A metal foundry on St. Paul’s East Side at loggerheads with state regulators over air quality emissions has filed its second lawsuit against the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, this time alleging breaches of the state’s Data Practices Act and a count of defamation related to a December plant fire.

The Northern Iron Foundry, which was purchased by Lawton Standard in 2022, filed its latest lawsuit on Tuesday in Ramsey County District Court. It is being represented by the Minneapolis law firm of Dorsey and Whitney.

The 11-page civil complaint calls for proper enforcement of an existing stipulation agreement and alleges one count each of breach of contract, violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and defamation.

In March, the foundry’s residential neighbors filed a class action suit against Northern Iron —  Brittney Bruce v. Northern Iron — alleging their homes had been contaminated by soot laced with heavy metals from the foundry. MPCA testing found chromium, cobalt, lead and manganese — the same metals detected in samples taken from the Northern Iron facility.

Response from Northern Iron

On Feb. 10, in response to Northern Iron’s May 2024 lawsuit against state regulators, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office issued a letter to the court, on behalf of the MPCA, expressing concern about the metal-tainted soot landing on residences near the Forest Street plant, as well as overdue air quality monitoring data and other issues delaying permitting.

During a July 10 hearing in the class action suit, “it was confirmed that the data regarding soot is not public data and is likely classified as civil investigative data, which can only be released pursuant to a court order,” reads the company’s latest civil filing, which claims a data privacy violation.

The attorney general’s office also claimed that Northern Iron submitted a permit application with new air quality modeling data more than four months after both were due, and that both were incomplete. The company, according to the attorney general’s office, submitted “a flurry of last-minute” requests for legal evidence known as discovery in an apparent attempt to delay the case.

The attorney general’s letter went on to say that a December fire that took place at Northern Iron was due to improper installation of equipment, even though “the MPCA has no evidence that the fire was caused by improper installation,” reads the lawsuit.

“The MPCA knew at the time that it submitted the Feb. 10 letter that the statement was and is false,” reads the lawsuit, which claims the letter amounts to defamation.

The new civil complaint notes that the MPCA issued Northern Iron a notice of violation in April 2023 over outdated emissions controls and equipment installed without proper permits, leading to a stipulation agreement between the two parties in July 2023.

The company agreed to pay the MPCA $41,000, and the agreement spelled out corrective actions Northern Iron would take while regulators held off on any further penalties.

The MPCA then issued a new administrative order in April 2024, alleging further violations. Northern Iron responded by filing a petition against state regulators in Ramsey County District Court that May, claiming that the MPCA had bypassed a dispute resolution process laid out in their previous agreement.

Added penalties

Last October, the MPCA levied $219,000 in added penalties against Northern Iron through an administrative penalty order for alleged violations of the stipulation agreement. The company filed a legal appeal of the order last November.

In December, the MPCA issued an amended administrative penalty order demanding penalty payments within 30 days, and in early June, regulators issued a notice of intent to revoke the company’s air permit without likelihood of it being reissued.

The company’s latest civil filing, which maintains that the dispute had hurt its standing with vendors and workers, calls for unspecified damages above $75,000 to be paid to Northern Iron for breach of the stipulation agreement, as well as attorney’s fees, costs and whatever other relief the court may deem suitable.

The summons and complaint was served to the MPCA on Wednesday, and the case was assigned that day to Judge Leonardo Castro.

Related Articles

Man ‘randomly struck,’ wounded by gunshot fired outside his St. Paul home

Minnesota musicians enter the Yacht Club Festival with high hopes

3M raises profit outlook in defiance of tariff impact

St. Paul: Ashland Ave. tenants see 28%-50% rent hikes despite rent control

900-pound meth case investigated by St. Paul officers draws federal charges

El programa Head Start apoya la educación de los niños desde el nacimiento hasta los 5 años, e incluye servicios gratuitos de guardería, asistencia nutricional, exámenes médicos y recursos para mujeres embarazadas. El año pasado atendió a 42.997 personas en todo el estado de Nueva York, incluidas miles de familias sin hogar.

(Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 18 de julio. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

El 10 de julio, el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS por sus siglas en inglés) anunció un cambio de política en el programa federal Head Start que excluiría a los menores indocumentados. 

La propuesta anularía una interpretación de la era Clinton de 1998 de la Ley de reconciliación de la responsabilidad personal y la oportunidad laboral (PRWORA por sus siglas en inglés). Esta permitía a ciertos niños sin estatus migratorio legal acceder a servicios que no se consideraban como “beneficios públicos federales”, y que formaban parte del programa educativo gubernamental de preparación escolar.

