� A �( F',� �r .i.. U' R.9 �la�:j . .f� ,� 4-,� ..:
',�.�,���.a.�,�J�i„ ��r.'��u��'� IfRcx�.���ftu!��.,;� �� �e�� �,.;"�. .� .m...:;I ...� �i ., ... , }i
La Cucazacha 0 no no no
; ! , ir�: m,' �'r } � r '� +". i�(�,p �' I ' {k t�F '3Sf�� {.: L�it g ` �a�{�f➢� G ..�,2�
�' I �+.. IP �`a!' O r,,, l
�' "' �' � I "�� ¢� .. W � - na �
r��w��. , .}��,,.�'�L. ����.:� ,.�3Ii�G.Aw '�`���v,...'.!���!uva..i� ..u.' .?..., n G �z w. � .:,i.«Y �a.ac �
Motel Califom�a 0 no yes no
' �� ,1 � ✓Y
_� w u� � `�`'�' �N� i�,�"�F� �e:., `I �. ,��'�' �.. � ����r .��� �+�� �:'"� �a M �",��"c`'7� zd _ z� .�� � �" �'%'a�
�,..... �'s��'u�, "��,e�...,�' `,,.v,,�'k,'��.��, f�t�t�r�t'� _���.�:�. :.a��:,� ����.����:., x" �.. ,.
Old and Ugly 4 no yes no
n °^'� x : �' . .
v P y g
`:�Oveitha ' � ' � '$e ..,� ��' ., 9 �.,r ��� ,'�� ��'tvC. �.�....,:.,. � �� ��. n�n� '��. ��. � ,,. ..� -...�:
�Ovrnvhelmed 0 no no no
,..a� �.�w '� Ta ���;� —, �``<�� � � � t x "� .�� J ���_� t,.,�� � .� s ��.� . � �
p °Tlimu �1a theCracks - s- p.� �no rno ,� �:; .
.u....,.,.` s.'�..�. 4 ,,,_.. �`.F �i �_:r_.w.�.. :,,,:w�:::,...��...�. �_�,�...�v:;;..;:u�:�`.
y �
Watering Hole 1 no no
_ ,..—. _ .- '�"°�"-
�, WevdNeighbor, �'0 x . . , . , ., no �"� _ ,,- �'.°O��-.�:...,� .� .
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Apper
APPEND/X G: FORCE INTERVENTIONS, BY CASE
Buys n'
Name Knock n' Talks Search Warrants Surveillance FORCE Arrests
Alligator Alley 1 0 2 0
ti . ""-'�' 1 ,�,z �'. � �` �.� e � ; � , ; �a
. ���.�.�%_ . �� ����f30�.......��_. ��;a�.��i ��`�`.�cS' ,�. ����e
Brothers Cmm 4 0 4 3
. :�.. ...�:�;-= axu .. �a.: a�
� ..�. =.=�.a= �. ��5.. � �..iz�:�� '�' ��.� '�
Cash Cow 2 0 0 �� 0
,. �� ° ++ .., . � s� wc._.., ., �,�'a? "�;{�' ; � � y �s z � { :., I �R1�{„C�
F ,� �... vC �� ��k`t�Mq EL.�,'�`� �a�L� � �lAI��.:.5� m��,�.�futt�,'�i
m A
Cracking Up 0 I 1 0
� �� ��:bCE1 � ���'? � �.'��s� E �H#��?� � <� . , � . ..,�, ��.� ..;a,� .
If . 3E __,..:�1 " �;, : .� ...va � �
_u_rci?.3sut:. . ..._ _ �: ftlf' _..ux�+tPit ?!
Danger Island 1 4 0 3
'�` . . �'� �"� i��;Y�'i� , s� ��,. + E�� �.: , _ �
� . �- w �� aa �.�, . _:- . ,:.
