A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL: City Says Daughter Can’t Continue Her Late Father’s Business

Custom Search

Monday, September 22, 2008

City Says Daughter Can’t Continue Her Late Father’s Business

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

36 Comments:

Bob said...: Bob Gausman sent me this story.

City Says Daughter Can’t Continue Her Late Father’s Business

Snaza v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota

Contact: J. David Breemer

For many years, Bernard Snaza leased property in the City of St. Paul for the purpose of running a small auto sales and auto detailing business. In 1999 and 2002, the City granted a conditional use permit (CUP) allowing the auto business to continue.

Bernard Snaza then became ill with cancer. During this time, his daughter, Suzanne, bought the land from Bernard Snaza’s landlord so that her father would not be evicted. She also assisted with operating the auto sales lot and detailing business from 2004 to early 2005, as much as she could during the illness.

When Bernard Snaza died in 2005, the City demanded that Ms. Snaza apply for a new permit. Neighbors opposed the permit based on unsubstantiated complaints of parking and traffic problems, which Ms. Snaza denied. Despite its earlier approvals, the Planning Commission unexpectedly denied the CUP. Ms. Snaza then tried to sell the property, but was unable to do so without the permit allowing the auto business. She attempted to get relief from the City Council, but was denied.

Ms. Snaza accordingly has been unable to operate or sell the business for over two years. Faced with this situation, Ms. Snaza sued the City in state court, claiming the CUP denial deprived her of property without substantive due process and took her property without just compensation.

The City removed the complaint to federal court. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the basis that Ms. Snaza was required to complete her claims in state court, where she had started and, in the alternative, because it believed Ms. Snaza had no property interests entitled to constitutional protection. PLF filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit on Ms. Snaza’s constitutional claims.; 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: click above; 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: The city probably fabricated the parking and traffic problems.

Smart move buying the land from the landlord.

Land owners have legislative protections from the taking without just compensation state statutes.

Why then did the city move it to federal District Court ?

I would sue the planning commission for buisness damages for failing to approve the buisness use permit because it had no justifiable reason to refuse it.

Were the parking and traffic issues ever litigated in the normal course of city appeals and judicial review ? What did it say ?; 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Dad got the original Conditional use permit in 1998 but the City restricted it to only 3 years. At that time the City was concerned about parking and all of those other issues but allowed the use. In 2002 he got the permit renewed and the City was clear that the permit was for him ONLY and if there was any new owner they would have to apply for a new conditional use permit.

So, the gentleman dies and the permit ends.

The site doesn't allow for auto sales and auto detailing without meeting certain conditions. Those conditions can't be met.

There is no grandfathering on this permit because the city built in a "revocation" of the permit. The permit was revoked when the permit owner died.

So, the case here, if there is a case here is can the City make the change of owner a written condition of a CUP? CUP's normally run with the land, so the question is can both sides agree to make that a condition?

She says no. She would say that her father should not have agreed to that condition and that the City should have denied him a permit back in 2002.

So, when this all sorts out either the City will be allowed to add that as a condition or the City will never cut a break again for a decent guy like her father.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Yeah they sure cut him a break didn't they Repke? They trick him into investing in the city and operating a business and then pull the rug out from under his kid when he dies. Some fvaor!; 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: A few years ago Chuck, St.Paul and residents, and buisnesses in the Grand Avenue area were bickering over parking permits.

I can see the city being concerned about parking permits but to single out the Snaza case when the property was already a sales lot used for parking of carsa means the city and unidentified neighbor scum werelying in wait for this to happen.

What a bunch of scum bags adding insult to injury, making things difficult for the family to carry on its livley hood because Mr.Snaza had passed on.

Now the family has to pay outragous
attorneys fees just to defend its wanting to carry on a buisness as it was before, and us tax payors are footing the bill for the cities overeaching and wrongful intereference with trade and commerce .; 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Then you would both agree that the City shouldn't have ever given him the conditional use permit.

Better that they just tell him no.