Se espera que las normas entren en vigor después de su publicación en el Registro Federal el 13 de agosto, tras un periodo de 30 días de comentarios públicos.

Estos cambios son parte de un conjunto de propuestas del presidente Donald Trump para dificultar el acceso de los inmigrantes a los servicios del gobierno, y se produce mientras su administración agrega requisitos más estrictos para la asistencia pública.

El HHS también enumeró otros programas financiados con fondos federales que ahora se considerarían “beneficios públicos” para excluir a los inmigrantes sin estatus legal, que según el secretario del HHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. anteriormente “desviaban dólares de los impuestos de los estadounidenses trabajadores para incentivar la inmigración ilegal”.

Poco después del anuncio, la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU por sus siglas en inglés) demandó a la administración, mientras que los defensores condenaron el plan.

Si la nueva norma entrara en vigor, exigiría verificar la ciudadanía o el estatus migratorio de un niño antes de poder inscribirlo en un programa Head Start, lo que excluiría a los niños indocumentados en todo el país. 

Head Start ofrece una variedad de servicios para apoyar la educación temprana de los niños desde el nacimiento hasta los 5 años de edad, incluyendo guardería gratuita, asistencia nutricional, exámenes de salud y recursos para las mujeres embarazadas. 

Atiende principalmente a niños de familias con bajos ingresos, pero también a niños sin hogar, en hogares de acogida o que reciben asistencia pública. En el pasado, el programa también estaba disponible para residentes legales permanentes, niños a los que se había concedido asilo o estatuto de refugiado.

Según el análisis del impacto de la normativa del HHS, el Congreso destinó $12.270 millones de dólares a los programas Head Start Preescolar y Early Head Start en el año fiscal 2024, para atender a 718.947 niños y mujeres embarazadas en todo el país.

Si bien el HHS supervisa el programa, en su mayor parte lo gestionan entes locales. El Departamento de Escuelas Públicas (NYCPS por sus siglas en inglés) de la ciudad de Nueva York (anteriormente conocido como el Departamento de Educación) gestiona los programas Head Start en la ciudad, así como una red de proveedores que reciben financiación directamente del gobierno federal. City Limits contactó a los proveedores que reciben fondos federales, pero se negaron a hablar públicamente sobre el asunto, preocupados de poner en peligro su financiación.

La National Head Start Association (NHSA por sus siglas en inglés), una organización sin fines de lucro que representa al personal y las familias de Head Start, dice que Head Start financió 42.997 plazas del programa en el estado de Nueva York en el año fiscal 2024. El programa atendió a 3.807 familias locales sin hogar, pero ni los funcionarios ni los defensores saben cuántos podrían quedar excluidos del programa si los niños indocumentados se hacen inelegibles.

El NYCPS y la Oficina de Servicios para Niños y Familias del Estado de Nueva York (OCFS por sus siglas en inglés) dijeron a City Limits que no saben exactamente cuántos niños pueden perder la cobertura.

“Las escuelas públicas de la ciudad de Nueva York no rastrean ni preguntan por el estado de inmigración o el país de origen de nuestros estudiantes”, dijo un portavoz de la alcaldía. “Estamos revisando este cambio y seguiremos vigilando la situación”.

Un portavoz de la OCFS dijo a través de correo electrónico que la agencia está “actualmente evaluando el impacto de la orientación emitida por el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos”. 

El análisis de impacto del HSS también reconoce que la cantidad de beneficiarios que excluiría “es inherentemente incierta, ya que esta información demográfica no se recoge actualmente”.

Según sus estimaciones, sin embargo, “aproximadamente 115.000 niños y familias de Head Start podrían verse afectados, o alrededor del 16 por ciento” de los inscritos en Head Start en todo el país durante el último año fiscal. 

El subdirector de la NHSA, Tommy Sheridan, expresó su preocupación por la posibilidad de que esta política cree obstáculos para los niños y las familias, especialmente para los que carecen de hogar. “La presentación de documentación es un reto, y tenemos que ser conscientes de ello cuando estamos pensando en la verificación de esto”, dijo. 

“También nos preocupa que exigirle a los programas Head Start que verifiquen el estatus [migratorio] cambie la relación que tenemos tanto con las familias como con la comunidad, y es algo que nos alejará de nuestro trabajo principal, que es garantizar que los niños estén preparados para la escuela y que las familias también estén preparadas para tener éxito en la vida”, añadió.

Nora Moran, directora de política y defensa de United Neighborhood Houses, que presta servicios de Head Start, dijo que los proveedores del programa y los administradores de la ciudad nunca han tenido que preguntar a los niños o a sus familias sobre su estatus migratorio como condición para la inscripción.

