St. Paul Inspection Department on trial for Fair Housing violations.
Federal Court of Appeals ruled September 1st, 2010 that the combined cases of Gallagher, Steinhauser, Harrilal (rental property owners) vs St. Paul will go to trial. The City of St Paul has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The decision whether the Court will take the case should be made on the last week of September, 2011.
This case alleges that St Paul housing inspection programs were used in a racially motivated manner to force racial minorities out of St Paul and that such actions violated the Fair Housing rights of the occupants. A very interesting point is a number of city employees including inspectors are on the hook personally in this suit. From a legal perspective they must defend themselves as they and their employer have disparate interest; for the city to win if the allegations are proven true they must claim rouge employees acting outside of the law. For the inspectors to win they must argue that they were following instructions that they believed were legal. The inspectors may have a hard time claiming ignorance however as the owners had provided the inspectors with documentation that the inspectors' acts were contrary to Fair Housing, yet the inspectors continued with their agenda. At some point the inspectors will have to name their union as third party defendants as the union failed to stop management from allowing/forcing them to violate the rights of the tenants and owners
From my conversations with two of the plaintiffs over the past five or six years they seem to be just a handful of hard working landlords who independently found themselves on the losing end of government behaving badly. The current case is a consolidation of three or four cases that started independent of each other, but the claims were so similar that the federal court combined them. Most of the cases claimed RICO (racketeering) on the part of the city employees. These causes were dismissed due to procedural errors.
Here is an excerpt from the ruling:
To demonstrate a disparate impact, Appellants have offered evidence supporting the following conclusions:
(a) The City experienced a shortage of affordable housing. The City represented in its 2003 report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) that “the lack of affordable housing opportunities remains a major issue facing many Saint Paul lower income households, who are also protected class members,” and that “27.6% of Saint Paul’s lower income residents cannot find adequate affordable housing in the City.” Then, in 2005, the City estimated that 32% of the households in St. Paul had unmet housing needs (cost burdens, overcrowding, etc.).
(b) Racial minorities, especially African-Americans, made up a disproportionate percentage of lower-income households in the City that rely on low-income housing. The district court noted that the parties agree that African-Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of low-income tenants in the City. The City’s 2000 census data showed that 11.7% of the City’s population was African-American, whereas data from October 2004 showed that 61% and 62% of those on waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 assistance, respectively, were African- American. Further, the City’s 2000 report to HUD showed that 52% of minority-headed renter households were in the bottom bracket for household adjusted median family income, compared to 32% of all renter households.
(c) The City’s aggressive Housing Code enforcement practices increased costs for property owners that rent to low-income tenants. Appellants produced at least six affidavits describing the toll that the City’s
aggressive Housing Code enforcement took on their rental business. They reported a substantial increase in costs, resulting in evictions for tenants and “forced sales” of their properties in some cases. These
allegations are corroborated by an internal memorandum from the City’s fire marshal in 1995, comparing the Housing Code and the HQS and concluding that the Housing Code was more strict in regard to 82% of the examined categories.
(d) The increased burden on rental-property owners from aggressive code enforcement resulted in less affordable housing in the City. Documents from the City and the Public Housing Authority acknowledged that any decrease in federally assisted rental housing would reduce the amount of affordable housing in the City. Those predictions were supported by the City’s Vacant Buildings Report, which showed that the number of vacant homes listed in the City rose from 367 to 1,466 between March 2003 and November 2007, which was a nearly 300% increase. Further, Appellants
submitted affidavits from three tenants who alleged that they endured hardship when their homes were condemned for minimal or false Housing Code violations.
These premises, together, reasonably demonstrate that the City’s aggressive enforcement of the Housing Code resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on racial minorities, particularly African-Americans. Viewed in the light most favorable to Appellants, the evidence shows that the City’s Housing Code enforcement temporarily, if not permanently, burdened Appellants’ rental businesses, which indirectly burdened their tenants.
The full ruling from the 8th Circuit is available at:
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100901131
The full set of pleadings from the Steinhauser case and partials from the Harrilal case prior to merger are available
A few other cases of note similar to Gallagher, Steinhauser, Harrilal et al vs St. Paul, MN et al.:
Armendariz v. Penman (9th Circuit)
An equal protection claim could be established for enforcement of housing and fire codes in an arbitrary and invidiously discriminatory manner.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9355393.html
Manuel et al v. The City of Lake Worth, Florida:
Lake Worth resident Elena Diego had heard her mother’s stories of armed men entering people’s homes at night, unannounced, and suddenly forcing them out onto the street during Guatemala’s civil war.