Works for me. I think that it is always easier if you either approve or deny something with little or no conditions.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Why in the world would anyone in thier right mind invest in a business in ST. Paul when they go so out of their way to show the world they hate business?; 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: What a coincidence that the parking and traffic issues just happen to surface once Snaza re applied for a permit.

We are not buying it Chuck.

Your problem continues to be that you read and understand only that which serves you and your little Bhundists nazis at city hall !

Jeff Matiatos; 12:49 PM
Anonymous said...: LOL

Jeff,

Why would the City only have given a conditional use permit in 1998 for three years? Usually CUPS are forever. Why in 2002 did both sides agree to put a condition on the permit that it was just for him?

Clearly, the issues were there in 98 and in 02. The question is did the City have the ability to make the condition that the permit terminates with him a condition?

There are good arguments that it shouldn't have and I am sure that is the argument her lawyer is making in court. If true that they can't tie the land to his life even if he agrees to it, then it is in effect a voidable contract with the City. And, she would argue that the permit should stand because the city and her father made a deal they couldn't make.

You conspiracy nuts drive me crazy. She needs a good lawyer and we will see which way the courts go. I think the best thing in her favor is that City shouldn't do something because it trusted her father. Land issues, should be land issues.

We shall see.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 1:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry Jeff but, you're too short on information on this. I watched what happened in real life to that property. At this time I was on the District Council and saw the complaints and pictures as well as witnessed them myself.

When Bernie Snaza was alive, he took care of the business and was a known person who neighbors could and would call if there was any problems. When he died and his son in-law took over (only on paper was it his daughters place) it became a different kind of operation on Payne ave. The first thing was the sudden increase of the number of cars on the lot- none for sale. We found out that the son in-law was violating the CUP by using overloading the lot and street with cars he brought in from his towing business out of Hastings. This lot went from hardly being noticeable to looking like a junkyard Payne ave north of Maryland- where there is little commercial business in the first place.

He spoke on record to the district council that he hated this town, spent as little time as possible here and just parked the cars and wanted a little more time.

There was zero to very little 'detailing' work going on. Neighbors who came to testify were some of Bernie's good friends for years said he would have sold the place before he let it go down the road it was on in such a short time.

These same neighbors who organized against other auto lots and use to hold Snaza's place up as an example of how to do it right, were not a bunch of nazis doing the bidding for the city. These are Eastsiders who have worked at place like Whirlpool, the water department and 3m to retire to nothing but their home and pension and did not want yet another crappy business in their neighborhood.

They pissed on the old mans reputation for a few extra bucks and now want to cry foul. They were given due process.

Eric; 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric is Back, However you legal beagles, do the forensic research, Item 3, on 6Sept06 Agenda 2 yrs ago, Where is the Rest of the Story and pdf files?

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:kEyZuc3ILjoJ:service.govdelivery.com/docs/STPAUL/STPAUL_DeptCityCouncil/STPAUL_66/STPAUL_66_20060906_en.doc+Sussane+Snaza+v.+City+St.+Paul&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8; 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: You may have made some good points Eric, but the daughter is now the
one hoping to make a living off the property she owns.

Shouldn't she be given a chance provided she maintains the property
for a legitimate purpose ?

The city is just afraid that this nuisance issue is just a run in the family thing.

She should be given a chance to sever herself from her fathers
supposed no proper use of the property.

Then let the zoning committe re-zone it residential only.

Jeff Matiatos; 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Complaints complaints complaints, and they're probably just like the so called complaints in th elandlord lawsuits.....just a pack of lies being used to further an agenda. What is it with these city leaders that they can't lead without having all these property owners suing them? Sounds like incompetence to me.; 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric said that Snaza was a neighbor that they could call if their were any problems.

This seems to contradict the cities claims of parking and traffice issues.

Just who then Eric, is making the traffic and parking complaints if the neighbors liked the guy ?

Could it be DSI making up the stuff ?

How about the president driving by and not liking what he sees ?

It's the city making up the shit about neighbors calling in about parking and traffic !

We can go on and on listing buisness properties in the kinds of conditions the city deems unfit and nuisance but how come this one and not others ?

DSI at work again.

