Joseph Montagno says that Burlington authorities, without his knowledge, classified him as a “public nuisance” for the number of calls he made to police. Officials then successfully pressured the owner of his Church Street apartment to evict him, the lawsuit alleges.
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss rejected most of the city’s claims to have the lawsuit dismissed, clearing the way for it to proceed to trial.
It is self-evident “that filing a criminal complaint with law enforcement officials constitutes an exercise of the First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances,” Reiss wrote in a 36-page ruling.
The Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on Montagno’s behalf.
Montagno is a lifelong Vermont resident who struggled for years with unemployment and homelessness before finding housing, the ACLU said.
Montagno claims he experienced repeated safety concerns and threats, and that his apartment was burglarized and vandalized. But unbeknownst to him, Burlington authorities began tracking the number of calls he made in 2015, labeled him a “frequent caller,” and leaned on his landlord, Sisters and Brothers Investment Group, to evict him in March 2016, he alleges. During that time period, the city tracked 140 calls to police made by tenants in Montagno’s building — but not all of them were necessarily made by Montagno himself.
Montagno was briefly homeless after he was evicted.
“Burlington’s policy of retaliating against renters who call for help is unsafe and unconstitutional,” Vermont ACLU staff attorney Jay Diaz said. “We welcome the court’s decision and Mr. Montagno looks forward to pressing his case against the city so that no other renter is punished for seeking help from police. Burlington should never force residents to choose between calling for help and risking homelessness, especially when those residents are low-income, have disabilities and are victims of crime.”
In court filings, the city says the matter is a “simple landlord/tenant issue.”
“The city played no part in any of this, nor did it act to restrict Mr. Montagno’s ability to exercise his First Amendment rights by calling the Burlington Police Department,” the city’s attorney, Pietro Lynn, wrote in a November court filing.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Tweet @MiroBTV to thank him (not) for running such a regressive city.
Miro (the alleged mayor) is the clown who exploits the less fortunate for his own political aims. He puts on a good show for those who don’t realize what really he is all about.
Besides your Tweeting his account (which he will eventually block you out of if you dare criticize him but do it anyway before he’s on to you) send an email to: mayor@burlingtonvt.gov.
Register your protest. Tell your friends.
This situation shines a spotlight on the need for stronger tenant protections in Burlington. Mr Montagno was evicted for ‘no cause’, even though he called only roughly 25% of the 178 calls made from the complex. I’m just glad the ACLU and Jay Diaz are able to help so many vulnerable residents and neighbors who could not afford adequate representation otherwise.
More details about the case can be found below.
https://vtdigger.org/2016/09/02/aclu-sues-…
Oh, nevermind the fact that, even if he only made 25% of the 178 calls to the police, that’s 44 calls from one person. Clearly a major problem for the city police’s resources.
And, oh, nevermind the mere, pesky fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the city asked, encouraged, or persuaded the landlord to evict the guy. Much less that the Mayor himself had any involvement whatsoever. Nevermind that all we have here is just an allegation from Mr. Montagno — who apparently couldn’t find a private attorney, or even Legal Aid, to take his case — that the city pressured the landlord to evict him.
And, oh, nevermind the fact that the judge’s unwillingness to grant an early dismiss of the case does not mean that it actually has any factual merit whatsoever. As the Judge herself points out in the decision.
And, oh, nevermind that it is exactly Winkelman’s and CLC’s anti-development attitude that creates the conditions in Burlington of a horrific shortage of housing, and allows places like 184 Church Street to exist, a sad reality that Mayor Weinberger has been trying to address.
Don’t let these pesky realities stop the Miro-hating, anti-development, sore-loser whiners from using this particular court decision as an excuse to bash the Mayor because they hate the Mall redevelopment project.
I also agree that Weinberger is not done anything to help the homeless people but rather concentrate building a stupid mall for his rich friends, that is a waste of money and resources which could be used better elsewhere
@ knowyourassumptions – never mind the fact that the Complaint that was filed shows copies of email traffic and letters between the Burlington Police Dept. (BPD), the Director of Burlington Code Enforcement and the S&B’s representative. These emails and letters show a direct link between the BPD researching data of calls coming from the property, discussing the findings with Code Enforcement and the letter threatening action towards S&B’s Certificate of Compliance for the complex if something is not done to reduce the calls from this address.
Never mind the fact that it doesn’t matter if he made 44 of those call or 170 of them. That is what the public service is there for. It may also be that he’s the one tenant that’s not afraid to make the call when something happens in the neighborhood or he has become one of their spokesman on issues of complaints so he would make calls for other tenants. Again, it doesn’t matter. If it’s an unsafe neighborhood, expect more calls.
Never mind the fact that this person has no principle income that would provide him the finances to be able to hire a “personal lawyer” which is why ACLU is providing the “legal aid”.
Never mind the fact that just after the Code Enforcement contacted the S&B representative, the S&B sent notices to all tenants to stop calling the BPD with what they referred to as “nuisance calls” and threatened eviction if they continued.
Never mind the fact that because the threat of eviction, when he was attacked by a neighbor with a metal pipe he didn’t want to call the BPD. Another neighbor had to call the BPD and the assailant was arrested (that’s on file).
Never mind the fact that the Housing Authority informed him they were stopping payments to his landlord (S&B) and threatened to terminate his Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher. That was when he agreed to settle the eviction action.
There is so much more about this case that your “never mind the facts” tantrum obviously never minded any of the facts.