Such a thing, she thought, would never happen in America — until it happened to her.
According to federal court documents, Diego testified that she was cooking dinner in her rented apartment the evening of March 8, 2006, when Lake Worth police and code enforcement officers pounded on her door, burst into her home, and started taking pictures.
Sherman Avenue Tenants' Association, et al. v. District of Columbia (D.D.C.)
The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in an action brought by four tenant associations against the District of Columbia for selective and discriminatory code enforcement in the Columbia Heights area on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The District argued that because the District is neither a "provider of housing" nor a "municipal service provider," it cannot be held liable under Sections 3604(a) and (b) of the Act. The United States' amicus brief in opposition to the District's Motion to Dismiss argued that the District's alleged actions of closing and/or threatening to close buildings in areas of the District with high concentrations of Latinos and Vietnamese makes housing unavailable. Finally, the United States argued that the tenant associations have standing to bring a claim on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of their members.
United States v. Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey (D. N.J.)
On March 12, 2004, the court entered a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey (D. N.J.). The complaint alleges that the Borough engaged in a ten-year pattern and practice of discrimination on the basis of national origin, race and color in violation of the Fair Housing Act by adopting and enforcing a housing code and redevelopment plan for the purpose of making housing opportunities unavailable to Hispanic residents of the Borough. The consent cecree will require the Borough to 1) revise its property maintenance code and adopt nondiscriminatory complaint and inspection procedures for code violations; 2) hire a Bilingual Coordinator to provide information to and assist Spanish-speaking Borough residents with housing related Borough services and to assist the Borough's code enforcement officials with inspections where the residents are Spanish-speaking; 3) contract with an independent consultant to create a revised redevelopment plan that will incorporate procedures for replacement housing, a relocation plan, and compliance with the Fair Housing Act; 4) provide fair housing training to Borough employees and officials; 5) pay a maximum of $425,000 to compensate persons who have been injured by the Borough's discriminatory practices; and 6) pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States. The term of the consent decree is five years except for the provisions related to redevelopment activities which have a term of ten years
Lucinda Pitt et al. v. City of Portsmouth et al.
The City has a long history of using Code Enforcement to selectively target properties inhabited by African Americans, so that those properties can be condemned and then acquired by the city or otherwise made available for private redevelopment. The City, its Housing Authority, and private developers saw code enforcement as a tool for assembling small parcels into large tracks of land suitable for redevelopment, defining "code enforcement project boundaries" for this purpose. In addition, using Code Enforcement, the City could close an entire groups of rental properties down or make it unprofitable, so that the owners will be more likely to sell at a more "reasonable" price or, failing that, condemnation will be easier.
The City of Portsmouth, Virginia, undertook a prolonged effort to redevelop Fairwood Homes, a dilapidated affordable housing community of 1,500 rental homes. Fairwood Homes had been purchased by a large developer of affordable housing with the intent to replace all units with new affordable housing. The City's campaign was counter to the wishes of the new owners. In its effort to redevelop the affordable housing subdivision, the City told the development's owners, when it optioned the property in 1997, that it would forgo city code enforcement. (For example, between 1999 to July 2000, the City alleged approximately 262 incidences of code violations — 96% for weeds and debris.)
Over the next 17 years, the City attempted to convince the owners to replace the low-income African American tenantǎs homes with an office park. In that effort, the City abruptly stopped referring potential tenants needing affordable housing and refused to inspect a single residence for turnover to a new low-income tenant [Cross-Claim by Portsmouth Partners against the City of Portsmouth April 2003]. The City purchased approximately half of the original 300-acre site but declined to exercise its right to purchase the remaining property. The City then rezoned the remaining property, requiring City Council approval for almost any redevelopment.