Jeff Matiatos; 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: It's my guess that anytime you get a permit from the city or have to ask for a variance or other zoning permit, the council privatley decides yes or no before the person even gets before the council if thats the case.

Shouldn't there have been some open public debate about land to be used to serve the public such as this buisness ?

How many people would have shown up in opposition as compared to the pretended complaints the city wouldn't verify ?

Have Nancy L go down to DSI and find out if the parking and traffic issues are real.

I am sure she won't get arrested this time.

Jeff Matiatos; 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeff,
All of my post was post Bernie running the place. It was right after he died the problems grew and the place became blighted. The 'he' in my post is reference to the daughter's husband, the son in-law. He was the one misusing the property, with the daughter's consent from the moment Bernie got sick.

The daughter is not trying to run a business. They were utilizing it for the purposes of their other business which violated the agreement of the Conditional Use Permit. The goal seem to be to sell the property when the opportunity presented itself.

You make it a habit to ignore the public?

You believe the council should have ignored the neighbors, the district council of neighbors, the citizens committee of the Planning Commission, the hearing process of the city and just listened to daughter?

Eric; 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: I was President of the District Council and we held a couple of public hearings on this property. The daughter's husband was present as well as the neighbors and like I said, he didn't deny any of the complaints. He just wanted more time. He and his daughter really thought they could sell the property and ran into problems.

District Council minutes are public record. Any conditional use permit is going to have a public hearing with notice going out as dictated by city ordinance. Its probably the first technicality the lawyers look for to get it ruled out of order or illegal.

There were at least four public hearings on this issue. None of this was behind the scenes.

Complaints and testimony should be a part of that record. The citizens line is another place that calls went in about that property. I called one time when the cars were over-flowing and the tow truck was parked on the street for four days (remember, they lived and worked out of Hastings).

This clipping is taken from the PLF which has an agenda that's 100% for the property owner hence the phrase "Neighbors opposed the permit based on unsubstantiated complaints of parking and traffic problems, which Ms. Snaza denied.

Those 'unsubstantiated complaints' are backed up with pictures, phone logs to the city and video. I saw them. That's right. No one told me about it, I saw them and that's what triggered me to drive that route more often and noticed the CUP parking violations. It looked like a chop shop and the daughter was no where to be found. As a matter of fact, I never saw any 'detail' work going on in there.

After the complaints, the cars were down to CUP numbers. I believe it was 11 or 14.

Jeff you say that there should have been open debate about the use of this land for the public.

There was. You don't live over here and were not there. I do and was. The public was not in favor of this business or their practices.

The Payne Phalen neighborhood has an area plan which held over 15 meetings over a 12 month period to discuss with neighbors across the Eastside their wants and needs for the neighborhood in a business since. Used car lots ranked dead last. Take a trip up and down Arcade and Payne from Seventh to Wheelock and you'll see why.

Again, are you for the politicians deciding against the will of the people?

Why can't they have a dump lot in Hastings where they live? Because the city of Hastings won't have it.

Eric; 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: If the will of the people is to welcome new neighbors and legitimate buisness in the community, I am all for that.

If what you say is true Eric, then maybe the city was right on this one but, perhalps Ms.Snaza could get a new CUP for something else.

I am sure thats what the court of appeals will rule when the issue of land taking is under review and then find for the city.

Maybe this is one of those cases that just won't fly so long as there is the proof that you say exists.

Jeff Matiatos; 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: That's the part Eric doesn't get sometimes. I've seen plenty of Counicl meetings where the city Attorney has told the Council they'll have liability if they do something, and one of the idiots just says something they don't care and that the neighbors expect them to do something and they go ahead and do it anyways against the advice of their own Attorney. Rights be damned, you don't have any in St Paul.......all your rights are up for taking and violating at the Council meetings to the biggest mouth present at the time.; 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't get how the neighbors could agree with any unsubstanciated complaints as a basis to deny anybody anything.
If I was Ms.Snaza, I would deny it to.; 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Whether I get it sometimes or not, this is one case that I'm familiar with.