Dirty Dealmg 2 1 7 1�
�-.�m....� , r,__ .� � . .. . ; uc� �_° rm�»c: �_-
s = �, �
.�.���°' .�....:a'..;�� . ._...v..�`.'S.° ' ' _.,_::.::�,u�'s�,°`�`s�l �
Double Gross 0 3 2 2
'�'� �" v�'. '� k«sn4%.ae�: �.�_ , ��g g L ,�k�`. � y �,�,° *
,.. . , t �
„ °' �`�''.�,..`= "� � . ,�a.a„:a.. jB".a�?*�:.v�`,.�.
Down `N Out 0 0 0 0
u �' �".' . � �i �, �'�`��''�"' ��'" �a�., �'�
�:�:.�;:�. .. �s�� �. *.:54 � � ° � .s_._b�::�u ���
Enant Investor I 0 1 0 0
�.;,.�;x._.., ��{��":_ _ti «a.�+d� � �-`.`� t a
. , , t . . ua�:�.�' �� :��;� i'
Feaz Factor }��' 0 0 0 0
� m"4,� a>w£�.. � , �t�:.:, , 3� �.- ��� . 'a$.3"�'hx��,_ �Cml�
.. ,�M"�sP.raa�a._ .. atr�..:�'tl_!�� � ,ar.tss:a.,.�s�.c. � '
Gangster Boyfnend 0 1 0 1
3rF .
t � F t �, � eFrz w�#AI , I ..'ie'� �"' � ., ���
�..'.'�e� _�� �?si�,.'`_ � �......_. �e«.m,s,�»»,�,
La Cucaracha 6 0 7 2
� fl �,€� �'S ,�'^Na � s� �"".m^°' (It3`�R€(n:u : '� �i � �J�;
ti� 49E����i�����,'�`m� Ia�._,.�.:.sa k ��.;., . ���.���r.,u.x,.s_�.:g�. . � .
' . ��.�.:.:� �
Motel Califomia 2 0 2 0
g` � �'��s��
'y �95F�� � - � �m�a,i�a� . i��'U' �"������Zra7u�t � . � � .. t��
W�'.L��h c �,�1...a rws�u �� � a 3 .�,�.,�� �tm;�..a3�'� s`� s .. � , iir .��i `� � � t .. �
. «��:�
Old and Ugly 1 2 0 0
�,Qve�T�f1�2� e:r # ���� 1 �� n srf ;;; i� �' ������ . �s�"���t!*r�.`�'"c'�`.: a� s�s�.a;,��e� m.�e�ne .z
; Q • � ���k z e a'.�
� �r�uS�F' . �� sA �,�..��ia: ' �� �L' ' ��t�{!�9.��'�_'"�-"�+ . ... � 7 . . . �� �'?{u: * ::. e . ?
_ . �.,. _..-�.. �:� _
Overwhelmed 0 0 0 0
' -,_ —�--�; 't�s - a - �. � -
��Ltapgh the GYac� !fi� ,� k "^ ': � iFu.� �' � ��,� �- � 2 � � t : „ �,:
3_-°��ro�.:±x.,..�.Y .. _,�
t��u:d._._%_.�.� ,. .., _._`_.�....�.._.....r.t._.�...,:,�. _.-,:.�..�,.,...,....._ ., _._�:._._.,..,..`�__..
Wazenng Hole 0 0 0 0
h.s}-�"� � �' '�"°'..$ � � ; a .�� ��. .. : T ; - .
'1 ;•'�,_�, ., u �?' z 0 0 0 . 0
Pa9e 11
�
pppendix Page' 18
problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons
APPENDIX H: COSTS FOR COMPLAINTS, CALLS FOR SERVICE AND
EMS/FiRE RuNS, sv Case
Police
FORCE Unit `�
Name Calls Arrests Buys/Surveillance Knock & Talk Warrant Control
$650 $130 $750
AlligatorAlley $15,980 +_ fi � ��_ : �` j Z ,;� �,g
$ � j ,3�. j ��: �!:� � ��'�� � �����a��.:�26���,�t�'�.'#� ��e, e��£"�fi�:'r
��� ���.�� g�tP'�.��� ��j����� � . ���'���I;�E��P; �.,i,�� $520 $I50
Brothers Gnm $5 980 $1 560 $1 300
„.�.. �. ,��.' ., ��': f '' � 0 �: $�". ���� �...,, " ��.� ��" �. E �i'S . ����> . ��'�'������:
CaseCase , ,.: fi �m $14,820 ::' $1,040... 3 � J '.�.$1300 ! .�� y. `�..... ;� i ` ,$2�600 , r.# $15��
���, �' a �v��.��.'�.�� 4' s_ ...9� `'g�:��s��� �� tt����r;t������'����`� '' ;�. _ a 3 , .1 . � .; �: . �:�:K!
