Tessera
Folgen

Safe Homes Saint Paul

@safehomessaintpaul.bsky.social

We are a grassroots campaign based in Saint Paul, advocating for renter empowerment through the right to repair their homes. https://www.safehomessaintpaul.org/ Share your horror story! https://actionnetwork.org/surveys/tell-us-your-renter-horror-stories

28 Posts75 Follower13 Folgt
Safe Homes Saint Paul@safehomessaintpaul.bsky.social · 2w ago

Mayor Kaohly Her and her city attorney are attempting for a third time to toss Renter Right to Repair off the November 3rd ballot. Right to Repair is on the ballot for November 3rd. The ballots are printed and mail ballots are being sent out September 18. www.myvillager.com/news/general...

City renews appeal to keep tenants’ right-to-repair referendum off the ballot

The legal battle over a proposed referendum on a tenant’s right-to-repair in Saint Paul continues. The Saint Paul City Attorney’s office has appealed an earlier court decision that approved the

myvillager.com

Eric Hauge@erichauge.bsky.social · last mo.

MN Supreme Court denies City's emergency request. Looks like the Court is basically saying the City should follow the normal appellate route—a notice of appeal to the court of appeals. drive.google.com/file/d/1DSxG...

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the City of Saint Paul’s emergency petition for an extraordinary writ from this court is denied. This denial is without prejudice to the City of Saint Paul seeking other available appellate relief. Dated: August 11, 2026 BY THE COURT: <signature> Natalie E. Hudson Chief Justice
Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · last mo.

I've been told that the City of St. Paul has appealed this decision and that the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear the case tomorrow. No appeal documents appear in either the district court or appellate court filing systems. Given the timeline of the case and ballot deadline tomorrow, not surprising

Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · last mo.

I've been told that the City of St. Paul has appealed this decision and that the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear the case tomorrow. No appeal documents appear in either the district court or appellate court filing systems. Given the timeline of the case and ballot deadline tomorrow, not surprising

Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · last mo.

Safe Home Saint Paul beat the City of St. Paul. A judge of the Ramsey County District Court has ordered that the petition for a Right to Repair ordinance be placed on the ballot for voters

Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · last mo.

Safe Home Saint Paul beat the City of St. Paul. A judge of the Ramsey County District Court has ordered that the petition for a Right to Repair ordinance be placed on the ballot for voters

ORDER 1. Pursuant to § 8.05 of the Saint Paul City Charter, Respondents shall place the Initiative on the November 3, 2026 General Election Ballot by the statutory deadline. 2. Failure to obey this Order is contempt of court and may result in sanctions. 3. The attached memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. UPON SEEING NO REASON FOR DELAY LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY BY THE COURT:
Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · 2mo ago

Fred Melo of the Pioneer Press, @frederickmelo.bsky.social, got the memo and posted it on Twitter. Here's what he posted. My opinion? It's pure hackery. Anyone who relied on this memo got snowed or was looking for permission to kill this version Right to Repair.

Safe Homes Saint Paul@safehomessaintpaul.bsky.social · last mo.

We just fought the City of Saint Paul in court to put Right to Repair back on the ballot and won…sort of. Mayor Her just asked for an emergency hearing at the Minnesota Supreme Court tomorrow to try and stop these commonsense renters protections. We’ll keep you updated with what happens!

Safe Homes Saint Paul@safehomessaintpaul.bsky.social · 2mo ago

"We followed the process, and the city did not," said Taylor Sibthorp, Committee Chair for Safe Homes Saint Paul. "This is a common sense measure, which is why it won in Duluth. We are pursuing legal resolution of the council's decision on behalf of all of our petitioners and signatories."

Safe Homes Saint Paul has filed suit in Ramsey County District Court (Case # 62-CV-26-5594) to compel the city of St. Paul to place Right to Repair before voters in November, after the city council declined to advance a certified petition. "We followed the process, and the city did not," said Taylor Sibthorp, Committee Chair for Safe Homes Saint Paul. "This is a common sense measure, which is why it won in Duluth. We are pursuing legal resolution of the council's decision on behalf of all of our petitioners and signatories." Safe Homes Saint Paul looks forward to an expeditious resolution to this matter. In solidarity, Safe Homes Saint Paul
cursedthing@cursedthing.bsky.social · 2mo ago

I just donated to @safehomessaintpaul.bsky.social to raise funds for a legal defense of MY signature... and our right to vote on this ballot measure.

