Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)

Citation
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Parent Document
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-09-01

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

1,702 chars
-19-
        The district court held in the alternative that Appellants’ disparate impact claim
fails as a matter of law under the third step of the burden-shifting analysis. On appeal,
Appellants identify as a viable alternative the City’s former program for Housing
Code enforcement called “Problem Properties 2000” (“PP2000”).6 A “Progress
Report” prepared by City employees in charge of PP2000 lists the goals and tactics
of PP2000: identification of properties with a history of unresolved or repeat Housing
Code violations, meeting with the owners individually, encouraging the owners to
take a more business-like approach to managing their properties, keeping closer tabs
on changes of ownership, and using consistent inspectors at each property. Appellants
contend that PP2000 embodied a flexible and cooperative approach to code
enforcement, which achieved the goals of code enforcement while maintaining a
consistent supply of affordable housing. In support, they point to the Progress Report,
which describes meetings with property owners as “very productive in gaining the
cooperation of owners to step up their efforts towards improving their properties and
the neighborhoods they are in.” The report described a “good working relationships
and lines of communication with these owners,” which resulted in “owners working
hard to be pro active in maintaining their properties.” The report concluded, “[T]he
program has been effective in eliminating complaints against the participating
owners.” These conclusions are corroborated by statements from a member of the
PP2000 inspector group (Jeff Hawkins); a code enforcement officer (Appellee Dick
Lippert); and Appellant Frank Steinhauser.