Cracking-UP $21,320 , .: . . m. $325 .`. i . ... 2 $1 F 3'_ i � $150
; „" '� �!", � ; ..7 E `'3 e, ('3 .., �f $ E.. ��� � � � . � � ` � � �{�.���� ir��f ���.���M..�l�'f�� .� :."k�C�.i�":�tl�����.�f�.
' : ���;,���e '� ",r�l?�" .�,, _ � ra��u���.,� ��.�ii�.���i.�� $130 $5�200
Danger Island $27 820 $1 560
���. ����K���� 4 � �� � ���t��^�����i.
- '' '
`` . �: � du��
� � � � ! M # - u ' E .' {
��: ���, . � �� �. ° $2 275 $260 $1,300
DirtyDealmg ���$19500y.. � $520 < r r :.�. ' �. '��±1� ,.'��� �� ��� G����'.'�u�.�}i
� ', �� ��m ,. �.; k � . .�
..p���DoubleCttoss� $5200 �� $1040 ` $650 ' { , $3,900 ..... .. $150 ,
�.r� ?��`�. ,e ��; �.:tt� ,i���k"::. � � µ� ..%' u ae�' +�� � ' ��i��u' " u` <� �: :��i, k, �r ,' .. � $ ;�O ��`�
H
Down NOut $11,830 f(f ��((�. F�
a ���� � i ��? M $ �� ���f�: �Y'�.� c �s��°��'��' .��� ° �, t A��iY��� ��7
�' �; � _ ��.' �� :�: ..` ' $1,300 •
Ecrant Investor I $3,770 � . _ ��,���
� e � � � ', � , ��, . i Lx �� .� F � F 6, r _ ..- �i"t7d���i;
�� . .a' .. a �, . , . `
FeazFactor j $1820 �[` Q � c Q p�1 9 j
. ����* ., ti.. . ���� � k�y���GR��:'.WF.��+..���;'Nt£.M�N4ii��3 G u � 6��� 3 � �
v � �
$1 300 $300
�GangsterBoyfnend $3,120 $520 , :, i �, ; ° a" J (��` t ' ���y „ � � �p k ��' � �
�0�������,�e�.���WC}�Nt? ���„RJtYc � ��� ��... U'rl��Hf"ctt�:a�t1". 3 .Y��. n�:�!'.��� �1!€�'.:+t&.��"5�.���to-.�:.:i�.��_ L!. ,
$24 O50 $1 040 $2 275 $780
La Cucaracha , f` . �. ?( � , � � � ��' '#�t � �� �#;
.x•�;;5ry .� $�;,i� " +':.;R�,. ',� '�i ' � � � ��§ � �+�p��,'��'',7� f �,i� ¢! I �������.,8..��.'4_...1�` - :: 7 Lt 7�� �� Nii:
., �P:.:.���i::�_�.�.���€.��..��J.�:4�.':bdc�.IN.�+J37.�., ������,�.�tv�'�������.:�9"�:��.,.��.i�ik.��§I�L.�iL. $1S�
�650 5260
38 480 f
Motel Califomia $ � ; ,� �: � -
p��} „ g{� a { {((��j�`�i . ( �, �' � n4: ^ �t � F �t 7 ' Sp§ 7%f�� � ..
,. .r Raa: n=9r .'n '. �:. }�i", E' � .,',� L;� .elE;�.r �p�,� �: `� e �D.H�. b�t� � �,1R �` �i �
mf ..::$' .. . ... �i.�.. iT. ...'9 �, � . ° i',"..� , e..i".e4�,�� .... .. .._ ...� �. ...r.