Donate to Safe Homes Saint Paul!

Safe Homes Saint Paul gives renters a tool to get timely, quality fixes for needed repairs in their homes. Donate today.

secure.actblue.com

Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · 2mo ago

The St. Paul City Council just voted to refuse to put the Tenant's Right to Repair law on the ballot for voters, claiming it conflicts with state law even though Duluth passed a nearly identical law last year. A press release from the Safe Homes coalition which has pushed for the law:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 5, 2026 St. Paul City Council Blocks Certified Right to Repair Petition, Coalition Says City Broke Its Own Charter Saint Paul voters collected over 8,000 signatures to put Right to Repair on the November ballot. Ramsey County Elections validated 5,440 of them against voter registrations, after duplicates and errors were accounted for, and submitted their report to council. Today the St. Paul City Council chose not to send the measure forward anyway. Safe Homes St. Paul (SHSP) considers this a breach of our city's charter and protocols that have guided ballot measures in our city for years. The St. Paul city charter is not ambiguous on this point: section 8.03 requires the council to determine "the sufficiency of the petition" by resolution. Section 8.04 gives the council exactly two options once a petition is sufficient: enact the ordinance as written within 60 days, or place it on the ballot. There is no third option where the council simply declines because the Mayor and her attorney found a new legal theory weeks after the deadline to act. We have seen the Mayor's approach to public disclosure over the past week, and are not surprised to see the everyday residents of our city who signed our petition treated with similar dismissal. As our democracy faces unprecedented threats at a national level, it is the responsibility of our local leaders to demonstrate not just that democracy can function, but that it can deliver results for everyday people. This decision does the opposite by choosing fear of wealthy interests over the actual residents of our city. As has been communicated to SHSP organizers, City Attorney Irene Kao's office told council members this week that Right to Repair conflicts with state law and is "too broad", even though it is nearly identical to language passed in Duluth nearly one year ago. The same office had several months to raise that argument while the campaign spent it gathering signatures. Instead it surfaced on…
Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · 2mo ago

Fred Melo of the Pioneer Press, @frederickmelo.bsky.social, got the memo and posted it on Twitter. Here's what he posted. My opinion? It's pure hackery. Anyone who relied on this memo got snowed or was looking for permission to kill this version Right to Repair.

