Landlords file complaint with HUD over St. Paul housing codes

Source: Pioneer Press, St.迷你倉 Paul, Minn.Dec. 26--A company that owns 17 low-income apartments in St. Paul is challenging the city's right to demolish the rentals or force housing improvements.The premise -- which has been repeated by a series of landlords since at least 2004 in various courts of law -- goes that strict code enforcement makes it too expensive to provide affordable housing to the city's poor.Raven Financial, which owns rental units in eight St. Paul properties, recently filed a federal complaint with HUD against the city of St. Paul, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Payne-Phalen District 5 Planning Council.The complaint challenges the city's forced improvements on a six-bedroom duplex home that was ordered renovated or torn down in early 2013, as well as three other rental homes. Two of the homes remain vacant, allegedly because they do not meet city housing standards.According to the complaint, three licensed contractors and a state building official estimated that the six-bedroom duplex on Maryland Avenue needed between $5,000 and $16,450 in improvements in order to meet the state building code. The city, however, ordered at least $45,000 in repairs.The properties are located on Maryland, Maria and Reaney avenues, as well as Burr Street, East Side areas with high concentrations of poverty.The costs of unnecessary repairs would be passed on to tenants through rent increases, or the units would be demolished or sold, hurting rather than helping the poor, according to the suit."The city's housing policies act as a major disincentive to continuing to provide low-income housing in St. Paul," reads the written statement from attorney John R. Shoemaker, of Bloomington-based Shoemaker and Shoemaker, which is representing Raven Financial.More than a fourth of the city's population lives in poverty, according to the HUD complaint, which was filed on Nov. 20.St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and other city officials have long maintained that city housing inspectors have come across too many rental units with no heat, mice infestations, and other evidence that the poor are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous landlords eager to get federal housing vouchers.Raven Financial maintains that city standards far exceed state standards and are among the most rigorous in the country. They say the result is increased housing costs and fewer affordable rentals available to individuals identified as vulnerable under federal law -- "protected class" residents such as low-income minorities.To make its case, Raven pointed to a series of recent legal decisions and fees.In response to a complaint from the Builders Association of Minnesota, the Minnesota Court of Appeals last year determined that the city's standards for egress windows ran contrary to the state building code. State rules allow homeowners to replace windows with "the largest size that will fit into the existing frame or rough opening," but the St. Paul Safety and Inspections Department in 2009 adopted minimum sizes for replacement egress windows that are in many cases larger than those found in the city's century-old housing stock.In 2010, the court of appeals determined that a demolition order against a low-income rental home owned by Bee and Lamena Vue was "arbitrary and capricious."Raven's complaint also challenges the city's building and housing code fee and assessment system. "St. Paul issues heavy fees on low-income housing providers for inspections, vacant building fees, code compliance inspection fees, administrative fees, fees for claimed clean-up, fees for clai儲存倉ed excessive services, and other miscellaneous fees," Shoemaker wrote.Raven Financial maintains it has sold off rental units in order to keep up with repair costs, fees and property taxes."In just the last two years, Raven has been required to pay to St. Paul over $20,000 in fees and assessments," he wrote. "This is in addition to the costs of materials and labor for the city-forced renovations to Raven's older homes and other regular maintenance and repair costs to the rental units."Since 2009, the city has received federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant funds through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.The agency "as a recipient of (federal) NSP funds must monitor the planning, analysis and performance of its participating jurisdictions, including St. Paul, and take appropriate actions," according to Shoemaker.The St. Paul Public Housing Agency had 8,622 households on its waiting list as of Sept. 30 of this year, up from 5,790 households in July 2011.This isn't the first time that property owners have taken the city to court using the argument that strict code enforcement actually hurts rather than helps the poor.In September 2010, the 8th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals published a decision in a similar housing lawsuit against the city of St. Paul, Gallagher v. Magner.Recognizing sufficient evidence to go to trial, the appeals court found that a group of landlords could proceed with the legal argument that the city's housing policies and code enforcement had a "disparate impact" upon the city's low-income residents and minorities, a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.St. Paul challenged the 8th Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, but took widespread criticism from housing advocates and withdrew the challenge in February 2012, 20 days before oral arguments were scheduled to begin.Legal observers, including Walter Mondale -- the original author of the Fair Housing Act when he served in the U.S. Senate -- had worried that the more conservative members of the Supreme Court would use the opportunity to gut the act, permanently eliminating "disparate impact" as a legal protection for minorities in housing, lending and other areas of federal law.Rather than moving to trial, the Magner vs. Gallagher case was then put on hold while a similar case in New Jersey moved forward. That case, Township of Mt. Holly vs. Mt. Holly Gardens, was recently settled, opening the door for Magner vs. Gallagher to proceed to trial.Shoemaker maintains that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency failed to include the September 2010 decision in Magner vs. Gallagher in its analysis of housing policies the next year, the 2011 "Minnesota Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice," even though a landlord case from Detroit Lakes, Minn. was included.The analysis mentioned that the Gallagher lawsuit was dismissed in December 2008, but not that the dismissal was later overturned.Shoemaker pointed to two additional lawsuits filed against the city during the past two years, both of which allege violations of the federal False Claims Act. Ellis vs. City of Minneapolis and city of St. Paul challenges St. Paul's right to millions of dollars in federal housing grants. The case is pending in U.S. District Court, and a hearing on motions to dismiss is scheduled for Jan. 7.Frederick Melo can be reached at 651-228-2172. Follow him at twitter.com/FrederickMelo.Copyright: ___ (c)2013 the Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.) Visit the Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.) at .twincities.com Distributed by MCT Information Services迷你倉最平