,.vi. ; ,..,P nx.� .iiF,i..�' . . .n�.. , . ... .� F . � .( t .�; . + ,.?'4, �,�'.. ... ., � . r .. .{ttr.�c....ra.. r.t.l:'
, R�`. �,. '�`{ ,� z..�;a.,4;�,� �,1 �' 1' 5�.-. z:..�F �,�: �a ��� : �.#.S�S;�
j����
bt����.:n;�.�r�''`.�$roit�::.� :.��t��:�::,sf8._��:��s,.���Wr :!.,...��,.wc $150
Old and U 1 $130 $2 600
$7e1S0 ,^ `ri"'!Y.-d 9#. �. '�, ,��i'2�`R t$f ' Em'ffe `"' � ..
8Y �..�� ,; „f. �t ��
c, °,r, - n�,.. ".�'t, ` �. - e:h � ; �' ? s- 0
„� 13
.„�- r= .
S
,m _. _� s =
; �;�. .:c�. r ..... ,.
. ;; , .$ .s.�
;�st3ven���.exl�� (� s�: 1�'�$2�f3�,'i � $�'044. sn �.'�i��'�'��._�'�r,.��_�?i � ��: .�.._ ,,,k.....' ��.::�� .�..._�: �: '" �
:,'�.:.:..:,�. -.._._...._.. ..._..�... , _.. .w . _._ �,.b., -.. .. . ..,.. . - -.
Overwhelmed $4 680 - �
. � --�s . � � �.�'+�, � � .,,.. .TM - s :, v. r
, '-
� - a � Cracks . : $L 95Q $52Q � � $b56 �� � � _:. � - -
:��.�.�n..4^s -K . r` P. s�..rzz.'..... � _
$9 750
WazenngHole � � � $1;050�
-� .�;�, -?-
�-*�zr�. �, ->�.: y .�.� � ?� � . ° . , _ ., r,�r . _ . _ . . _ � � , . _
�.,,•w
*k;
f
; �,�.
i a?
�t�d,�—
Chronic Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lessons Appendix Page 19
APPEND/X H: COSTS FOR COMPLAINTS, CALLS FOR SERV/CE AND
EMS/FiRE RuNS, BY CASE (CONT/NUED�
Code Eaforcement Certificate of EMS & Total
Name Complaints Occupancy Licensing Zoning Fire Cost
Alhgator Alley $750 $6,398 $27,658
�-�"w � vxr� '- lh a � �s��. �' � r . ^ .
�'dd�B6y a a, �,'���-.� € so, �Gwa. �`!� 7 �'�`�: e �" ..
� i��s. z� 3' _ �C.r.n.,�.� ., ,# r � a. � E.:_� ' � �" :`�e dim,�.x�:..",b' _
�.&btsa.�aex� _.. v rt
BrothersGrim $900 $1,391 $11,781
G+ ru , :�5� � - � "'aai 'r�`s*�s
(� f - � � k ' �3,� pi � � �'�'
.�u.`l�u>,ba P ����. d x r��� � �� °�:'�:�� 3 �S � r .$.�, �i��Y Y�_����� ` 4 € 4. ` i
Case Case � $1,050 $3,000 $6,398 $30,358
,_, .- �
�°�" � �� , �� rd;'",. , � y su' ��a .� , �j� . �,�'WSZ�S ,„ �FS^r �, ' { �r"3�r
Lta IiIiB� I�I,. I, {� 3i t..:,�'��.�3�Si�t-�3�'�� �� = r�!�4ll� � tweF�i�_. �t�trv,$� �.,, , tl�`�._;
Cracking-Up $750 $2,742 $26,587
���tlt'�u%,� n �.'_.. . � �t_T� '`�� 3 `�°w�q�, �'��,4�� !�
�� p y. � � �a�� 3i�S .��. �EU Yt#� � F ,.x
da'�'a.�s�.r_ � .. �...h€r.:$N,.*( in+�,...^: � _.. .Ert Fmsz �"�
Danger Island $600 $300 $10 968 $46 578
s . ; � p � M p ; y a x� � y � � . �aN�� ,��n,`'ra"ta � 3�, s�U���S
' ����StG7i�u ���ni.uv_i+�,'u+' ir �6!�rau�._�_ ���
DirtyDealing $1,950 $457 $26,262
�' �?x .