“Sabemos que hay familias con diversos estatus migratorios que inscriben a sus hijos en los programas Head Start, pero no podemos ofrecer un número preciso”, dijo Moran.

Agregó que el anuncio ha confundido a las organizaciones comunitarias que dirigen los programas Head Start. Anteriormente, dijeron los proveedores, su principal responsabilidad era identificar a las personas en la ciudad que cumplían con los criterios de elegibilidad del programa, y por décadas el gobierno había considerado a Head Start como un programa de educación temprana, en lugar de un beneficio público que excluiría a ciertos inmigrantes.

“United Neighborhood Houses condena el último intento de la administración federal de socavar nuestras comunidades”, declaró la directora ejecutiva de la organización, Susan Stamler. “Para ser claros: echar a los menores inmigrantes de los programas Head Start o a los adultos de los programas de educación y formación es tan insensato como cruel”.

Para ponerse en contacto con los reporteros de esta noticia, escriba a Daniel@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org.

The post Proveedores de programas Head Start en NYC evalúan impacto del plan para excluir a menores indocumentados appeared first on City Limits.

A new civic tech application looks to help New York City tenants pressure their landlords to return security deposits when they move out, something many renters miss out on.

The mobile-friendly webpage, Depositron, walks tenants through their security deposit questions and generates a demand letter they can send their landlord to get their money back. (Screenshot)

A new web application aims to help New Yorkers get their security deposits back from landlords who withhold them at move-out. 

Thanks to a 2019 state law, your landlord has to return your security deposit within 14 days of you moving out, or notify you that they are withholding it to cover damages.

Sateesh Nori, a lawyer who used to run the civic tech shop JustFix, says that all too often, tenants don’t know their rights and landlords take advantage, with tenants paying 13 months rent when it should be 12.

“The law is really strong, but no one knows about it, and no one’s able to take advantage of it,” said Nori.

So he and partner Tom Martin built a mobile-friendly webpage, Depositron, that walks tenants through their security deposit questions and generates a demand letter they can send their landlord to get their money back.

Nearly 5,000 New Yorkers have complained about missing security deposits to the State Attorney General’s office since 2023, according to Gothamist. The office says it reclaimed $2.1 million for New Yorkers in that period.

Nori suspects that many more cases go unreported. He thinks the true cost to New Yorkers is tens of millions of dollars a year.

The app launched on July 4 and over 300 people used it in the first nine days, Nori said. It’s free to use right now, but they are pursuing grant funding or making paid features down the line to sustain the hosting and technology costs, he said.

When landlords don’t give you your money back you have a few options. You can file a complaint, like many did with the attorney general’s office. Or you can take them to small claims court, like Adrian Nesta did. The problem is that it can often take more than a year, Gothamist also reported.

“You have to evaluate if it’s worth your time and energy, and a tool like this is going to change that calculus, which is why it’s so potentially valuable,” Nesta said.

Nesta, a Brooklynite (and City Limits contributor) went through a protracted 16-month fight with his former landlord when he moved out of his Bedford-Stuyvesant apartment in 2022. The landlord withheld his security deposit, alleging damages. Nesta disputed, filed a complaint with the state attorney general’s office, and took the owner to small claims court.

“They’re relying on the fact that they have the money at the end of the day, you don’t, so you have to take the action to initiate and do all of that labor and time. And most people are either too busy or too overburdened with all the different things you have to go through to do that,” said Nesta.

There weren’t many lawyers eager to take such a small case, he said, especially when the most you can win back is double the deposit. So he fought it in court himself. “I took at least four days off, and then all the time I was researching,” said Nesta.

He was eventually able to get his money back. He read up on the law about security deposits, found the specific sections that applied, and wrote his landlord and the court a letter that looked much like the one Depositron will generate.

Depositron’s AI ask users a series of questions to populate a letter that includes the relevant legal statutes, personalized information, and attached pictures.

Nori hopes it will help tenants assert their rights and pressure landlords to promptly follow the law, resolving these cases quickly and diverting people from having to use small claims court.

He urged that the chatbot and the resulting letter do not constitute legal advice. Each individual case might require special attention, and there are no guarantees of your money back.

Landlords can also keep security deposits for a good reason, like to pay for damages to the apartment—but they need to notify the tenant within 14 days and send an itemized list of expenses.

“I don’t know that a letter is going to help, but I have to believe there are some landlords who aren’t necessarily following the law, but when prodded, might,” said Ellen Davidson, a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society.

“Anything that makes it easier for a tenant to assert their rights is a good thing,” she added.