Subsequently, the neighborhood was beset with deterioration, neglect, arson and other crimes. According to the Virginia Pilot, between 1980 and 2000, 22 residents of the aging, wood-frame houses of Fairwood Homes died in house fires. "When 7-year-old Kenetra Watkins perished in a raging fire last month, she became the 22nd person to die in a house fire in Fairwood Homes since 1980," (Bryant, 9/7/2000). After the local newspaper carried a series of investigative articles regarding these issues and the lack of code enforcement,the City condemned approximately 104 of the remaining 830 units in May 2001. A month later, the City suddenly utilized rigid code enforcement, issuing 4,964 citations of alleged violations of code. The City refused to allow the owners to re-rent any of the condemned units until all of the code violations were remedied. Because the City had held the owner's plans to replace the affordable housing in limbo for over 17 years, the owners refused to make the necessary repairs, choosing instead to evict all of the remaining residents.
Residents were given 30 days to vacate their homes, and received a disclaimer from the City,blaming the owners. The letter listed services available to help residents &emdash; all located in other cities &emdash; and contact information for the homeless shelter Residents contacted The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and a suit was filed against the City.
CGISC was hired to study the City's "pattern and practice" of racial discrimination.
"In connection with our retention of expert witnesses who opined on the nature and scope of racism in Portsmouth, Virginia, spanning over half of a century, our team of attorneys retained Cedar Grove Institute and Ann Moss Joyner. Ms. Joyner and her team were invaluable to our successful outcome. She provided thorough research, comprehensive economic analysis and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technical support. Their research was meticulous and showed initiative and a thorough understanding of what was needed, and their reports were well-formatted, and well-edited." - Allyson B. Baker, Pitt v. City of Portsmouth, et al. when working for Heller Ehrman LLP with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 2004.
Ethel Lawrence v Mount Laurel Township
Mount Laurel Township was evolving from a farming community to a middle class suburb. The elected officials pledged to promote the Township as a middle class suburban enclave which, in their minds, created the necessity to adopt exclusionary zoning to keep out the poor from the surrounding region. Through aggressive code enforcement, they also sought to remove the poor Black residents who had lived in the Township for generations.
HUD sues neighbors for forcing Black tenants out
Here is a HUD Fair Housing case where neighbors used complaints to the city and landlord to try and force a Black family to vacate. Well, actually the neighbors succeeded in forcing the family out, which probably was to the neighbors greater detriment.
The neighbors now are facing fines of $16,000 per violation each. There would appear to be at least 4 violations identified – it could be a lot more. Plus damages to the tenants and costs and damages to the Fair Housing Commission. Their apparent racially motivated actions will be painfully expensive, as it should be.
The Department's July,1995 suit alleged that the village had violated the federal Fair
Housing Act by illegally tearing down Hispanic neighborhoods as part of an urban renewal program.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1997/August97/327cr.htm
HUD v Elgin IL
The City of Elgin, Illinois has agreed to pay $500,000 to settle longstanding complaints that its enforcement of housing codes discriminated against Latino residents.The settlement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Justice and the HOPE Fair Housing Center of Wheaton, Illinois includes a fund to compensate the victims of code enforcement discrimination.
http://www.fairhousing.com/include/media/pdf/sept2002.pdf (at page 3)
http://fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=advocate_sept02_page4
http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/documents/fairviewsettle.php
Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council on discriminatory code enforcement:
“The target in Belleville is obviously lower income residents and naturally blacks within the community. Another major cause for concern about Belleville’s occupancy practices is that these other cities are now watching to see how the Federal and State officials respond to Belleville. Without a federal or state response I’m afraid that Southern Illinois will become like Montgomery Alabama in 1955 if it isn’t already? The U.S. Department of Justice is well aware of what has been going on in Belleville and has been for sometime. We at EHOC have found that often people have been afraid of coming forward with complaints until their struggle is recognized by some form of credible authority.”.
http://fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=releases_ehoc12-13-02
The city of Waukegan, Illinois, whose officials were accused of violating the Fair Housing Act by enacting a housing code to limit the number of Hispanic family members living together, has agreed to pay $200,000 in damages and fines under an agreement reached with the Justice Department.
City officials said they intended to prevent Hispanics from "taking over" Waukegan
http://fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pageID=3167
HOPE Fair Housing Center settles civil rights case against city of West Chicago
http://fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pageID=3474
Property owners and tenants v. Georgetown DE (Summary Decision allowing case to proceed)
Plaintiffs also allege that defendants have developed a pattern and practice of discriminatory housing code enforcement, by targeting Hispanic units while ignoring and not inspecting units occupied by non-Hispanics