..D�: � ' �n'` x � q. � �'� �, a'"';� 'u ' �'� t erR� � � `��' '7a'�4:i�
3�,� �(�� ,�300 � {��
_ � ii��.;;�;"� �u"i�":;:.r_ :.;J_� F 15S ���.;�ti#r � a..�.°mm�a}a ' "�h^°`.�ux
�"
DoubleGross $300 $1,828 $13,068
` `�. ��` 4 €�" �*, "+fi a: , �tf..r "`� ? -�°`�'
�� . .:� �."'.�a �� � � � ���1 � '��"' �� . �ri�: °�"�
� - :�i� .�: �,� . u a
Down `N Out $10,054 $22,034 �
ET13P �. � i '.�;� rr�ty I ��$4 � � tt ��'" �'� ��ufra i�i.� G' � �����`_
3i����d Il���.. �:�`s�s:nr ���� i [�,�.n.a�u� �. ��.�}�i 1.r. A� �.m:a zsw.z� �. �t.`�:�:�
Enant In I $900 ,[. $5,970
� j #tXt�i${Y��A�� e I � un � CB��,��:i � ix. � �� t c t� w' 'attT 4 u�n �
GSS �����°.ixuo � ��tr � �nu.,..... �` g61 � .ws.�. ��4 nE
Feaz Fador $300 $457 $2,577
��� d#�a �i, � �aar,y - �t�s *"��rk� �
.�,:'��' .. nu: �n:,�, ��:�n�.�.°.� 3�4W�� ��'O ����";
- i�vt. : '� �
Gangster Boyfriend $450 $5,690
1�I�� $'�c" �' r��y�tt,s )'" r.�,y'�I' � ��;,-�� aouars - �.. �n.v�ax.,�': C
'���:� r� ''_'��i��t��� :`�°.�3 ��wE-�_"!s«t.�i�._ ���h ��K.. gi�i�n1,�4 �` 1�$ia
� � �, � _ , _ � w�. r ��._. �_.._ � � �t�i's
LaCucazacha $1,650 $9,597 $39,392
r .' � '�i" :i � s �[ . ,. ���'7zta,. � �F� ° �"S , ` QQ. 4 ,.' $��$9"1±�" 3 . . . .
sc� ..�. a�,n . , �G,4r,:� an } _ i�.4,.ac'_ :,le. '`:E�z.0 6u 1 :.. �wu.,, a.
MotelCal�fomia $150 $1500 $27,877 � $69067
� T `t �H�3'm -'-r`��!�$�`p �' '°�� �m"^ �w� n= �va�
�� Rout `° '{e � . $60 s ,,, x , 7 �600 ��' � s� '. t �, ��. r. �, � � �
''��'s'.*�,� #._ xi.r. �.. �s.�:�r.� .� Q '_'���r � .��.u�� �;: "„w#9 � .:'.�� �.ry..-�
O]dandUgly $450 $900� $7,769 $19,149
��uer;tiieBdge � ° ���'1�n,r" �u= `; ' # ����,aS300 r "'�?����S�30Q ,`, s� � ��t� �" ,(� �� +�r� ��� �aa.
. .. _. �,. .. ,.K _ .n_, �_ _ .� �z. .._,�. .°�tiWm�,c.ai��.___..«` ��� "�"`��
Overwhelmed $900 $5,580
- � :«_-.. . � � _ "u�, s * r�� � `� �'"'"� 5rc��3 "�, : +'i Rt �a n'i b �' . . "�, ?
