I have been at least temporarily barred from posting to this list. It may be
that it is because I called Chuck Repke a name. Today the forum moderator
issued a warning. This, then, may be my last posted message here. My remarks
will have to do more with what is acceptable and unacceptable discussion.
Several months ago, I decided to refrain from participation for a time. Every
few days there seemed to be a new defamatory comment from Repke or someone else
about private-sector landlords. Yes, that is my occupation. I do have some
sense of group pride. But I did not want to spend my life monitoring Repke and
refuting his statements.
I jumped back into the discussion after reading Repke's posting on June 23. It
included this paragraph: "The other one discusses the down side of our friends
who are "property rights" advocates. It appears that this mayor, like the last
mayor, like the mayor before that and the mayor before that... has come to the
realization that problem landlords are blood suckers who pray on the poor and
disadvantaged of our community. Like I have said in earlier posts, problem
landlords love the drug dealers and the extreme poor; they both pay cash and
don't make any complaints. Twenty-five people in a duplex, no problem as long
as you pay in cash. If they burn to death, so what? Landlords have their
rights! "
As a landlord, you get tired of dealing with the canard from the Twin Cities
political crowd that landlords love to rent to drug dealers because they pay in
cash. No landlord I know wants drug dealers in their buildings. We work hard
to avoid that situation. The idea that we jump to get tenants who pay in cash
is stupid. Do our critics think we are like fish who automatically lunge at
green pieces of paper? No, I tried to explain that I prefer to be paid by
check because we then have a clear record of payment. The only time I would
prefer cash is if the check bounces.
But it was Repke"s comment that landlords and property rights advocates have a
"so what?" attitude about people burning to death in their buildings or that it
is one of our "rights" to ignore fire-safety standards that really got me
riled. Let me tell you that I had a fire in my apartment building four years
ago. Someone broke into a basement unit vacated by someone I had recently
evicted and tried to burn the place down. Fortunately, we caught the fire in
time to prevent serious damage or injury. But I get emotional about fires. I
do care about the people who might be injured in them. I'm sure the
overwhelming majority of landlords feel the same way. But here comes Repke
claiming, without a shred of evidence, that landlords are people who don't care
if fires kill people in their buildings.
So how should I react to that kind of statement? The rules of this forum state
that my response should not be personal. I should calmly and politely make
statements to the effect that landlords do care about their tenants and want to
avoid fires. I tried that approach and Repke kept posting malicious
statements. Few in this forum seemed to feel he was out of bounds.
Let's suppose, for sake of argument, that someone posting to this list
repeatedly suggests, without any evidence whatsoever, that Somali immigrants
are child molesters or persons who habitually commit incest with children?
Would that type of remark be permitted on this forum? Would a Somali who
responded to the posting in a personal way be booted off the forum? I don't
think so. Yet, Repke and others do this all the time with private-sector
landlords. It's part of our political culture.
One poster called me a liar. He wrote that I made more "false statements and
innuendo than anything that others on this forum post." I challenged the
poster to cite a single lie that I had told. His response was amusing. He
wrote: "I don't have facts that is why I said opinion ... There just seems to
be too many making people making comments that counter McGaughey that I
developed an opinion. They are my opinion, they do not have to be based on
facts." In other words, this person thought it was perfectly OK to call me a
liar as long as he labeled it an "opinion". He did not need facts to back up
his statements about me.
In like manner, Chuck Repke does not need facts to make his generalized
negative statements about landlords. He always starts the argument; we are the
ones forced to respond. What are the ground rules for fair discussion?
Repke's remarks are clearly defamatory. Are we then forced to go to court to
redress the injury? My preference would be to have free and open discussion.
But if Repke persists in his defamation, then the response will sometimes get
personal. Either that or I should resign from the forum altogether.
In Repke's case, there is another dimension to this question. He has
criticized me for pointing out that he used to be Dave Thune's aide. Yes, it
is true that Repke's comments should not be associated with Thune and Repke
does often issue a disclaimer that his opinions do not reflect the views of
past or future employers. On the other hand, Repke has boasted that he remains
a close personal friend of Thune who sometimes goes out to dinner with him
along with their wives or significant others.
My own view is that Repke's comments, though often uncouth, are generally in
line with the prevailing sentiments at City Hall. St. Paul city officials,
inspectors and the police, do show arrogance and animosity toward the city's
property owners (both landlords and homeowners) especially in the poorer
neighborhoods. In another words, Repke is part of St. Paul's dominant
political culture; and it is this aspect of his participation here which I find
most troubling.
The recent fire in St. Paul that injured several people was a tragedy.
However, it was also an accident caused by children playing with matches, so to
speak. Landlord negligence, if any, had to do with conditions of overcrowding.
I would have no problem if St. Paul city officials objectively reviewed
regulations relating to building occupancy to try to prevent situations like
this in the future. Instead, Mayor Coleman announced a massive "crackdown" on
the citys property owners, targeting the worst fifty. In other words, he was
politicizing the tragedy. History has given us enough examples, from Hitler on
down, of government officials who use fires and other tragedies to go after
their political enemies.
So when Repke characterizes landlords as persons who do not care if their
tenants burn to death, I naturally become apprehensive about it, the more so
because I do not think he is an isolated "nut" making wild statements but
someone who might actually reflect the prevalent attitudes and policies at St.
Paul City Hall. The e-democracy forum could be a way of addressing this type
of situation. I'm not sure people want to do that.