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact Patrick@citylimits.org. To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post Trouble Getting Your Security Deposit Back? This App Could Help appeared first on City Limits.

DETROIT LAKES, Minn. — The jury has begun deliberations in the trial of a Minnesota senator accused of burglarizing her stepmother’s home following closing arguments in the case.

The Becker County jury must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sen. Nicole Mitchell entered her stepmother’s house with the intent to commit a crime.

Sen. Nicole Mitchell, DFL-Woodbury. (Courtesy of the Becker County Sheriff’s Office)

Mitchell, a DFL lawmaker from Woodbury, was charged with two felony burglary counts after she was arrested in her stepmother’s house in the early hours of April 22, 2024.

She was charged with first-degree burglary and possession of burglary or theft tools. If found guilty, Mitchell could face prison time. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Prosecution’s closing arguments

State prosecutor Becker County Attorney Brian McDonald asked the jury to find Mitchell guilty on both counts, again citing words Mitchell said when she was arrested: “I know I did something bad.”

“Or rather the defendant knew she did something bad, but now she wants to lie about it,” McDonald said.

McDonald called out a dispute between Mitchell and her stepmother, Carol Mitchell, about her father, Rod Mitchell’s, ashes as the line in the sand for their relationship. At that point, it became Nicole Mitchell’s mission to take back her father’s possessions, McDonald said. She packed tools to help her in that mission, like an all-black outfit, prybar and flashlight covered by a black sock.

“Not even her own moral compass could deter her from her mission,” McDonald said.

He asked the jury to use common sense and good judgment when looking at the evidence presented by the state: items Nicole Mitchell carried with her, claims she made to law enforcement and her testimony that she lied to law enforcement.

The defense

Mitchell’s attorney Bruce Ringstrom Jr. has argued Mitchell broke into the home to check on her stepmother, who has Alzheimer’s disease. Ringstrom, on Friday, asked the jury to recall times when they may have told white lies. Nicole Mitchell told a white lie that she was there to take her father’s things as she was arrested in an attempt to keep her stepmother calm, he said.

“She’s not charged with lying,” Ringstrom said.

Ringstrom talked about possible sources of reasonable doubt he sees in the state’s claims that Mitchell intended to steal, like lapses in Carol Mitchell’s memory because of Alzheimer’s and the fact that Nicole Mitchell did not have any of her stepmother’s possessions when she was arrested in the house.

Ringstrom brought up law enforcement’s mishandling of evidence, saying police did not keep a backpack Nicole Mitchell brought with her or a note she had with her the night she was arrested.

“Unless the state can rule out that Nicole Mitchell entered just to check on Carol, then the verdict must be not guilty,” Ringstrom said.

Testimony this week

In more than three days of testimony, law enforcement officers recounted Nicole Mitchell’s arrest, including comments she made about entering to retrieve a couple of her father’s things.

Family members testified about Carol Mitchell’s fear of Nicole Mitchell, especially surrounding finances. Others told jurors they observed increasing paranoia and behavioral changes related to Carol Mitchell’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis.

Carol Mitchell’s own testimony was marked by memory lapses and inconsistencies with other testimony, and law enforcement body camera footage shown as evidence.

Nicole Mitchell testified for nearly five hours Thursday, talking about her concern about her stepmother as she experienced an Alzheimer’s-related mental decline, and intentions to check on her. In tearful testimony, she discussed the events leading to her arrest.

Two more witnesses

On Friday morning, the defense called its last two witnesses before resting its case.

The first was Cindy Markey, one of Nicole Mitchell’s aunts. She talked about Carol Mitchell’s relationship with the Mitchell side of the family. She was asked how Rod Mitchell, her brother, Carol Mitchell’s husband and Nicole Mitchell’s father, would have felt about Nicole Mitchell breaking into the house.

“He would not be happy about it, but he would also not be happy if we all gave up on Carol and didn’t check on her,” Markey said.

The defense also called in Jay Brody, who Nicole Mitchell supervised in the Wisconsin National Guard. He talked about conversations he had with Nicole Mitchell during which she expressed concern for her stepmother. He said Nicole Mitchell is a trustworthy and selfless person.

The felony burglary charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of at least six months in jail or a county workhouse, and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $35,000 fine. Felony possession of burglary tools carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Related Articles

MPR says rescission bill will ‘dismantle the public media system as we know it’

Through tears, Sen. Nicole Mitchell testifies in her burglary trial

Minnesota Republican Scott Jensen announces second run for governor

Watch bodycam footage of MN Sen. Nicole Mitchell’s burglary arrest

What are the Big, Beautiful Bill’s tax benefits for seniors, newborns, others?