T7a0u theCracks � 5900 �� �s •
�,_ __ � rn .. ....� ° 3';'_..`p.��`" , ;_;:4� .., m�., �..� . _ ^`�i�:'�2' 3� -�>s r.<��r.� a�. �'� e�'3rt; �_.� �.�.,..�.��
Watering Hole $300 $1,650 $914 $12,614
_ _ _ . _.. ;. ._. ._ . ._ , .
,-
, . _ . . , � .�.
We]id NeighSor . _ . __,,S ._,..1 : . _ $3,6�0? � , � � ."�` ;
Problem Properties in Saint Paul: Case Study Lesso�s Appenaix rage za
APPENDIX I: 2000 TAX INFORMATION, BY CASE
Total
Local County Municipal
Name Tases Taxes Tases
$9,166 $2,516 $z�242
Alligator Alley �,
Brothers Cn�im
... .. ... y , . ...., ..
Case Case
��'� _ , ����
Cracking-Up
3 �` �
Danger Island
F � �
Dirty Dealing
� b � �r
Double Gross
, yrs i ; .,. ; e �
Down `N Out
Errant Investor I
.m� . f
Feaz Factor
y j
Gangster Boyfiiend
� �� �
� �� �ff
La C�cazacha
_ ` ,.: . 8 '
� �,� Motel Califomia
? , 7
� . . � �
�,
t
1
1
Old and Ugly
� � e t
�, �
Ovenvhelmed
��
t :� - .
Wazering Hole
$1,924
;�
$2,921
$875
� e �
$4,058�
$903
$504
$1,799
$894
$
$788
$612
; S
$17,294
$12,376
�
$1,922
� ��
$952
��
$2,713
$528
" ,-.,. 4 , . .
$794
, ��
$240
f; . y
�
$1,] 14
�
$248
� , #� �
$138
*1 r
$494
$246
�
$216 '
.a � �
$169
$4,763
$3 397
�:., �xe���..��,$���ik.��
$528
�� �� � �`
�;„: � �� �ut � _.
$262
�
i x�$2� � �..
$745
$471
": , a F�;
$708
� � . . y
$214
� �
- . $993
. . , �, , �. ��
� � $221
n' di'' . $� �4�A;.
` $123
i r"
$Q�}�
` $219
" ;.
N ;
$193
�{ � �
$15�
� ����v��..
$4,245
�� s:.
$3 028
S ^ �F
��������:.
,�: u..
$470
- $234
,--. �`�.:�, _
� ��80,
� , _.1,� . �_m�
$664
�395`
�,>
� �`i
f
oa a�q
0
0
a
� N
�
, o, _- " - ._ ' _ O
�
a
,. . ,.
a
� - �= � �= �- �- ��'- - �
9
a"� � �
- Q
- " - -- - - -. . �+ .
- - � - . .. n- '
- _'.-- - --�_-` �_. � - ,_
- - -. --> _. .
c _ -
=_ .. .- ? '<-�,_. . ,. ' ...'w _ - ' ,-
. - . . - ' � '�.
_ _ . - . ' _ ' - � �,.
,
-' - _ - --_ � .-. . `. � .
�
4 .. C
$.i 6
�"r �
�
A � � �' �
I� _
A �� �
- �
��`a � "� � � , � � �
' 3
r� ,J: :.t - y � a
/ +s�' ' '
- W - �' � . W .
� � � ��� v - O tA�N�� � .
� _ q "`. = _ � O O O O O �
r
_ '^`�„ a" - � MN� �
� -_ F �� - - � ����❑ r�
N
S �(j
N
y §:x �
� u � :_ � �
m
� £
0
�
�1 � ^ �
m
L� - _ �_ c `� a s - ° a;
� �x 5 a
s $
3 U
C u L
r� �
� �� �
7 ' ` �
-.: ,. k= x °
: �. � - _:- �_s. : - -
w
m
E
� - � � - � N
F
_, N
Snell n� Ade � _ ' �
� �
' a
- , rn
�
a
- - . - ` _ . - � c
�
� � -' �- - = a
, . , - _ - - - _ . - -- �
. . . -_ _ _ _ "_ �
£
�
a
�
m
a
E
�
z