BACKGROUND On July 20, 2026, residents submitted a citizen-led proposed-ordinance to the City Clerk, which was accepted. The proposed-ordinance is what’s known as a right-to-repair law—meaning, it would let tenants fix parts of their apartments without landlord approval or oversight. But this proposed-ordinance goes even further than typical right-to-repair laws and imposes harsh penalties on landlords if those tenant-repairs are not inspected in time— even if the landlord pulls every possible lever to meet that deadline. After review, the Saint Paul City Attorney’s Office concludes that the current version of this proposed right-to-repair ordinance is unlawful. Specifically, the proposed-ordinance conflicts with state law, violates the Minnesota and United States constitutions’ due-process clauses, and is unconstitutionally void-for-vagueness. This Memo will discuss these issues in more depth. LEGAL ANALYSIS A municipal ordinance will be upheld unless it is inconsistent with the Federal or State Constitution or state statute. 57. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council, 289 N.W.2d. 402, 405 (Minn. 1979). This is because municipalities have no inherent powers and can enact regulations only as expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have expressly been conferred. State r. Kubiman, 729 N.W.2d. 577, 580 (Minn. 2007); Mangold Midwest Co. v. Willage of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d. 813, 820 (Minn 1966). In other words, state law may limit the power of a city to act in a particular area. City of Morris r. Sax Invs., Inc, 749 N.W'.2d. 1, 6 (Minn. 2008). Placing an unlawful or unconstitutional amendment on the ballot is a futile gesture that we do not require. Housing ¢» Redevelopment Auth. WV. City of Minneapolis, 198 N.W.2d. 531, 536 (Minn. 1972) (holding that a district court properly enjoined an election on a proposed Page | 1 amendment to a city charter rather than permit the administration and the voters of Minneapolis…amendment to a city charter rather than permit the administration and the voters of Minneapolis to experience the frustration and expense of setting up election machinery and going to the polls in a process which was ultimately destined to be futile). The Court will turn to conflict preemption, because a municipality cannot enact a local regulation that conflicts with state law or enact a regulation when state law fully occupies a particular field of legislation. Bicking vr. City of Minneapolis, 891 N.WX’.2d. 304, 313 (Minn. 2017). A conflict exists between state law and a municipal regulation when the law and the regulation “contain express or implied terms that are irreconcilable with each other, when the ordinance permits what the statue forbids, or when the ordinance forbids with the statute expressly permits. Id. (citing Mangold Midwest Co., 143 N.W’.2d. at 816; City of Duluth r. Cerveny, 16 N.W.2d. 779, 785 (Minn. 1944). In the recent case of I “assear v. City of Minneapolis, a group filed a petition with the City of Minneapolis to create a city-wide minimum wage in the City Charter. 887 N.W’.2d. 467, 468 (Minn. 2016). After the petition was certified by the Minneapolis City Council as having sufficient signatures, the Minneapolis City Attorney issued an opinion to the City Council that the initiative was illegal because Minneapolis does not have a procedure in its charter to allow ballot initiatives for legislanve ordinances. Id. The Council did not certify the question for a ballot and the petitoner brought a temporary restraining order requiring the City to place the initiative on the ballot. Jd. While the district court granted the petitioner’s motion, the matter was appealed immediately to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ruled that the matter should not appear on the ballot because the city charter does not permit legislative ordinances to be incorporated into the charter. Id. Similarly, in Bicking v. City of Minneapolis, a petitioner submitted a ba…In the present case, there are several provisions in the ordinance that potentially conflict with the law or are irreconcilable with the law and Consutution. First, under Section 34A.03(a) of the ordinance, the tenant is given authority to make a required repair after a 14- day opportunity for the landlord to complete the repair. However, the tenant lacks authority to obtain a permit to perform many of the required repairs allowed in the proposed ordinance. For instance, under the State Building Code, an owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any gas, mechanical, electrical, plumbing system, or other equipment, the installation of which is regulated by the code; or cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Minn. R. 1300.0120, subp. 1 (emphasis added). But the proposed right-to-repair ordinance flouts this state-level requirement by allowing tenants to unilaterally make these changes without these permits. This tension strikes at the heart of the rule Minnesota’s appellate courts constantly reiterate in preemption cases, namely, that that cities cannot pass ordinances that “‘require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any structure that are different from any provision of the State Building Code.” Builders 155'n of Minnesota v. City of St. Paul, 819 N.W.2d 172, 181 (Minn. App. 2012). In fact, state law explicitly forbids cities from enacting ordinances “that are different from any provision of the State Building Code.” Minn. Stat. § 326B.121, subd. 2(c) (2026). And the Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted this statute to mean that even a local ordinance “that is merely additional and complementary to a provision in the State Building Code is prohibited.” City of Morris r. Sax Inves…ordinance, the repair for the code-violation must only be scheduled within 14 days, so the ordinance both allows serious major repairs to take longer to repair, than the Building Official deems reasonable, and may also require general maintenance to be completed in a time that is quicker than what is reasonable, because the repair does not pose any immediate safety hazard. The proposed ordinance is simultaneously stricter and more lenient than the existing Building Code, which is likely an unlawful conflict between the proposed-ordinance and state law. Also, the 30-day time-limit for the City Building Official to conduct an inspection under the proposed-ordinance may also violate the landlord’s due-process rights under the State and Federal Constitution. The City has only one Building Official with many existing duties under State Law. Given the very high number of renters living in Saint Paul, there could potentially be thousands of annual requests for inspections under the proposed ordinance. Under Section 34A.05(c), if the City is unable to make the inspection within 30 days, the tenant is automatically given the right to repair and withhold rent. If the Building Official is unable to meet this arbitrary 30-day deadline, then the landlord will be deprived of its right to collect rent, through no fault of its own. Additionally, Section 34A.09(b) of the proposed-ordinance allows the City authority to punish a landlord with up to 90 days in jail for a violation of the proposed-ordinance, under Saint Paul Legislative Code, Section 1.05. As the proposed-ordinance is currently written, a landlord could be deprived of their right to liberty, simply because the Building Official was too busy to perform an inspection within 30 days. This is another potential deprivation of freedom that could occur without the due process of law, as required by the State and Federal Constitution. The proposed ordinance also conflicts with another area of state law because pursuant to Sec…
Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · 2mo ago