However, you are making sense that these cases should be weighed in on an individual basis. Its what I've been advocating for since the beginning of the RICO cases. Others are content, even driven to find solace in conspiracy.

Snaza and her husband were bad players in this example.

I'm still looking for what is considered unsubstantiated complaints. These things are documented- mine should be one of them.

Eric; 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: So are you saying that you made complaints on this property also Eric? It's not nice to be a snitch Eric.; 10:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Good case where the City of Columbia Heights Code Enforcement
not granted immunity for going in to abate a property with an administrative search warrant and tearing up the place.

I have e-mailed Bob to see if he can post it for discussion.

See Joyce Meier vs. Columbia Heights A04-58 Court of Appeals.

Jeff Matiatos; 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: This case must be important, from the attention Eric and Chuck have given it.; 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Could you poast that case bob ?; 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: So are you saying that you made complaints on this property also Eric? It's not nice to be a snitch Eric.

Sorry punk but, all of my observations are on public record with my name attached to them. Not like some little anonymous peon threatening from his mothers attic. You know, like 'some' on here.

Two days is enough to see this is worthless. Have at it.

Eric; 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Again, are you for the politicians deciding against the will of the people?

Er, Eric? District Councils are "the people?"

Rubbish! They're just another flavor of politician - the nasty, venal sort that are drawn to local politics for the petty power they can exercise.

Viper bites viper.

We need to throw the entire City Council, and every District Council, out of office.; 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: penelope my little turnip...

Why is it that those who never get up off of their bottoms and actually participate in the democracy are always saying, "We need to throw... out of office?"

That would require you to have to actually do something, more than whining...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I hear there's quite a few [people participating in Democracy through the Courts these days Repke.; 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: If Eric can be president of a district council then I guess any foul mouthed person with an opinion can.Folks these are the groups that let the city council know what their constituents are wanting.The few each elected official has Eric passes the message on to the council.

Whats funny is that we still don't know what Eric does for a living.My guess is sucking off the government for a paycheck.

Sid; 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Look at the beliefs Eric has put forth here. His rantings have shown he thinks the lanldords are the people who are in the wrong, not the city officials who lie, fix courts, destroy evidence, etc. Is this the type of person any of you want to be advising the city leaders on behalf of the neighborhood you've invested in?; 7:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,
I'm not on the government payroll and if you paid any attention you'd know what I do as I have brought up several times. I spent ten years previously working on state and federal campaigns.

That's right, anybody can be a part of a district council. So go and get involved. Leading the council, I was probably the most fair and non-partisan I've ever been.

I pushed for internal controls like yearly audits, employee standards, open communications. I chaired both standing committees before and after being President twice. Each time I set structure using Roberts Rules of Order as a guide so that all sides on every issue is heard before a vote is taken.

Externally, we built relationships with elected officials, we hired staff, updated our communications, advocated for beat cops, and more cops overall, worked to keep businesses, put an area plan together for the near future of the organization AFTER holding 14 meetings across the district, and held public hearing after public hearing on issue after issue.

Say what you want or what anyone wants, my time on the council was spent making it more accountable and responsible to the Payne Phalen neighborhood. Of course the other side of the coin is that some of the members on the board did not care to push forward and fought me on most everything. Others complained that I was a little heavy handed. Too bad. District Council are not social clubs and should never be some comfy little place for friends to gather. Its work. You want it, go and get involved.

Anonymous,
I'm exactly the type of person that should be on district councils across the city. Busting up the social circle getting things done.

I've got a relationship with most elected officials outside of District Council business. Being a party officer and former political operative created that, not some position on a volunteer board.

By the way, I'm not on the Council this year. I walked away.
What are you doing for your neighborhood?

You two losers got anything else? No? Well, those burgers aren't going to flip themselves, you'd better get back to work.

Eric; 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric I must have missed it.But we all still don't know what you're doing.What is it?Managing the burger flippers?

Sid; 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: No Sid, I'm not your boss.

Eric; 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: LOL!!!!!!!!; 2:46 PM

A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL

Monday, September 22, 2008

City Says Daughter Can’t Continue Her Late Father’s Business

36 Comments:

Previous Posts