As someone who's spent a lot of time considering conflict preemption btwn state landlord-tenant law & local ordinances, I can confidently say the St. Paul City Attorney is full of shit. Nothing in Right to Repair conflicts with state law, and our courts are clear that cities can go beyond state law

🍞 Cole Hanson 🥬@colewritesalot.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Sure is disappointing to see our city, which has touted its adherence to the law In the face of federal occupation, flout its own charter thanks to bullying from @mayorher.bsky.social

Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · 2mo ago

The St. Paul City Council just voted to refuse to put the Tenant's Right to Repair law on the ballot for voters, claiming it conflicts with state law even though Duluth passed a nearly identical law last year. A press release from the Safe Homes coalition which has pushed for the law:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 5, 2026 St. Paul City Council Blocks Certified Right to Repair Petition, Coalition Says City Broke Its Own Charter Saint Paul voters collected over 8,000 signatures to put Right to Repair on the November ballot. Ramsey County Elections validated 5,440 of them against voter registrations, after duplicates and errors were accounted for, and submitted their report to council. Today the St. Paul City Council chose not to send the measure forward anyway. Safe Homes St. Paul (SHSP) considers this a breach of our city's charter and protocols that have guided ballot measures in our city for years. The St. Paul city charter is not ambiguous on this point: section 8.03 requires the council to determine "the sufficiency of the petition" by resolution. Section 8.04 gives the council exactly two options once a petition is sufficient: enact the ordinance as written within 60 days, or place it on the ballot. There is no third option where the council simply declines because the Mayor and her attorney found a new legal theory weeks after the deadline to act. We have seen the Mayor's approach to public disclosure over the past week, and are not surprised to see the everyday residents of our city who signed our petition treated with similar dismissal. As our democracy faces unprecedented threats at a national level, it is the responsibility of our local leaders to demonstrate not just that democracy can function, but that it can deliver results for everyday people. This decision does the opposite by choosing fear of wealthy interests over the actual residents of our city. As has been communicated to SHSP organizers, City Attorney Irene Kao's office told council members this week that Right to Repair conflicts with state law and is "too broad", even though it is nearly identical to language passed in Duluth nearly one year ago. The same office had several months to raise that argument while the campaign spent it gathering signatures. Instead it surfaced on…
Patrick Fenelon@patrickfenelon.bsky.social · 2mo ago

This is absolute fucking bullshit. I canvassed for this. This was good policy. And this is a RIDICULOUS reading of the law by the city council

Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · 2mo ago

The St. Paul City Council just voted to refuse to put the Tenant's Right to Repair law on the ballot for voters, claiming it conflicts with state law even though Duluth passed a nearly identical law last year. A press release from the Safe Homes coalition which has pushed for the law:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 5, 2026 St. Paul City Council Blocks Certified Right to Repair Petition, Coalition Says City Broke Its Own Charter Saint Paul voters collected over 8,000 signatures to put Right to Repair on the November ballot. Ramsey County Elections validated 5,440 of them against voter registrations, after duplicates and errors were accounted for, and submitted their report to council. Today the St. Paul City Council chose not to send the measure forward anyway. Safe Homes St. Paul (SHSP) considers this a breach of our city's charter and protocols that have guided ballot measures in our city for years. The St. Paul city charter is not ambiguous on this point: section 8.03 requires the council to determine "the sufficiency of the petition" by resolution. Section 8.04 gives the council exactly two options once a petition is sufficient: enact the ordinance as written within 60 days, or place it on the ballot. There is no third option where the council simply declines because the Mayor and her attorney found a new legal theory weeks after the deadline to act. We have seen the Mayor's approach to public disclosure over the past week, and are not surprised to see the everyday residents of our city who signed our petition treated with similar dismissal. As our democracy faces unprecedented threats at a national level, it is the responsibility of our local leaders to demonstrate not just that democracy can function, but that it can deliver results for everyday people. This decision does the opposite by choosing fear of wealthy interests over the actual residents of our city. As has been communicated to SHSP organizers, City Attorney Irene Kao's office told council members this week that Right to Repair conflicts with state law and is "too broad", even though it is nearly identical to language passed in Duluth nearly one year ago. The same office had several months to raise that argument while the campaign spent it gathering signatures. Instead it surfaced on…
Daniel Suitor@danielsuitor.com · 2mo ago

The St. Paul City Council just voted to refuse to put the Tenant's Right to Repair law on the ballot for voters, claiming it conflicts with state law even though Duluth passed a nearly identical law last year. A press release from the Safe Homes coalition which has pushed for the law:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 5, 2026 St. Paul City Council Blocks Certified Right to Repair Petition, Coalition Says City Broke Its Own Charter Saint Paul voters collected over 8,000 signatures to put Right to Repair on the November ballot. Ramsey County Elections validated 5,440 of them against voter registrations, after duplicates and errors were accounted for, and submitted their report to council. Today the St. Paul City Council chose not to send the measure forward anyway. Safe Homes St. Paul (SHSP) considers this a breach of our city's charter and protocols that have guided ballot measures in our city for years. The St. Paul city charter is not ambiguous on this point: section 8.03 requires the council to determine "the sufficiency of the petition" by resolution. Section 8.04 gives the council exactly two options once a petition is sufficient: enact the ordinance as written within 60 days, or place it on the ballot. There is no third option where the council simply declines because the Mayor and her attorney found a new legal theory weeks after the deadline to act. We have seen the Mayor's approach to public disclosure over the past week, and are not surprised to see the everyday residents of our city who signed our petition treated with similar dismissal. As our democracy faces unprecedented threats at a national level, it is the responsibility of our local leaders to demonstrate not just that democracy can function, but that it can deliver results for everyday people. This decision does the opposite by choosing fear of wealthy interests over the actual residents of our city. As has been communicated to SHSP organizers, City Attorney Irene Kao's office told council members this week that Right to Repair conflicts with state law and is "too broad", even though it is nearly identical to language passed in Duluth nearly one year ago. The same office had several months to raise that argument while the campaign spent it gathering signatures. Instead it surfaced on…
🍞 Cole Hanson 🥬@colewritesalot.bsky.social · 4mo ago

🎉 Congrats to @safehomessaintpaul.bsky.social for passing the ballot measure signature threshold! 🥳 Renter Right to Repair is headed to a (St. Paul) City Council near you! www.monitorsaintpaul.com/stories/safe... #righttorepair #renters #rent #housing #safehomes #stpaul

Safe Homes Saint Paul submits over 7,500 ballot measure signatures - Midway Como Frogtown Monitor

Safe Homes Saint Paul is a ballot measure campaign to put Renter’s Right to Repair on the ballot in St. Paul this November. Safe Homes Saint Paul gives renters a tool to get timely, quality fixes …

monitorsaintpaul.com

Safe Homes Saint Paul@safehomessaintpaul.bsky.social · 4mo ago

Over 7,500 signatures submitted today to put Renter Right to Repair on the November ballot in St. Paul! No one wants to get stuck badgering their landlord about a simple repair—we just want to get it fixed! Renter Right to Repair is a commonsense solution for everyone who calls St. Paul home.

Giant stack of petition signatures at St. Paul City Hall.